Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Adaptive co-management networks: a comparative analysis of two fishery conservation areas in Sweden
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Business Administration, Technology and Social Sciences, Social Sciences.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1685-5527
2010 (English)In: Ecology & society, ISSN 1708-3087, E-ISSN 1708-3087, Vol. 15, no 3Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Co-management constitutes a certain type of institutional arrangement that has gained increased attention among both policy makers and researchers involved in the field of natural resource management. Yet the concept of co-management is broad, and our knowledge about how different kinds of management structures affect the ability to deal with challenges pertinent to the commons is limited. One of these challenges is to foster an adaptive management process, i.e., a process in which rules are continuously revised and changed according to what is known about the ecological system. We aim to address the relationship between different kinds of co-management structures and adaptive management. To this end, we conducted a comparative case study of two Fishery Conservation Areas in Sweden. The concept of networks and the formal method of social network analysis are applied as theoretical and methodological devices. Building on previous research, we propose that adaptive management processes occur in co-management networks consisting of a heterogeneous set of actors that are centrally and densely integrated. Networks of this kind are believed to promote a management process in which actors with disparate perspectives and resources formulate a common view regarding the condition of the ecosystem, the basic problem to be solved, and what measures to adopt. The empirical findings support the existence of such a relationship. Nonetheless, the restricted empirical material, an inability to control for hidden variables, and a lack of success in determining causality among variables are all factors that call for more research.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2010. Vol. 15, no 3
Keywords [en]
Social sciences - Political science
Keywords [sv]
Socialvetenskap - Statsvetenskap
National Category
Political Science (excluding Public Administration Studies and Globalisation Studies)
Research subject
Political Science
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-5511Local ID: 3a1faf50-4148-11df-a0f4-000ea68e967bOAI: oai:DiVA.org:ltu-5511DiVA, id: diva2:978385
Note
Validerad; 2010; 20100406 (annica_s)Available from: 2016-09-29 Created: 2016-09-29 Last updated: 2018-01-10Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss3/art14/

Authority records BETA

Sandström, AnnicaRova, Carl

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Sandström, AnnicaRova, Carl
By organisation
Social Sciences
In the same journal
Ecology & society
Political Science (excluding Public Administration Studies and Globalisation Studies)

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 223 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf