Adaptation in Collaborative Governance Regimes

Abstract

Adaptation and the adaptive capacity of human and environmental systems have been of central concern to natural and social science scholars, many of whom characterize and promote the need for collaborative cross-boundary systems that are seen as flexible and adaptive by definition. Researchers who study collaborative governance systems in the public administration, planning and policy literature have paid less attention to adaptive capacity specifically and institutional adaptation in general. This paper bridges the two literatures and finds four common dimensions of capacity, including structural arrangements, leadership, knowledge and learning, and resources. In this paper, we focus on institutional adaptation in the context of collaborative governance regimes and try to clarify and distinguish collaborative capacity from adaptive capacity and their contributions to adaptive action. We posit further that collaborative capacities generate associated adaptive capacities thereby enabling institutional adaptation within collaborative governance regimes. We develop these distinctions and linkages between collaborative and adaptive capacities with the help of an illustrative case study in watershed management within the National Estuary Program.

A Mi’kmaw Perspective on Advancing Salmon Governance in Nova Scotia, Canada: Setting the Stage for Collaborative Co-Existence

“…Power sharing is a result rather than the starting point, and a more realistic view of its application as a governance approach is that co-management is the arena for the process (Armitage et al, 2007). While co-management may be seen as a potential process to solve problems, share knowledge, learn and adapt, and as a legal battlefield (Armitage et al, 2007;Berkes, 2010;Emerson & Gerlak, 2014) for the multi-faceted challenges faced in society, distinct cultural backgrounds, colonial histories, conflicting values and lack of shared management perspectives may hinder the co-management process (Natcher, Davis, & Hickey, 2005).…”

“…Co-management is a prominent governance arrangement especially in the context of Indigenous peoples and natural resource management (Berkes, 1989;Castro & Nielsen, 2001;Doubleday, 1989;Emerson & Gerlak, 2014;Morrell, 1989;Richardson & Green, 1989). A concept with many definitions, comanagement refers to a suite of governance arrangements to find solutions to many of the pressing problems in natural resources management (Armitage, Berkes, & Doubleday, 2007;Berkes, 2009;Carlsson & Berkes, 2005;Castro & Nielsen, 2001;Jentoft & Chuenpagdee, 2009;Pomeroy & Berkes, 1997).…”

“…However, despite the criticisms that have been directed at the scientific method since it gained prominence over a century ago, it remains the dominant paradigm for enhancing understanding of the natural system across temporal and spatial scales, as well as the resulting consequences of these changes to society at local, national, regional, and global levels (Bauer, 1992). Western society often accepts scientific ideas and their proponents above other sources, considering science-based knowledge to be fully objective and indisputable (Emerson & Gerlak, 2014). Yet, like all systems of knowledge, scientific practices are similarly governed by values and beliefs.…”

Developing adaptive capacity in times of climate change in central rural Vietnam: exploring smallholders’ learning and governance

“…Nine studies show that this hybrid perspective is most effective when governance and institutions are developed simultaneously. For example, Emerson & Gerlak (2014) show that governance structure and institutional mechanisms are increasingly seen as central determinants of AC and are necessary to help stakeholders face climatic changes and associated uncertainties.…”

“…On the one hand, human factors, such as ability and willingness to collaborate and learn, are important for gathering, sharing, integrating, and applying adaptation strategies (e.g. Emerson & Gerlak, 2014).…”