Capacity building to support knowledge systems for resilient development—approaches, actions, and needs

Virji, Hassan; Padgham, Jon; Seipt, Clark

doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2012.01.005

Cited by 41 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Bringing together concepts of coproduction and capacities as presented here implies an interest and concern for capacity development, as articulated by Virji et al (2012). Our approach here, however, is more exploratory and descriptive than interventionist or evaluative.…”

Section: Capacitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Capacity development has become a core aim of development more broadly, reflecting a shift from more technical, top-down "knowledge transfer" approaches to more supportive, bottomup, endogenous development strategies. Virji et al (2012) make a strong case for the importance of linking capacity development literature with global environmental change agendas. They argue that targeted investments to improve science capacities, as well as capacities to communicate and interact with policy makers are needed.…”

Section: Capacitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Coproductive capacities: rethinking science-governance relations in a diverse world

Kerkhoff¹,

Lebel²

2015

E&S

179

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Tackling major environmental change issues requires effective partnerships between science and governance, but relatively little work in this area has examined the diversity of settings from which such partnerships may, or may not, emerge. In this special feature we draw on experiences from around the world to demonstrate and investigate the consequences of diverse capacities and capabilities in bringing science and governance together. We propose the concept of coproductive capacities as a useful new lens through which to examine these relations. Coproductive capacity is "the combination of scientific resources and governance capability that shapes the extent to which a society, at various levels, can operationalize relationships between scientific and public, private, and civil society institutions and actors to effect scientifically-informed social change." This recasts the relationships between science and society from notions of "gaps" to notions of interconnectedness and interplay (coproduction); alongside the societal foundations that shape what is or is not possible in that dynamic connection (capacities). The articles in this special feature apply this concept to reveal social, political, and institutional conditions that both support and inhibit high-quality environmental governance as global issues are tackled in particular places. Across these articles we suggest that five themes emerge as important to understanding coproductive capacity: history, experience, and perceptions; quality of relationships (especially in suboptimal settings); disjunct across scales; power, interests, and legitimacy; and alternative pathways for environmental governance. Taking a coproductive capacities perspective can help us identify which interventions may best enable scientifically informed, but locally sensitive approaches to environmental governance.

show abstract

Section: Capacitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Capacitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Coproductive capacities: rethinking science-governance relations in a diverse world

Kerkhoff¹,

Lebel²

2015

E&S

179

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When applied, the framework assesses current institutional conditions and the extent to which these constrain or enable biodiversity conservation. The framework attends to adaptive capacity, or the ability of institutions to withstand and respond to change (Armitage and Plummer 2010); but equally highlights the importance of general capacity, or the ability to identify and solve problems and deploy knowledge and skills (Virji et al 2012). Using the concept of adaptive governance as a foundation, it draws on literatures from institutional theory, especially institutional perspectives on organizational environments and public administration.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A diagnostic framework for biodiversity conservation institutions

Clément

Moore

Lockwood

et al. 2015

Pac. Conserv. Biol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biodiversity loss is a critical issue on the environmental agenda, with species based approaches failing to stem the decline. Landscape scale approaches offer promise, but require institutional change. This article describes a novel conceptual framework for 1 assessing institutional arrangements to tackle this persistent problem. In doing so, two critical issues for biodiversity governance are addressed. The first is a need to enrich largely theoretical descriptions of adaptive governance by considering how the practical realities of institutional environments (e.g. public agencies) limit achievement of an adaptive governance 'ideal'. The second is enabling explicit consideration of the unique aspects of biodiversity as a 'policy problem' in the analysis of institutional arrangements. The framework contributes to efforts to design more adaptive institutional arrangements, through supporting a more sophisticated and grounded institutional analysis incorporating insights from institutional theory, especially literature on organizational environments and public administration.Concepts from Pragmatism also contribute to this grounding, providing insight into how public agencies can play a more productive role in biodiversity conservation and building public consent for management actions. The diagnostic categories in the framework include the attributes of the biodiversity problem and the involved players; the political context; and practices contributing to both competence and capacity. Guidance on how to apply the framework and an example of its application in Australia illustrate the utility of this tool for institutional diagnosis and design.Development of this diagnostic framework could be further enhanced by empirically informed elaboration of the relationships between its components, and of the nature of and factors influencing key concerns for adaptation, particularly learning, self organizing and buffering.

show abstract

“…Our approach considers how reforms can build adaptive capacity, or the ability of institutions to withstand and respond to change (Armitage and Plummer 2010). It also attends to more general capacity, or the ability to identify and solve problems and deploy knowledge and skills (Virji et al 2012), and refers to them both under the umbrella concept of competence (Ansell 2011). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using insights from pragmatism to develop reforms that strengthen institutional competence for conserving biodiversity

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clement, S., Moore, S.A., Lockwood, M. and Mitchell, M. (2015)Using insights from pragmatism to develop reforms that strengthen institutional competence for conserving biodiversity.Policy Sciences, 48 (4 Mitchell) AbstractThe poor performance of biodiversity institutions has prompted calls for reform. Adaptive governance has been promoted as a means of supporting improved biodiversity outcomes. However, incorporating adaptive elements into biodiversity governance has been a challenge. In particular, efforts to make institutions more 'adaptive' often fail to account for existing capacity and context--specific factors. Clear guidance on how to move from general, ambitious adaptive governance prescriptions to specific, context--dependent recommendations is needed. This paper demonstrates how insights from pragmatism can inform an approach for designing institutional reforms that address current shortcomings in adaptive governance approaches. This design scaffolds reform options on a platform of existing competency and institutional legacy. Informed by the results of a prior institutional diagnosis, reform development followed a three--stage process: defining plausible reform spaces; identifying reform possibilities within these spaces; and elaborating reform options. Two very different landscapes provided the case studies: a highly modified agricultural landscape, where private landholders are responsible for managing biodiversity as a public good; and a group of national parks, where the state holds primary responsibility. The reforms in the agricultural landscape build on successful landholder and organizational efforts to self--organize and pursue innovative solutions, while those for the protected area enable greater managerial discretion and address the challenges of working across multiple government jurisdictions. This context--driven approach draws on insights from pragmatism to provide guidance on the design of institutional reforms that meet the demands of adaptive governance in a way that is both systematic and realistic.

show abstract

Capacity building to support knowledge systems for resilient development—approaches, actions, and needs

Cited by 41 publications

References 1 publication

Coproductive capacities: rethinking science-governance relations in a diverse world

Coproductive capacities: rethinking science-governance relations in a diverse world

A diagnostic framework for biodiversity conservation institutions

Using insights from pragmatism to develop reforms that strengthen institutional competence for conserving biodiversity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About