Monitoring and adaptive management: resolving social and organisational issues to improve information sharing in natural resource management

Abstract

Adaptive, or ‘learning by doing’, approaches are often advocated as a means of providing increased understanding within natural resource management. However, a number of organisational and social issues need to be resolved if these approaches are to be used successfully. A case study in the South Island high country of New Zealand is used to review what is needed to support an ongoing community‐based monitoring and adaptive management programme. First, the case study is described, paying attention to the social context of the resource management problem. The results of a workshop that explored this problem are then outlined, along with a proposed information flow suggested by participants. Requirements for future steps to resolve these problems (such as information protocols and a multi‐stakeholder information system) are discussed. Finally, some broad lessons are drawn from this exercise that could help others developing similar approaches.

Adaptive management of natural resources—framework and issues

“…Published treatments of adaptive management variously emphasize experimentation (Lee, 1993), uncertainty (Williams and Johnson, 1995), science (Bormann et al, 2007), complexity (Allen and Gould, 1986;Ludwig et al, 1993), management adjustments (Lessard, 1998;Johnson, 1999;Rauscher, 1999), monitoring (Allen et al, 2001;Bormann et al, 2007), and stakeholder involvement (Norton, 2005). In all cases adaptive management is seen as a learning-based process involving the fundamental features of learning (the accretion of understanding through time) and adaptation (the adjustment of management through time based on this learning).…”

What do we call Adaptive Management? A general characterization from a global sample

“…3), although the unique participation of experts is more common in developed countries and only local population participation is more frequent in developing ones. Local participation is a crucial element in the practice of AM (Allen 1997, Allen et al 2001, Shindler and Cheek 1999), and, as McLain and Lee (1996 state, the fluency of communication between scientific knowledge, politicians and management professionals should be promoted to design feasible management plans. The fact that the participation of the local population prevails in developing countries may be due to the fact that AM in developed countries basically relies upon experts from State institutions, whereas in developing countries it is usually performed by foreign organizations that need to count on the local population to implement their projects.…”

“…Indeed, far from being a straight forward unique way of making management, it includes a whole array of practices that emphasize different aspects of the methodological process. In fact, although monitoring is the distinctive feature of AM for most authors (Allen et al 2001, Campbell et al 2002, some others stress the importance of other aspects of the methodology such as the process of generating and assessing scenarios throughout modelling (Carpenter et al 1999, Walters et al 2000, or social participation (Shindler and Cheek 1999).…”

Learning, participation, and adaptation: exploring agri-environmental programmes

“…Adaptive management is a process of policy development and implementation whereby goals and a hypothesis concerning mechanisms for achieving goals are developed, this mechanism is then implemented through policy design, and the policy design continuously monitored, assessed and revised to ensure the goals are actually achieved (Pahl-Wostl 2007;Bruch, 2009;Foxon, Reed, and Stringer 2009;Swanson and Bhadwal 2009). The published literature of adaptive management is diverse and flexible in meeting the context in which it is applied and discussed, emphasising themes of experimentation (Lee 1993), uncertainty (Williams and Johnson 1995), science (Bormann, Haynes, and Martin 2007) complexity (Allen and Gould 1986;Ludwig, Hilborn, and Walters 1993), management adjustments (Lessard 1998;Johnson 1999;Rauscher 1999) monitoring (Allen et al 2001;Bormann, Haynes, and Martin 2007) and more recently, stakeholder involvement, participation and social learning (Norton 2005;Pahl-Wostl 2009, 2010. These last three interconnecting themes of social learning, stakeholder involvement and participation are explored in this research specifically in relation to the two programmes studied.…”