3 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Journal Article Exploring Social Capital in Chile's Coastal Benthic Comanagement System Using a Network Approach(2012) Marin, Andres; Gelcich, Stefan; Castilla, Juan C.; Berkes, Fikret"Comanagement success relies on the proper administration of resources and on the capacity of users to establish and maintain positive social relationships with multiple actors. We assessed multifunctional relationships of small-scale artisanal fisher organizations engaged in a coastal benthic resources comanagement system in Chile to explore bridging and linking social capital, using an egocentric network approach. The formal leaders of 38 small-scale fisher organizations were surveyed to investigate (1) similarities and differences in social capital among fisher organizations and regions, and (2) possible effects of social capital levels on comanagement performance. Results show that the best performing fisher organizations are those with higher levels of linking and bridging social capital. Positive and strong correlations exist between linking social capital levels and comanagement performance variables. Importantly, fisher organizations considered to manage resources successfully consistently presented high levels of linking social capital, irrespective of variability in bridging social capital. Using egocentric networks allows understanding actors’ differences in the comanagement social structure, thus providing critical insights for improving comanagement systems."Conference Paper An Evaluation Framework for Adaptive Co-Management: Towards Commons Governance in an Uncertain World(2015) Trimble, Micaela; Berkes, Fikret; Johnson, Derek; Lázaro, Marila; Medeiros, Rodrigo P.; Plummer, Ryan"Adaptive co-management is an important governance innovation because it recognizes that social-ecological resilience requires attention to changing and diverse livelihoods and the divergent capacities and power of different groups to engage in governance. Even though this is a growing research field, efforts to evaluate the process of adaptive co-management and the relationship between goals and outcomes have been scarce. Building on existing efforts, and drawing also from the field of public participation, we propose a formative evaluation framework for adaptive co-management, which focuses on its operation and the connections between process features and outcomes. The framework consists of four components and two evaluation approaches. The components of the evaluation framework are as follows: (i) Setting (ecological, social and social-ecological, institutional, external drivers); (ii) Process (participation, relationship building, social learning); (iii) Outcomes (social capital, social learning and adaptation, decision making) and (iv) Effects (ecological, social and socio-ecological). Methodologically, the two evaluation approaches integrated in our framework are conventional-constructivist and participatory or collaborative. This framework is being refined as we implement it in two case studies, one in Uruguay and the other in Brazil. We analyze how the twofold evaluation framework for adaptive co-management, aiming at improving practice, informing policy, and building capacity, may be a catalyst for collaboration and adaptation. The proposed framework may be transferable to other governance / management approaches involving multiple actors (e.g. community, government, non-government)."Conference Paper Paving the Way Towards Co-Management through Participatory Research: A Case Study with Artisanal Fisheries in Uruguay(2013) Trimble, Micaela; Lázaro, Marila; Berkes, Fikret"In Uruguay, both artisanal fishers and the State agency in charge of fisheries management (DINARA) have shown interest in seeking co-management arrangements, leaving behind the top-down regime, still prevalent today. Our research is based on a case study in Piriápolis (coastal Río de la Plata), in which a participatory research process among fishery stakeholders (fishers, DINARA, University scientists, NGOs) was facilitated to investigate its contributions to the emergence of co-management. Our findings show that participatory research had an impact on the various faces of co-management: (1) power sharing: power was actually shared during the research process, (2) institution building: a multi-stakeholder group (POPA), with a common vision and goals, was created, (3) trust building: trust among participants increased, (4) process: the process of group formation was considered important by participants, (5) learning: stakeholders learned skills for participation, among others, (6) problem solving: two problem-solving exercises were conducted (POPA started with the problem of sea lion impact on the fishery but ended up addressing the competition from imported pangasius), (7) governance: a diversity of stakeholders of the initial problem identified by fishers participated in the process. These impacts on co-management are indeed useful criteria for evaluating the outcomes of participatory research as a knowledge co-production approach in which resource users participate of the entire research, and whose final aim is community empowerment. When evaluating the process of participatory research, our case study contributed to identifying several criteria that can facilitate co-management, such as: participation of all stakeholder groups of the selected problem/topic; participants' representativeness; involvement of all stakeholder groups in every research stage; independent facilitation; collective decision-making through deliberative and consensus-building processes; and appropriate information management. This research provides empirical evidence to support the claim that participatory research is a strategy to facilitate and improve co-management."