Unpacking “Participation” in the Adaptive Management of Social–ecological Systems: a Critical Review

Abstract

Adaptive management has the potential to make environmental management more democratic through the involvement of different stakeholders. In this article, we examine three case studies at different scales that followed adaptive management processes, critically reflecting upon the role of stakeholder participation in each case. Specifically, we examine at which stages different types of stakeholders can play key roles and the ways that each might be involved. We show that a range of participatory mechanisms can be employed at different stages of the adaptive cycle, and can work together to create conditions for social learning and favorable outcomes for diverse stakeholders. This analysis highlights the need for greater reflection on case study research in order to further refine participatory processes within adaptive management. This should not only address the shortcomings and successes of adaptive management as a form of democratic environmental governance, but should also unpack the links between science, institutions, knowledge, and power.

Balancing collaboration with coordination: Contesting eradication in the Australian plant pest and disease biosecurity system

“…The implication here is consistent with other research showing that purposeful consideration needs to be given to a range of mechanisms used to engage with different stakeholders, from farm-gate to policy makers, and at different times (Stringer et al 2006). The advantages of diversity can only be yielded if enough trust is built into relationships such that the different perspectives can be mutually respected.…”

“…Diversity of stakeholders also adds transaction costs (see McAllister and Taylor 2015). Yet, greater participation potentially reduces uncertainty by broadening the base of knowledge types used in decision-making (Stringer et al 2006;Reed and Curzon 2015). Participation also increases legitimacy of decisions, potentially reducing contestation from otherwise excluded groups (Reed and Curzon 2015).…”

A Framework for Clarifying “Participation” in Participatory Research to Prevent its Rejection for the Wrong Reasons

“…In this field, expectations for participatory research include the creation of more policy-relevant research outcomes, easier access to information, or better diffusion of results (Martin and Sherington 1997, Barnett 2004, Stringer et al 2006. Already in 1995, Cornwall and Jewkes remarked that participation was becoming a cliché, and a concept that could be mobilized "...not only to enable local people to seek their own solutions according to their priorities, but also to secure funding, to co-opt local people into the agendas of others or to justify short-cut research within a topdown process."…”

A cross-disciplinary toolkit to assess the risk of faecal indicator loss from grassland farm systems to surface waters

“…Any strategic risk assessment toolkit must therefore capture the interplay and importance of different farm scale elements in order to identify where mitigation might be made to constrain FIO loss from land to water to best effect. The cross-disciplinary toolkit is an approach that embodies a complex adaptive systems way of thinking whereby research, and evidence-based policy too, shifts from a command and control mentality to dealing with unpredictable systems through integrating diverse knowledge inputs into the process (Stringer et al, 2006;Macleod et al, 2007). The cross-disciplinary toolkit highlighted that changing farmer attitudes to manure and land management is part of this process by which we can make our food and water safer, but that changing attitudes is not always enough.…”