Evaluating adaptive co-management as conservation conflict resolution: Learning from seals and salmon
Evaluating adaptive co-management as conservation conflict resolution: Learning from seals and salmon
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.06.019
复制
发表时间：
2015-09-01
影响因子：
8.7
通讯作者：
Warburton, C.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Butler, J. R. A.;Young, J. C.;Warburton, C.
通过将迭代学习和知识生成与权力共享相结合，适应性共同管理（ACM）为解决复杂的社会生态问题提供了一种潜在的解决方案。在本文中，我们评估ACM作为解决保护冲突的机制，在苏格兰，海豹和鲑鱼渔业利益相关者有反对和根深蒂固的目标的案例研究。ACM于2002年出现，成功地解决了这一长期存在的冲突。应用文献中的评估方法，我们在2011年采访了利益相关者，以了解ACM的演变及其10年来成功的相关因素。与其他ACM案例一样，触发这一过程的因素是控制系统的缓慢变量（海豹和鲑鱼的丰度、公众对海豹狩猎的看法）的变化和外源冲击（法律的授权的变化、海豹病的爆发）。这也是ACM的典型特征，演变的三个阶段是明显的：正在出现的地方领导层为系统的变革做好准备，政策机会窗口，利益攸关方伙伴关系建立系统的复原力。维持反腐败管理的参数是法律的机制和结构、政府拥有的法律的权力以及所有利益攸关方达成妥协和试验替代治理办法的意愿。研究结果强调了政府的力量和支持在解决保护冲突中的关键作用，这可能会限制当地业主驱动的ACM的程度。评价还表明，在取得预期成功后，ACM的轨迹如何转向“利益攸关方冷漠”阶段，领导力、知识交流、利益攸关方参与和系统复原力下降。我们讨论了恢复这一进程所需的补救行动，以及长期政府资源和替代融资计划对成功解决冲突的重要性。根据研究结果，我们提出了一个通用的指标框架和参与式方法的纵向评估ACM应用于保护冲突解决。皇冠版权所有（C）2015由爱思唯尔有限公司发布。
By linking iterative learning and knowledge generation with power-sharing, adaptive co-management (ACM) provides a potential solution to resolving complex social-ecological problems. In this paper we evaluate ACM as a mechanism for resolving conservation conflict using a case study in Scotland, where seal and salmon fishery stakeholders have opposing and entrenched objectives. ACM emerged in 2002, successfully resolving this long-standing conflict. Applying evaluation approaches from the literature, in 2011 we interviewed stakeholders to characterise the evolution of ACM, and factors associated with its success over 10 years. In common with other ACM cases, triggers for the process were shifts in slow variables controlling the system (seal and salmon abundance, public perceptions of seal shooting), and exogenous shocks (changes in legal mandates, a seal disease outbreak). Also typical of ACM, three phases of evolution were evident: emerging local leadership preparing the system for change, a policy window of opportunity, and stakeholder partnerships building the resilience of the system. Parameters maintaining ACM were legal mechanisms and structures, legal power held by government, and the willingness of all stakeholders to reach a compromise and experiment with an alternative governance approach. Results highlighted the critical role of government power and support in resolving conservation conflict, which may constrain the extent of local stakeholder-driven ACM. The evaluation also demonstrated how, following perceived success, the trajectory of ACM has shifted to a 'stakeholder apathy' phase, with declining leadership, knowledge exchange, stakeholder engagement, and system resilience. We discuss remedial actions required to revive the process, and the importance of long term government resourcing and alternative financing schemes for successful conflict resolution. Based on the results we present a generic indicator framework and participatory method for the longitudinal evaluation of ACM applied to conservation conflict resolution. Crown Copyright (C) 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd.