Adaptive management: potential and limitations for ecological governance

Jiggins, Janice; Röling, N.G.

doi:10.1504/ijarge.2000.000003

Cited by 46 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The interrelations between learning, conflict, and alignment are analyzed in the empirical section, thus drawing attention to the discordant character of learning for sustainability. In this section, we apply ideas about social learning (see Lee, 1993;Hamilton, 1995;Jiggins and Röling, 2000) to analyze the interactions between actors when they try to learn together.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning in context through conflict and alignment: Farmers and scientists in search of sustainable agriculture

Eshuis

Stuiver

2005

Agric Hum Values

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This article analyzes learning in context through the prism of a sustainable dairy-farming project. The research was performed within a nutrient management project that involved the participation of farmers and scientists. Differences between heterogeneous forms of farmers' knowledge and scientific knowledge were discursively constructed during conflict and subsequent alignment over the validity and relevance of knowledge. Both conflict and alignment appeared to be essential for learning in context. Conflict spurred learning when disagreeing groups of actors developed their knowledge in order to strengthen their arguments. Conflict caused self-referentiality when the actors no longer listened to each other. This inhibited self-reflection, thus blocking ongoing learning. Nevertheless, after a period of alignment, scientific models and knowledge of farmers were reevaluated and recontextualized. Through determining how to use scientific models and farmers' knowledge for further learning, aimed at a shared goal, the participating actors also learned how to learn.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning in context through conflict and alignment: Farmers and scientists in search of sustainable agriculture

Eshuis

Stuiver

2005

Agric Hum Values

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, these approaches fail to address major agriculture related problems, because they do not properly analyze all relevant types of uncertainty associated with complex SES, including ignorance [29]. This failure has major consequences for agricultural governance and the type of scientific tools used; particularly, it relocates the role of modelling, recognizing more clearly its limits, and increases the importance of developing scenarios and interactive simulation modelling [49]. Thus, the evaluation of social and ecological implications of political decisions and the development of scenarios introducing different perceptions of reality by different stakeholders should be included in the core of any agricultural study.…”

Section: Rethinking the Study Of Agricultural Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In that manner, all three elements are closely linked to building resilience. Evidence suggests that the impact of learning is greater when learning processes are devolved and dispersed among citizens, rather than confined to experts, officials or other interest groups [49].…”

Section: Rethinking Agricultural Systems Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking Study and Management of Agricultural Systems for Policy Design

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a concern that agriculture will no longer be able to meet, on a global scale, the growing demand for food. Facing such a challenge requires new patterns of thinking in the context of complexity and sustainability sciences. This paper, focused on the social dimension of the study and management of agricultural systems, suggests that rethinking the study of agricultural systems entails analyzing them as complex socio-ecological systems, as well as considering the differing thinking patterns of diverse stakeholders. The intersubjective nature of knowledge, as studied by different philosophical schools, needs to be better integrated into the study and management of agricultural systems than it is done so far, forcing us to accept that there are no simplistic solutions, and to seek a better understanding of the social dimension of agriculture. Different agriculture related problems require different policy and institutional approaches. Finally, the intersubjective nature of knowledge asks for the visualization of different framings and the power relations taking place in the decision-making process. Rethinking management of agricultural systems implies that policy making should be shaped by different principles: learning, flexibility, adaptation, scale-matching, participation, diversity OPEN ACCESSSustainability 2013, 5 3859 enhancement and precaution hold the promise to significantly improve current standard management procedures.

show abstract

“…To deal with complexity and uncertainties in the outcome of development activities that expose the user to risk, adaptive management (AM) is recommended (Holling, 1978;Jiggins & Röling, 2000). AM is a strategy that can readily be adapted during development to take into account of new knowledge during implementation (FAO, 2011).…”

Section: Technology System Selection and Implementationmentioning

confidence: 99%