Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology Volume 2
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Introduction
- Part I Methods
- Part II Embodied Environmental Sociology
- Part III Beyond the Human
- Part IV Sustainability and Climate Change
- Part V Resources
- 18 Enclosing Water: Privatization, Commodification, and Access
- 19 Speech Is Silver, Silence Is Gold in the Fracking Zone
- 20 Environmental Sociology and the Genomic Revolution
- 21 The Future Is Co-Managed: Promises and Problems of Collaborative Governance of Natural Resources
- Part VI Food and Agriculture
- Part VII Social Movements
- Index
- References
21 - The Future Is Co-Managed: Promises and Problems of Collaborative Governance of Natural Resources
from Part V - Resources
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 November 2020
By
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology Volume 2
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Introduction
- Part I Methods
- Part II Embodied Environmental Sociology
- Part III Beyond the Human
- Part IV Sustainability and Climate Change
- Part V Resources
- 18 Enclosing Water: Privatization, Commodification, and Access
- 19 Speech Is Silver, Silence Is Gold in the Fracking Zone
- 20 Environmental Sociology and the Genomic Revolution
- 21 The Future Is Co-Managed: Promises and Problems of Collaborative Governance of Natural Resources
- Part VI Food and Agriculture
- Part VII Social Movements
- Index
- References
Summary
In recent years, natural resource governance has become an important site of creative experimentation in both wealthy and developing countries. Among these are experiments in adaptive co-management (ACM), which are intended to mobilize and coordinate the knowledge, capacities, and authority of senior governments with those of local users and communities. This is difficult to do in practice, and a number of important critiques of ACM policies have advanced our knowledge of the promises and problems of this approach. However, I argue that ACM experimentation has deep significance for environmental sociology, given its engagement with some important social-ecological challenges, including environmental justice, knowledge, rights, and democracy. ACM experiments involve the interplay of the ideal and the material, society’s constructions and nature’s constructions, local livelihoods and global flows. Moreover, ACM initiatives are an important counter-current in an era of neoliberal dominance in environmental policy, eschewing market-based instruments in favor of process-based approaches to translating plural knowledges, values, and interests into context-sensitive governance frameworks and decisions. While natural resources have traditionally been seen as a peripheral topic in environmental sociology, I argue that there is much for environmental sociologists to learn and contribute to these fascinating experiments in collaborative environmental governance.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology , pp. 360 - 374Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Acheson, J. M. (2013). Co-management in the Maine lobster industry: A study in factional politics. Conservation and Society, 11(1), 60–71.Google Scholar
Agrawal, A. (1995). Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge. Development and Change, 26, 413–439.Google Scholar
Armitage, D., et al. (2009). Adaptive co-management for social-ecological complexity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(2), 95–102.Google Scholar
Armitage, D., Berkes, F., & Doubleday, N. (eds.). (2007). Adaptive Co-Management. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Armitage, D., Berkes, F., Dale, A., Kocho-Schellenberg, E., & Patton, E. (2011). Co-management and the co-production of knowledge: Learning to adapt in Canada’s Arctic. Global Environmental Change, 21, 995–1004.Google Scholar
Armitage, D., Marschke, M., & Plummer, R. (2008). Adapative co-management and the paradox of learning. Global Environmental Change, 18, 86–98.Google Scholar
Ashwood, L., Harden, N., Bell, M. M., & Bland, W. (2014). Linked and situated: Grounded knowledge. Rural Sociology, 79(4), 427–452.Google Scholar
Bennett, N., & et al. (2017). Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biological Conservation, 205, 93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkes, F. (2009). Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 1692–1702.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butler, J. R. A., et al. (2015). Evaluating adaptive co-management as conservation conflict resolution: Learning from seals and salmon. Journal of Environmental Management, 160, 212–225.Google Scholar
Buttel, F. H. (2002). Environmental sociology and the sociology of natural resources: Institutional histories and intellectual legacies. Society and Natural Resources, 15, 205–211.Google Scholar
Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2009). Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, B. I. (2012). The Uncertain Future of Fraser River Sockeye: Volume 1, The Sockeye Fishery. Commission of Inquiry into the Decline of Sockeye Salmon in the Fraser River. Retrieved from www.cohencommission.ca/en/FinalReport/Google Scholar
Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (eds.) (2001). Participation: The New Tyranny? New York: Zed Books.Google Scholar
Cruikshank, J. (2005). Do Glaciers Listen? Local Knowledge, Colonial Encounters, and Social Imagination. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Dietz, T. (2013). Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. PNAS, 110(3), 14081–14087.Google Scholar
Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. C. (2003). The struggle to govern the commons. Science, 302(12), 1907–1912.Google Scholar
Dowsley, M., & Wenzel, G. (2008). “The time of the most polar bears”: A co-management conflict in Nunavut. Arctic, 61(2), 177–189.Google Scholar
FAO. (2015). Forests and poverty reduction. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved from www.fao.org/forestry/livelihoods/en/Google Scholar
FAO. (2016). The state of the world’s fisheries and aquaculture 2016. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved from www.fao.org/fishery/sofia/enGoogle Scholar
Goodin, R. E., & Dryzek, J. S. (2006). Deliberative impacts: The macro-political uptake of mini-publics. Politics & Society, 34(2), 219–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henri, D., Gilchrist, H. G., & Peacock, E. (2010). Understanding and managing wildlife in Hudson Bay under a changing climate. In Ferguson, S. H. (ed.), A Little Less Arctic: Top Predators in the World’s Largest Northern Inland Sea, Hudson’s Bay (pp. 267–289). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickey, S., & Mohan, G. (eds.) (2004). Participation: from Tyranny to Transformation? New York: Zed Books.Google Scholar
Irwin, A., Jensen, T. E., & Jones, K. E. (2012). The good, the bad and the perfect: Criticizing engagement practice. Social Studies of Science, 43(1), 118–135.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (2004). States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (2011). Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Jentoft, S. (2000). Legitimacy and disappointment in fisheries management. Marine Policy, 24, 141–148.Google Scholar
Jentoft, S., McCay, B. J., & Wilson, D. C. (1998). Social theory and fisheries co-management. Marine Policy, 4–5, 423–436.Google Scholar
Lundmark, C., Matti, S., & Sandstrom, A. (2014). Adaptive co-management: How social networks, deliberation and learning affect legitimacy in carnivore management. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 60, 637–644.Google Scholar
Matthews, R., & Sydneysmith, R. (2010). Adaptive capacity as a dynamic institutional process: conceptual perspectives and their application. In Armitage, D & Plummer, R (eds.), Adaptive Capacity and Environmental Governance (pp. 223–242). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Nadasdy, P. (1999). The politics of TEK: power and the “integration” of knowledge. Arctic Anthropology, 36(1–2), 1–18.Google Scholar
Nadasdy, P. (2005). The anti-politics of TEK: The institutionalization of co-management discourse and practice. Anthropologica, 47(2), 215–232.Google Scholar
Nadasdy, P. (2007). Adaptive co-management and the gospel of resilience. In Armitage, D, Berkes, F, & Doubleday, N (eds.), Adaptive Co-Management (pp. 208–227). Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Newell, P., & Paterson, M. (2010). Climate Capitalism: Global Warming and the Transformation of the Global Economy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nguyen, V. M., Lynch, A. J., Young, N. et al. (2016). To manage inland fisheries is to manage at the social-ecological watershed scale. Journal of Environmental Management, 181, 312–325.Google Scholar
Olsson, P., Folke, C., & Hahn, T. (2004). Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management: The development of adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape in southern Sweden. Ecology and Society, 9(4), 1–26.Google Scholar
Parkins, J., & Mitchell, R. (2005). Public participation as public debate: A deliberative turn in natural resources management. Society and Natural Resources, 18, 529–540.Google Scholar
Pinkerton, E., Heaslip, R., Silver, J. J., & Furman, K. (2008). Finding “space” for comanagement of forests within the neoliberal paradigm: rights, strategies, and tools for asserting a local agenda. Human Ecology, 36, 343–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plummer, R. (2009). The adaptive co-management process: an initial synthesis of representative models and influential variables. Ecology and Society, 14(2), 24.Google Scholar
Plummer, R., Armitage, D., & de Loe, R. C. (2013). Adaptive comanagement and its relationship to environmental governance. Ecology and Society, 18(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plummer, R., Crona, B., Armitage, D., et al. (2012). Adaptive comanagement: A systematic review and synthesis. Ecology and Society, 17(3), 11–32.Google Scholar
Rusnak, G. (1997). Co-management of natural resources in Canada: a review of concepts and case studies (Minga working papers No. 2) (pp. 1–23). Ottawa, ON: International Development Research Centre.Google Scholar
Schultz, L., Duit, A., & Folke, C. (2011). Participation, adaptive co-management, and management performance in the world network of biosphere reserves. World Development, 39(4), 662–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stilgoe, J., Lock, S. J., & Wilsdon, J. (2014). Why should we promote public engagement with science? Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 4–15.Google Scholar
Wyborn, C. A. (2015a). Connecting knowledge with action through coproductive capacities: Adaptive governance and connectivity conservation. Ecology and Society, 20(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
Wyborn, C. A. (2015b). Co-productive governance: A relational framework for adaptive governance. Global Environmental Change, 30, 56–67.Google Scholar
Young, N. (2016). Responding to rural change: adaptation, resilience and community action. In Shucksmith, M & Brown, D. L. (eds.), The International Handbook of Rural Studies (pp. 638–649). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Young, N., Nguyen, V. M., Corriveau, M., Cooke, S. J., & Hinch, S. G. (2016). Knowledge users’ perspectives and advice on how to improve knowledge exchange and mobilization in the case of a co-managed fishery. Environmental Science & Policy, 66, 170–178.Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by