Participation, Adaptive Co-management, and Management Performance in the World Network of Biosphere Reserves
Introduction
Over the last few decades, the participation-paradigm has grown in research, policy, and practice of natural resource management, biodiversity conservation, and stewardship of ecosystem services (Chapin, Dearden, Reed, 2008). In short, the arguments put forward for involvement of stakeholders include increased efficiency (as people are more likely to support and implement decisions they have participated in making), improved accuracy (as a more diverse and broader knowledge base is utilized), and strengthened legitimacy (as people affected by decisions are invited into the process of making them) of management and conservation efforts (Beierle and Konisky, 2001, Berghöfer and Berghöfer, 2006, Colfer, 2005, McCool and Guthrie, 2001, Stoll-Kleemann and O’Riordan, 2002).
The pragmatic reasons for stakeholder participation have gained importance with the growing perception that ecosystems and societies are interdependent, forming social–ecological systems that are complex, adaptive, and nested across scales (e.g., Berkes and Folke, 1998, Holling, 2001). Walker et al. (2002, p. 11) provide a step-wise approach to involve stakeholders in assessment and management of social–ecological systems and state that “The chances of success are increased if the full range of stakeholders is engaged.” The interdependence between ecosystems and society implies that people-oriented management and conservation of ecosystems are more likely to succeed than “strict protectionism based on government-led, authoritarian practices” (Wilshusen, Brechin, Fortwangler, & West, 2002). For example, many conservation values in cultural landscapes result from a long history of human use and management (Nabhan, 1997). The complexity and the cross-scale interactions of social–ecological systems imply that any management body is dependent on collaboration with others in order to detect, interpret, and respond accurately to feedback from dynamic ecosystems (Folke, Hahn, Olsson, & Norberg, 2005). Adaptive co-management has been put forward as a way of dealing with this complexity in social–ecological systems (Armitage, Olsson), as it combines the learning-by-doing approach of adaptive management with the collaborative approach of co-management. Adaptive co-management systems are flexible community-based systems of resource management tailored to specific places and situations and supported by, and working with, various organizations at different levels (Armitage et al., 2007). Folke and others (2002, p. 20) define adaptive co-management as a process by which institutional arrangements and ecological knowledge are tested and revised in a dynamic, ongoing, self-organized process of learning-by-doing. Adaptive co-management emphasizes two types of stakeholder participation: the participation of actors with different types of ecosystem knowledge (both scientific knowledge and experiential, for example, local, traditional, and indigenous knowledge) and the participation of actors working at different ecological scales and levels of decision-making (e.g., managers of certain habitats and policy-makers at local and national levels) (Charles, 2007, Olsson). Recent studies of adaptive co-management have highlighted the need for bridging organizations that can coordinate and facilitate such adaptive collaboration across organizational levels and knowledge systems (Berkes, 2009, Hahn).
Several studies suggest that participation of stakeholders has the positive effects suggested above (e.g., Mugisha and Jacobson, 2004, Sandersen and Koester, 2000, Stringer, Sudtongkong and Webb, 2008). Participation of key stakeholders was found to be the single most important factor in determining project outcomes in a survey of ecosystem management in the United States (Yaffee et al., 1996). In a synthesis of four case studies, Lebel et al. (2006) found support for the proposition that participation and deliberation in decision-making around natural resource management enhance society’s ability to innovate and respond to crises, suggesting that involvement of non-state actors is a fruitful approach for dealing with complexity. In a case study of Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve, Hahn et al. (2006) showed how a bridging organization was able to identify win-win situations between biodiversity conservation and societal development through adaptive co-management processes focused on strengthening the generation of ecosystem services. Positive side-effects of participatory and collaborative approaches have also been described, such as empowerment and increased social capital, which in turn can lubricate future collaboration (Ansell and Gash, 2007, Pretty and Ward, 2001).
However, critiques against the participation-paradigm have increased. Brody (2003) discusses the risk that the participation of conflicting interests slows down decision-making and results in unfortunate compromises between biodiversity conservation and economic development. Galaz (2005) shows how decision-making in a Swedish water common-pool-resource institution was blocked by strategic behavior among participating resource users that wanted to avoid costly measures. Such outcomes might erode social capital rather than building it (Conley & Moote, 2003). Several scholars have argued that in a human dominated world, the goals of biodiversity conservation and economic development are competing, and therefore, the participation of economic interests in decision-making on biodiversity conservation will have negative consequences for biodiversity (Brandon, Kramer, Oates, 1999, Terborgh, 1999 [cited and discussed in Wilshusen et al., 2002]). Others argue that local participation can decrease accuracy of management as it might dilute the impact of scientific knowledge on conservation decisions (du Toit, Walker, & Campbell, 2004). Similarly, it has been questioned whether local and traditional knowledge really has a role to play in today’s rapidly changing world (Briggs & Sharp, 2004). The assumption that local participation automatically improves legitimacy of decisions has also been questioned (e.g., Berghöfer and Berghöfer, 2006, Jentoft, 2000). For example, the process of “elite capture,” where participatory processes are hi-jacked by actors that have more time and resources to participate than others, has been described several times in the development literature (e.g., Platteau & Abraham, 2002).
Studies that evaluate the effects of stakeholder participation on conservation outcomes and sustainable use of ecosystem services empirically are rare (Conley and Moote, 2003, Kleiman). The ambiguity in the results from case studies calls for larger studies where hypotheses on the effects of participation in general and adaptive co-management in particular can be tested systematically in different settings (Carpenter et al., 2009). The data-sets available to perform such tests are few (e.g., Poteete & Ostrom, 2008), but the World Network of Biosphere Reserves as part of UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere Program provides a potentially useful example, as it contains a large number of sites across the world that have different approaches to participation, but a shared ambition to conserve biodiversity and foster sustainable development. Given this variety, we believe that lessons learned herein should be relevant also to other forms of protected areas.
In this article we use the World Network of Biosphere Reserves to analyze how stakeholder participation and adaptive co-management in different settings correlate with management effectiveness in achieving the objectives of biodiversity conservation and sustainable development of Biosphere Reserves. We start with a background of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and four contradicting participation claims put forward in the literature that we are testing in this context. This section is followed by the design of the survey and the construction of indexes to estimate the relative impact of participation of different stakeholder groups in decision-making and implementation processes. The next section presents the results of participation in relation to (1) support for biodiversity conservation, (2) integration of conservation and development objectives, (3) management effectiveness and (4) adaptive co-management and Biosphere Reserve effectiveness, followed by a discussion of participation in relation to our key findings.
Section snippets
Participation and adaptive co-management in Biosphere Reserves
Biosphere Reserves are sites designated by UNESCO with the mission of “maintaining and developing ecological and cultural diversity and securing ecosystem services for human wellbeing” (UNESCO, 2008, p. 8) in collaboration with a suitable range of actors, often including local communities and scientists. They are promoted as “sites of excellence” and “learning sites” in this regard (UNESCO, 1996). Since the program was initiated in 1976, 564 Biosphere Reserves have been designated in 109
Study design: investigating the effects of participation and adaptive co-management
The analysis is based on survey respondents’ self-evaluation of effectiveness in reaching the objectives stated in the Statutory framework of Biosphere Reserves (UNESCO, 1996). Drawing on the participation arguments put forward in the literature reported on above, we are specifically interested in evaluating the following contradicting claims about stakeholder participation and adaptive co-management:1. “Stakeholder participation strengthens support for Biosphere Reserve objectives and
Measuring stakeholder participation in Biosphere Reserves
In order to estimate the relative impact of participation of different stakeholder groups on BR activities, a number of indexes were constructed. First, estimates were constructed for the degree of participation for each stakeholder category, based on their involvement in seven different management processes: (1) representation in BR coordination team, (2) representation in BR steering committee, (3) goal-setting in BR, (4) BR project design, (5) implementation of projects in BR, (6) day-to-day
Discussion
This study was designed to go beyond individual case studies, using a large-N data-set to test some of the contradicting claims about effects of stakeholder participation that are put forward in the literature on natural resource management, biodiversity conservation, and management of ecosystem services. UNESCO’s World Network of Biosphere Reserves provides an interesting platform for such tests, as it contains sites with a range of approaches to participation, from conventional biodiversity
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank all respondents for sharing their information, three anonymous reviewers for valuable comments on an earlier version of the manuscript, and The Swedish Research Council Formas for funding our research.
References (68)
Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning
Journal of Environmental Management
(2009)- et al.
Multi-level discrepancies with sharing data on protected areas: What we have and what we need for the global village
Journal of Environmental Management
(2009) - et al.
Co-management: concepts and methodological implications
Journal of Environmental Management
(2005) - et al.
Linking global and local scales: designing dynamic assessment and management processes
Global Environmental Change
(2000) - et al.
Conserving tropical nature: Current challenges for ecologists
Trends in Ecology & Evolution
(2004) Legitimacy and disappointment in fisheries management: Prospects of user participation
Marine Policy
(2000)- et al.
Fifteen years of empirical research on collective action in natural resource management: Struggling to build large-N databases based on qualitative research
World Development
(2008) - et al.
Social capital and the environment
World Development
(2001) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review
Biological Conservation
(2008)- et al.
Collaborative governance in theory and practice
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
(2007)