The Experts below are selected from a list of 92214 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Max J Pfeffer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
social learning for collaborative Natural Resource Management
Society & Natural Resources, 2003Co-Authors: Tania M Schusler, Daniel J Decker, Max J PfefferAbstract:This article contributes to understanding about the potential and limitations of social learning for collaborative Natural Resource Management. Participants in a deliberative planning process involving a state agency and local communities developed common purpose and collaborative relationships, two requisites of coManagement. Eight process characteristics fostered social learning: open communication, diverse participation, unrestrained thinking, constructive conflict, democratic structure, multiple sources of knowledge, extended engagement, and facilitation. Social learning is necessary but not sufficient for collaborative Management. Other requisites for coManagement, including capacity, appropriate processes, appropriate structures, and supportive policies, are necessary to sustain joint action.
Marc J Stern - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
boundary spanners as trust ambassadors in collaborative Natural Resource Management
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2018Co-Authors: Kimberly Coleman, Marc J SternAbstract:Collaboration is a growing trend in agency-led Natural Resource Management in the USA, carrying the promise of defusing conflict and incorporating a broader range of stakeholder ideas. However, concerns exist that confrontational or litigious groups may use collaborative forums to their organization's own advantage. We conducted case studies on three collaboratives to understand how these efforts have influenced the behavior of environmental groups who were previously at odds with the managing agency, the US Forest Service. Results suggest that trust between boundary spanners from historically adversarial groups can support a realignment of the accountabilities they feel. As rational, affinitive, and procedural trust developed, boundary spanners began to advocate, within their home organizations, for the collaborative's goals. Key activities driving these realignments included the development of fair and transparent procedures governing the collaborative group, structured interaction designed to build con...
-
the multidimensionality of trust applications in collaborative Natural Resource Management
Society & Natural Resources, 2015Co-Authors: Marc J Stern, Kimberly J ColemanAbstract:Despite the long-recognized importance of trust in the Natural Resources Management literature, few have drawn upon the breadth of other disciplines' investigations of trust to inform their work. This article represents an effort to break down the concept of trust into its component parts in an attempt to reorganize trust theory in a robust and practical way for collaborative Natural Resource Management. We describe four forms of trust relevant to collaborative (and other forms of) Natural Resource Management: dispositional trust, rational trust, affinitive trust, and procedural trust. By delineating different forms of trust, their antecedents, and their potential consequences for collaborative Natural Resource Management, we aim to provide a useful and consistent lexicon and framework for use by researchers and practitioners in the human dimensions of Natural Resource Management.
Tania M Schusler - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
social learning for collaborative Natural Resource Management
Society & Natural Resources, 2003Co-Authors: Tania M Schusler, Daniel J Decker, Max J PfefferAbstract:This article contributes to understanding about the potential and limitations of social learning for collaborative Natural Resource Management. Participants in a deliberative planning process involving a state agency and local communities developed common purpose and collaborative relationships, two requisites of coManagement. Eight process characteristics fostered social learning: open communication, diverse participation, unrestrained thinking, constructive conflict, democratic structure, multiple sources of knowledge, extended engagement, and facilitation. Social learning is necessary but not sufficient for collaborative Management. Other requisites for coManagement, including capacity, appropriate processes, appropriate structures, and supportive policies, are necessary to sustain joint action.
Ruth Meinzendick - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
innovation in Natural Resource Management the role of property rights and collective action in developing countries
2002Co-Authors: Ruth Meinzendick, Anna Knox, Frank Place, Brent SwallowAbstract:International agricultural research is expanding beyond the development of annual crop technologies for individual farms to the development of longer-tern Natural Resource Management techniques for entire landscapes. But technologies of practices with a long lag time between investment and returns are unlikely to be adopted by farmers unless they have secure rights to the underlying Resources (property rights). Similarly, technologies that span multiple farms are unlikely to be adopted unless neighbors and groups work together (collective action). But little is know about the way property rights and collective action in developing countries mediate the adoption of technologies by farmers and groups. To address this information gap, this volume brings together international experts in economics, sociology, and Natural Resource Management to examine the links among property rights, collective action, and technological change for a variety of technologies across a rage of community contexts in the developing world.
-
implications of legal pluralism for Natural Resource Management
IDS Bulletin, 2001Co-Authors: Ruth Meinzendick, Rajendra PradhanAbstract:Summaries This article illustrates the implications of legal pluralism for our understanding of Natural Resource Management and policies toward Resource tenure, using the example of water rights. There is widespread recognition that property rights play a fundamental role in shaping how people manage Natural Resources. But many conceptions of property rights have focused only on static definitions, usually as defined in statutory law. The legal anthropological perspective highlights the coexistence and interaction between multiple legal orders such as state, customary, religious, project and local laws, all of which provide bases for claiming property rights. These multiple legal frameworks also facilitate considerable flexibility for people to manoeuvre in their use of Natural Resources, thus helping to cope with uncertainty. In many parts of the world, water rights are dynamic, flexible and subject to frequent negotiations because of uncertain water supply, damages to intake structures due to floods and landslides, and social, economic and political changes. The article demonstrates how multiple, flexible and dynamic legal orders are more responsive to these uncertainties and changes than a single, fixed legal system with a static property regime
-
collective action property rights and devolution of Natural Resource Management exchange of knowledge and implications for policy
2000Co-Authors: Anna Knox, Ruth MeinzendickAbstract:Policies to devolve responsibility for Natural Resource Management to local bodies have become widespread in the past 20 years. Although the theoretical advantages of user Management have been convincing and the impetus for devolution policies strong, the actual outcomes of devolution programs in various sectors and countries have been mixed. This paper summarizes key research findings on factors that contribute to effective devolution programs in the forestry, fisheries, irrigation, and rangelands sectors, which were presented and discussed at an international Policy Workshop on Property Rights, Collective Action and Devolution of Natural Resource Management, June 21-25, 1999, in Puerto Azul, the Philippines. We begin by addressing the language of devolution in an effort to clarify concepts and terminology that enable a more productive discussion of the issues. This is followed by some of the key arguments made by the workshop participants for devolving rights to Resources to local users. Policies and factors that have the potential to strengthen or constrain devolution are addressed at a broad level before looking specifically at how property rights and collective action institutions can shape devolution outcomes. Whereas some factors cut across Resource sectors and regions, others are more specific to their contexts. In all cases, proponents of devolution of rights to Resource users struggle to understand better what elements facilitate collective action and what factors hinder its creation and sustainability. Finally, a set of recommended frameworks formulated by the workshop participants highlight the potential for fostering a devolution process that leads to the simultaneous improvement of Natural Resource Management and the livelihoods of the poor.
-
property rights collective action and technologies for Natural Resource Management a conceptual framework
1998Co-Authors: Anna Knox, Ruth Meinzendick, Peter B R HazellAbstract:This paper explores how institutions of property rights and collective action play a particularly important role in the application of technologies for agriculture and Natural Resource Management. Those technologies with long time frames tend to require tenure security to provide sufficient incentives to adopt, while those that operate on a large spatial scale will require collective action to coordinate, either across individual private property or in common property regimes. In contrast to many crop technologies like highyielding variety seeds or fertilizers, Natural Resource Management technologies like agroforestry, watershed Management, irrigation, or fisheries tend to embody greater and more varying temporal and spatial dimensions. Whereas the literature addressing constraints and enabling factors for rural technology adoption have largely focused on their direct effects on crop technologies, the conceptual framework presented here shows how property rights and collective action interact with many other constraints to technology development (such as wealth, information, risk, or labor availability). The paper further explores how the structure of property rights and collective action shape the efficiency, equity and environmental sustainability of technological outcomes, thereby enriching our understanding of different technologies’ contributions to poverty alleviation.
Bjorn Nykvist - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
does social learning lead to better Natural Resource Management a case study of the modern farming community of practice in sweden
Society & Natural Resources, 2014Co-Authors: Bjorn NykvistAbstract:This study investigates whether social learning among large-scale farmers in central Sweden leads to better Natural Resource Management in the agricultural landscape. Three different frames of social learning are first identified: social learning as a fundamental social phenomenon, social learning as collaborative learning, and social learning as deeper learning. This article investigates the role of social learning and other factors through semistructured in-depth interviews. Results show that learning among farmers is inherently social, but that this learning does not necessarily improve Natural Resource Management or lead to better environmental governance. The article discusses when social learning can be expected to influence Natural Resources Management, and finds that without the presence of policy, individual leadership, or facilitation, it is not an important factor. Furthermore, the call for social learning based on results from successful instrumental application risks obscuring findings indica...
