The spread and maturation of strategic adaptive management within and beyond South African national parks

Freitag, Stefanie; Biggs, Harry; Breen, C. M.

doi:10.5751/es-06338-190325

Cited by 26 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As has been claimed by Ison et al (2013), from the perspective of systemic governance, dualistic thinking is unhelpful, and new forms of governance practices that explore framing choices that act as a duality need to be pursued. Although not widely adopted yet, some attempts and initiatives in this direction are beginning to emerge, including institutional innovation as has been reported in Wallis & Ison (2011), Rogers et al (2013), Chaffin et al (2014) and Freitag et al (2014).…”

Section: Final Remarksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Navigating through an “ecological desert and a sociological hell”

Ison

Schlindwein

2015

Kybernetes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose -The governance of the relationship between humans and the biophysical world has been based on a paradigm characterized by dualistic thinking and scientism. This has led us to the Anthropocene. The purpose of this paper is to reframe human-biosphere governance in terms of "cyber-systemics", a neologism that is useful, we argue, not only for breaking out of this dualistic paradigm in human-environmental governance but also of the dualism associated with the use of systems and cybernetics. Design/methodology/approach -In this paper we draw on our own research praxis to exemplify how the intellectual lineages of cybernetics and systems have been mutually influencing our doings, and how new forms of governance practices that explore different framing choices might contribute to building innovative governance approaches attuned to the problematique of the Anthropocene, for instance through institutional designs for cybersystemic governance. Findings -The growing popularity of the Anthropocene as a particular framing for our circumstances, if it is to transformative and thus relevant demands critique if it is to help change the trajectory of human-life on Earth. We offer arguments and a rationale for adopting a cyber-systemic perspective as a means to avoid the dangers in pursuing the current trajectory of our relationship with the biophysical world, as for example climate change. The essay frames an invitation for a systemic inquiry into forms of governance more suited to the contemporary circumstances of humans in their relationships with the biophysical world. Research limitations/implications -The research essay challenges many taken-for-granted epistemological assumptions within the cybernetics and systems intellectual communities. A case for radical change is mounted; the means to effect this change, other than through changes in discourse remain unclear though it is apparent that changes to praxis and institutional forms and arrangements will be central. Practical implications -Cybersystemic capabilities need to be developed; this requires investment and new institutions that are conducive to cybersystemic understandings and praxis. Social implications -The lack of thriving communities of practice of cybersystemics significantly reduces the choices we humans have in shaping our future. Originality/value -Understanding the global environmental crisis as an emergent outcome of current commitments to dualistic governance choices demands a reframing of much of what humans have done, Re-investment in cybersystemics offers a moral and practical response.

show abstract

Section: Final Remarksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Navigating through an “ecological desert and a sociological hell”

Ison

Schlindwein

2015

Kybernetes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…SAM has developed as a praxis in response to a framing choice about situations such as those concerned with "freshwater ecosystem conservation" (Kingsford and Biggs 2012 ), the adaptive management of national parks (Biggs and Rogers 2003 ;Freitag et al 2014 ) The KNP turned to the ecosystem management approach advocated by Rogers and Bestbier ( 1997 ), which acknowledged the centralities of scale and participation, incorporated societal value systems, and provided management accountability. It was termed strategic adaptive management (SAM) because it emphasized the notion of preparing for the future rather than reacting to the past (Rogers and Bestbier 1997 ;Rogers and Biggs 1999 ) and was facilitated through an inclusive process designed to establish a shared vision and hierarchy of objectives, which would direct management toward acceptable and achievable operational goals.…”

Section: Strategic Adaptive Management (Sam)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanisms for Inclusive Governance

Ison

Wallis

2016

Global Issues in Water Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How mechanisms for inclusive governance are understood is built on the framing choices that are made about governance and that which is being governed. This chapter unpacks how governance can be understood and considers different historical and contemporary framings of water governance. A framing of "governance as praxis" is developed as a central element in the chapter. What makes governance inclusive is explored, drawing on theoretical, practical and institutional aspects before elucidating some of the different mechanisms currently used or proposed for creating inclusive water governance (though we argue against praxis based on simple mechanism). Finally, the factors that either constrain or enable inclusive water governance are explored with a focus on systemic concepts of learning and feedback. Keywords Water governance • Participation • Institutional arrangements • Social learning • Adaptive management • Framing Scene SettingWe were invited to address the topic of "mechanisms for inclusive governance". In many ways this is a loaded title as it comprises three terms that cannot be taken for granted: "governance", "inclusive" and "mechanism". For us the pivotal term is governance which, as a contested concept, requires an appreciation of how it might be framed and the possible implications of a given framing choice. Expressed in this way, it is also necessary that we say what we mean by "framing" and "framing choice". In turn, our title leaves open, and thus potentially ambiguous, the question of what is being governed -a river, a catchment, a complex adaptive system, etc.

show abstract

“…Rogers et al (2013) add depth to an understanding of learning processes within complex socialecological system research and practice, highlighting the role of "habits of mind," and both Pollard et al (2014) and Freitag et al (2014) take the thinking and theory of applied research in socialecological systems into the complexity of practice. Biggs et al…”

Section: Applied Research For Enhancing Human Well-being and Environmmentioning

confidence: 99%