Adaptive Comanagement in the Venice Lagoon? An Analysis of Current Water and Environmental Management Practices and Prospects for Change

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Adaptive comanagement (ACM) is often suggested as a way of handling the modern challenges of environmental governance, which include uncertainty and complexity. ACM is a novel combination of the learning dimension of adaptive management and the linkage dimension of comanagement. As has been suggested, there is a need for more insight on enabling policy environments for ACM success and failure. Picking up on this agenda we provide a case study of the world famous Venice lagoon in Italy. We address the following questions: first, to what extent are four institutional prescriptions typically associated with ACM currently practiced in the Venice system? Second, to what extent is learning taking place in the Venice system? Third, how is learning related to the implementation or nonimplementation of the prescriptions of ACM in the Venice system? Our analysis is based on interviews with stakeholders, participatory observation, and archive data. This paper demonstrates that the prescriptions of ACM are hardly followed in the Venice lagoon, but some levels of cognitive learning do take place, albeit very much within established management paradigms. Normative and relational learning are much rarer and when they do occur, they seem to have a relatively opportunistic reason. We propose that in particular the low levels of collaboration, because the governance system was deliberately set up in a hierarchical and mono-centric way, and the limited possibilities for stakeholder participation are implicated in this finding because they cause low levels of social capital and an incapacity to handle disagreements and uncertainty very well.

Stimulating Learning through Policy Experimentation: A Multi-Case Analysis of How Design Influences Policy Learning Outcomes in Experiments for Climate Adaptation

“…Finally, we found that, although all experiments produced unexpectedly low normative learning (although in line with previous learning studies [3,7,27,31]) the perspectives change dimension registered very differently among actor types: individual "citizen" actors were significantly more likely to record favourably for both normative learning variables. This result did not come through in the initial analysis because there were so few individual citizens involved (n = 9), who were predominantly found in the boundary experiments.…”

“…The factors are drawn from several sources [3,5,[18][19][20][21]. This typology has been used in several empirical studies to conceptualise and measure learning in collective settings relevant to environmental governance [3,27,30,31]. The first two learning types resonate strongly with the policy learning literature [27] whereas relational learning reflects the notions of understanding others' roles and capacities, which are developed in the social learning literature [28,32].…”

The governance of adaptation: choices, reasons, and effects. Introduction to the Special Feature

“…efficient, for issues affecting entire communities at once, but they are also more likely to create certain lock-ins. Such lock-ins could be related to the sunk investments, to the knowledge and organization needed to build such infrastructure, which will want to sustain itself (see for example the case of large scale infrastructure for flood defense in Venice by Munaretto and Huitema 2012), and could also be related to the expectations of the population; in case of large-scale infrastructure they might start assuming that the infrastructure takes care of the issue and they do not need to do anything themselves (see, for example, Engel et al 2014). In other words, efficiency thinking might lead to greater government involvement, which might subsequently lead to a greater recourse to technical solutions, but whether this is more resilient in the long term is unclear.…”

Learning and linking for invasive species management

“…There may be confusion within the concept of normative learning because previous studies similarly have not been able to assess or measure it (Haug et al 2011, Munaretto and Huitema 2012. A question arises of what changes in norms, views, or paradigms are relevant.…”