An Integrated Approach to Analyzing (Adaptive) Comanagement Using the “Politicized” IAD Framework

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Scholars of comanagement are faced with a difficult methodological challenge. As comanagement has evolved and diversified it has increasingly merged with the field of adaptive management and related concepts that derive from resilience thinking and complex adaptive systems theory. In addition to earlier considerations of power sharing, institution building, and trust, the adaptive turn in comanagement has brought attention to the process of social learning and a focus on concepts such as scale, self-organization, and system trajectory. At the same time, a number of scholars are calling for a more integrated approach to studying (adaptive) comanagement that is able to situate these normative concepts within a critical understanding of how context and power fundamentally influences the behavior of a system. We propose that the "politicized" version of the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) Framework, originally developed by Elinor Ostrom and her colleagues, is well suited to addressing this challenge. The framework provides breadth, clarity, and structure by drawing the analyst's attention to the range of variables and questions to be considered when attempting a study of comanagement, the various components of the situation, and the ways in which they interact, and the criteria the analyst may wish to adopt in evaluating the outcomes of the process. Alongside its ability to address contextual factors and power dynamics, the socioeconomic and institutional dimension of the politicized IAD Framework means that it can be used to conduct analyses that result in sound policy recommendations.

Conceptualizing community resilience to natural hazards – the emBRACE framework

“…In different concepts and theories these contextual factors have been addressed, e.g. in institutional analysis (Whaley and Weatherhead, 2014;Ostrom, 2005), common pool resource research (Edwards and Steins, 1999) or socio-ecological systems research (Orach and Schlüter, 2016).…”

Actor-Based Design of a Management System for the Elephant Marsh Fishery in Malawi

“…One is the set of empirically based institutional design rules of Ostrom (1990) and Cox, Arnold, and Tomás (2010). Another, more normative basis is the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework (Ostrom 1998b;Imperial and Yandle 2005), which focuses on a specific activity (action arena), the people who take part in the activity (actors), and their patterns of interaction that affect the resulting outcome (Whaley and Weatherhead 2014). The emphasis of the IAD framework on the patterns of interaction between actors is important in designing a relevant "action arena" for the Elephant Marsh Fishery.…”

Managing water through change and uncertainty: comparing lessons from the adaptive co-management literature to recent policy developments in England

“…In contrast, by critically examining the various proposals and statements, we identified in the policy documents from a discourse analysis perspective, or by embedding these documents within the wider political economy of water governance in England, it would be possible to discover something about the ways in which power operates to constrain or facilitate the adoption and implementation of the stated policy objectives. Increasingly, these factors are being recognised by the adaptive co-management literature, which now pays attention to the importance of understanding how power shapes issues such as trust building, conflict resolution, and social learning (Nadasdy 2003(Nadasdy , 2007Doubleday 2007;Armitage et al 2009;Whaley and Weatherhead 2014) which are vital for fostering the success of the process.…”