Talk:Complex socioecological systems/Adaptive Management and Resilience
Schultz et al. (2011):
This article is important for it challenges the idea that participation can lead to less desirable outcomes, such as less conservation. I was glad to see that the authors sought to examine the relationship between the participation of different stakeholders and the outcomes of adaptive management. What caught my attention is that the authors examine the relationship between scientist participation and specific outcomes. In my readings on participation, I have found that community members, representatives of civil society organizations, and government representatives are usually expected to participate and their social roles in co-management schemes are more problematized. Scientists are usually given only the supportive role of providers of data and research findings. In adaptive co-management scientists gain a more central role because scientific knowledge is considered the/a guide to provide information as regards ecosystem conditions. Therefore, evaluations of (adaptive) co-management schemes need to consider the active role of scientists, as well the interactions between scientists and other groups. Not considering the active role of scientists in adaptive co-managemnet schemes is problematic because it means ignoring an important social actor, who has resources and influence to push towards specific outcomes. flaleite 06:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Here is one of the questions of my qualifying exams: What is the adaptive co-management approach and how does it differ from other approaches to sustainable land management such as community- or market-based approaches? What are the characteristic strengths and weaknesses of each?
Can you answer it? flaleite 15:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)