This article was downloaded by: [FU Berlin]On: 22 October 2014, At: 02:46Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Human Dimensions of Wildlife: AnInternational JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uhdw20

Adaptive Co-Management and the Needfor Situated Thinking in CollaborativeConservationRyan Plummer a & Atsuko Hashimoto ba Department of Tourism and Environment , Brock University, St.Catharines , Ontario, Canadab Stockholm Resilience Centre , Stockholm, SwedenPublished online: 03 Aug 2011.

To cite this article: Ryan Plummer & Atsuko Hashimoto (2011) Adaptive Co-Management and the Needfor Situated Thinking in Collaborative Conservation, Human Dimensions of Wildlife: An InternationalJournal, 16:4, 222-235, DOI: 10.1080/10871209.2011.585434

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2011.585434

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 16:222–235, 2011Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1087-1209 print / 1533-158X onlineDOI: 10.1080/10871209.2011.585434

Peer-Reviewed Articles

Adaptive Co-Management and the Need for SituatedThinking in Collaborative Conservation

RYAN PLUMMER1,2 AND ATSUKO HASHIMOTO1

1Department of Tourism and Environment, Brock University, St. Catharines,Ontario, Canada2Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm, Sweden

The adaptive co-management paradigm is a marked departure from past rational-comprehensive models for conservation and natural resources management. Its poten-tial to enhance social–ecological resilience and address the “problem of fit” makes ituseful in different places and circumstances. This article argues that “situated think-ing” is required when the transferral of collaborative conservation approaches suchas adaptive co-management is contemplated. As such, literature addressing the role ofcontext in natural resources management is reviewed and frames the exploration of twodistinct case studies—a recreational fishery in Ontario, Canada, and a shell fisheryon the Kyushu Island, Japan. This inductive approach subsequently leads us to pro-pose a framework that potentially could assist professionals and policy makers in theirapplication of collaborative conservation strategies such as adaptive co-managementin various contexts to enhance adaptability.

Keywords adaptive co-management, context, fisheries, fit, policy transfer

A uniform approach to collaborative conservation will not work in all situations. Carefulattention is therefore required about the complementarity of governance and biophysi-cal systems. This issue is referred to as “the problem of fit.” The problem of fit is usedin this article to contend “. . . that the effectiveness and the robustness of social institu-tions are functions of the fit between the institutions themselves and the biophysical andsocial domains in which they operate” (Underal, 1997, as cited in Folke, Pritchard, Berkes,

The authors thank Bruce Lauber and Daniel Decker for organizing this special issue. Our appre-ciation is also extended to the anonymous reviewers, Derek Armitage, Warren Yerex, NobutakaHonjo from the Matama Fishery Co-op, and the staff of the Shallow Water Research Centre forproviding insightful comments and invaluable assistance. Generous support for this research camefrom Brock University (Chancellor’s Chair for Research Excellence) and the Social Sciences andHumanities Research Council of Canada (Improving Water Governance Through Policy Transferand Lesson Learning).

Address correspondence to Ryan Plummer, Department of Tourism and EnvironmentBrock University, 500 Glenridge Avenue, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada, L2S 3A1. E-mail:rplummer@brocku.ca

222

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

02:

46 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

Adaptive Co-Management and Collaborative Conservation 223

Colding, & Svedin, 1998, p. 3). Synchronizing the institutional and organizational land-scapes to enhance the fit between these systems (or to avoid mis-fits) is a difficult task(Galaz, Olsson, Hahn, Folke, & Svedin, 2008). The problem of fit and task of enhancingsynchronicity is often exacerbated when an approach to collaborative conservation thatis working in one place and set of circumstances is transferred or applied in a differentplace and situation. The term policy transfer is often employed to capture the concept oftransferability and how it occurs. It is used here to refer to

the process by which knowledge of policies, administrative arrangements,institutions and ideas in one political system (past or present) is used in thedevelopment of policies, administrative arrangements, institutions and ideas inanother political system. (Dolowitz & Marsh, 2000, p. 5)

The adaptability of collaborative conservation is therefore a paramount concern. That is,approaches to collaborative conservation have the potential to enhance the “fit” betweenecosystems and governance, but must also correspond to a context or situation.

Adaptive co-management is emerging as an approach to collaborative conservationwith the potential to address the problem of fit between ecosystems and governancebecause it: embraces a complex social–ecological systems perspective; concerns multi-level governance and cross-scale ecosystem feedbacks; and, draws on the diversity ofactors, knowledges and networks commensurate with ecosystem management (Folke,Pritchard, Berkes, Colding, & Svedin, 2007; Olsson, Folke, Galaz, Hahn, & Schultz, 2007;Galaz et al., 2008). Despite this potential, it is also important to identify some limita-tions and cautions. First, learning does not necessarily lead to adaptation (Berkes, 2009).Second, enhancing fit may come with costs and risks, as highlighted in a recent evaluationof social–ecological fit in the case of walrus co-management (Robards & Lovecraft, 2010).Third, enhancing fit requires attention beyond small-scale settings and needs to also con-sider larger governance forces and social–ecological system dynamics (Galaz et al., 2008).As Berkes astutely observes, there are no ready-made formulas for governance approachessuch as adaptive co-management and “. . . they must be tailor-made to fit the contexts ofparticular cases” (2007, p. 31).

Adaptive co-management explicitly brings together the linking spirit of collaborativemanagement with the ongoing and experimental (learning) nature of adaptive management(Armitage, Berkes, & Doubleday, 2007). In building on these established narratives in nat-ural resource management, adaptive co-management is conceived as governance involvingdifferent actors who interact across scales to solve problems, make decisions, and under-take actions (Fennell, Plummer, & Marschke, 2008; Berkes, 2007; Carlsson & Berkes,2005). Key features of adaptive co-management include: interaction of actors with vary-ing interests, communicative and interactive social processes, shared decision-making andauthority, cross-scale and cross-level networks and interactions, retention of flexibility andautonomy by actors; learning; and, the capacity to change and adapt (Armitage et al.,2007; Folke, Hahn, Olsson, & Norberg, 2005; Plummer & Armitage, 2007; Plummer &Fennell, 2009).

Adaptive co-management has the potential to enhance the fit between governanceand biophysical systems and to ultimately sustain complex social–ecological systems(Olsson, Folke, & Berkes, 2004). However, adaptive co-management must be “fit” to theexigencies of a particular context and considerable care must therefore be taken whentransferring or applying the approach in difference places and circumstances. Notably, thenotion of context has received relatively little treatment in natural resource management

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

02:

46 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

224 R. Plummer and A. Hashimoto

scholarship. This article aims to address this shortfall by exploring the construct of con-text in adaptive co-management and how it can more meaningfully be incorporated whenconsidering the application or transfer of such collaborative conservation approaches. Thisarticle is conceptual in nature and inductive in orientation. It is framed with an explorativesummary of context and contextual analysis in the literature associated with collaborativeconservation. Specific observations are then offered regarding contextual characteristicsand key features of adaptive co-management in two distinct case studies—a recreationalfishery in Ontario, Canada and a shell fishery on Kyushu Island, Japan. In moving fromthe specific to the general, a framework to guide further research and assist profession-als is proposed. The framework highlights aspects to consider when applying adaptiveco-management that may ultimately enhance adaptability or fit.

Context, Contextual Analysis, and Collaborative Conservation

The term context, literally translated from the Latin contextus (to weave), is an appropriatedescriptor of the rich and textured character of natural resource management (Edwards &Steins, 1999). Indeed, a deeper understanding of context concurs with Zimmermann’s clas-sical understanding of natural resource management: “resources are not, they become;they are not static but expand and contract in response to human wants and humanactions” (1951, p. 15 as cited in Mitchell, 1989, p. 2). He asserted that since responses toresources are characterized by subjectivity, relativism and functionality, what is regardedas a resource in one situation may therefore be “neutral stuff” in another. Positioned againstthis background, the term context in this paper generally refers to the circumstances thatsurround and shape a situation. In applying the term to natural resources, context encom-passes the dynamic forces at a range of scales (local to global) that define what is feasibleand what is desirable from a resource (Edwards & Steins, 1999).

The process of contextual analysis has tended to be paradoxical. In common propertyresource theory, for example, contextual factors have traditionally neither been explicitlyidentified nor measured (notable exceptions include geographical location, nature of theresource and duration of study) and yet this theory has relied heavily on bounded rationalityto investigate collective actions (Edwards & Steins, 1999). In identifying a similar problem,Berkes and Folke (1998) employed the analogy of a “black box” to describe the exoge-nous treatment of either the ecological or social systems, depending on the orientation ofthe author. Not only did they argue that a wider range of considerations be required toachieve sustainability, but they underlined the importance of establishing linkages betweensocial and ecological systems. Honadle (1999) subsequently outlined the following tacticaland strategic reasons for understanding context in relation to environmental policy and forlinking it to specific people and places: that is, since a policy appropriate in one localemay be disastrous in another, context must be appreciated so as to inform policy formula-tion adequately. Thus, in the absence of contextual sensitivity, the effectiveness of policyimplementation and practice is limited.

Scholarship associated with collaborative conservation—and specifically that con-cerning common property resources—is gradually coming to emphasize the impor-tance of understanding context. Plummer and FitzGibbon (2004) have distinguishedco-management from among other allied approaches to collaborative conservation (e.g.,collaboration, partnerships, community-based) and have synthesized literature on the sub-ject to develop a conceptual framework for understanding it. Further, they have identifiedcontext as a fundamental parameter in defining co-management, identifying characteristicsof the resources, acknowledging competing claims of property rights and recognizing “. . .

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

02:

46 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

Adaptive Co-Management and Collaborative Conservation 225

the spectrum of potential institutional arrangements at the nexus of bureaucracy, commu-nity, and market-based approaches” (Plummer & FitzGibbon, 2004, p. 879). The specificcomponents (antecedents or preconditions, characteristics, outcomes) and linking mecha-nisms (collaboration as an emergent inter-organizational process) are also addressed. Inanother example, Napier, Branch, and Harris (2005) have quantitatively examined theextent to which co-management by agencies and communities of South African subsis-tence fisheries has been successful. Indeed, they claimed that background informationcollected (e.g., distance to an economic center, community size) “. . . was summarizedqualitatively to provide context” (Napier et al., 2005, p. 168). While these examples illus-trate an emerging appreciation of context, its application nonetheless remains limited inthe broader common property literature outlined above.

Researchers are becoming increasingly interested in other aspects of context, such asculture. Berkes and Folke wrote: “We assume that every society has its own means andadaptations to deal with its natural environment, its own cultural capital” (1998, p. 13).In the common property discourse, cultural capital describes how societies convert ele-ments in the environment (natural capital) into products, including institutions (Berkes &Folke, 1998). Folke, Berkes, and Colding (1998) went further and suggested that innovativeapproaches to resource management are contingent on being open to multiple worldviewsand expressions of cultural values. This approach was largely initiated by anthropologistswho tended to focus on collaborative arrangements between First Nations Peoples and thestate. For example, Nadasdy’s (2003) ethnographic investigation of the Kluane people ledhim to argue that foundational concepts to co-management of knowledge and property ren-der it incompatible with some cultures. In the same way, Natcher, Davis, and Hickey (2005)have investigated the extent to which culturally diverse groups have impacted Canada’sland claims process vis-à-vis co-management. Their analysis has revealed that culturaldistance can be a formidable obstacle, especially when there are perceptual differencespertaining to the environment and associated values.

In response to the paradoxical treatment of context in considerations of the envi-ronment, a few noteworthy frameworks have been developed for studying situations,especially concerning common pool resources. George Honadle (1999) offered a compre-hensive treatment of context in terms of the way environmental policy relates to people andplaces. He conceptualized a scenario in which the path from policy to impacts begins withpolicy formulation and then moves on to context. In this article we generally follow hiscategorization of the problem context and the social context, where the former involves thedimensions of discretion (connection to surroundings), severity (temporal speed of deterio-ration), mobility, and boundaries (ecological and administrative). The latter, social context,consists of six dimensions: informational openness/political culture; interorganizationalpower balance; salience; process requirements of the culture(s); scale, space, and infras-tructure; and the resource decision system. He went on to argue that “the question remains,however, of how tightly glued together these elements are, how central they are to a socialsystems, and how immutable they are” (Honadle, 1999, p. 96). The embeddedness of thesituation is an important factor insofar as it is tied to political economy (resource depen-dence), psychological dependency and emerging opportunities (fluidity). Other scholars(e.g., Kiser & Ostrom, 1982; Granovetter, 1985) similarly acknowledged the relationshipbetween institutions or social structures and individual actions. Context and embeddednessthus can influence behavior and ultimately impact resource management.

Arguing that contextual factors need to be explicitly identified in common poolresource research, Edwards and Steins defined contextual factors as such: “. . . dynamicforces constituted in the user groups’ social, cultural, economic, political, technologicaland institutional environment . . .” (Edwards & Steins, 1999, p. 207). Indeed, they exist

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

02:

46 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

226 R. Plummer and A. Hashimoto

along a continuum: with local factors directly influencing (and being influenced by) thecommunity at one end and, at the other end, remote factors that are exogenous to the regimeand typically beyond the users’ control. In recognizing the challenges associated withidentifying the roles of contextual factors in complex systems as well as in field settings,Edwards and Steins advocated the employment of an analytical framework that elaboratedon the works of Oakerson (1992) and Ostrom (1990). This framework consists of three cat-egories of characteristics (physical/technological, institutional, and user/community) thatconflate to produce action strategies, patterns of interactions and outcomes.

More recently, Ostrom has cautioned that “we should stop striving for simpleanswers to solve complex problems” (2007, p. 15182). In building on her well-establishedInstitutional Analysis and Development approach (see Ostrom, 2005), she has advanced anested diagnostic framework for the analysis of social–ecological systems. At the broad-est level, this framework captures four highest-tier variables (resource system, resourceunits, governance system, users) that influence—and are influenced by—interactions andoutcomes. It is further situated between settings (social, economic, and political) andrelated ecosystems. In stressing the decomposability of complex systems, she has alsoemployed a multiple-tier approach to demonstrate specificity at deeper levels and therange of interactive effects across them (Ostrom, 2007). In discussing different researchapproaches and methods (abstract analytical models, case studies, meta-analyses) toanalyze social–ecological systems, she has concluded that

. . . a generally accepted multitier nested framework will help scholars identifyat what conceptual level their research is located and how research undertakenat multiple conceptual levels using diverse methods complements, rather thancompletes with, research using other methods and other levels. (Ostrom, 2007,p. 15186)

Fishery Case Studies from Japan and Canada

Two case studies are considered in this section—a recreational fishery in Ontario, Canada,and a shell fishery on Kyushu Island, Japan. Consistent with general practice in case-studyresearch (Yin, 1994; Shakir, 2002), these examples were purposefully selected as matchesfor the stated inquiry of better understanding context and adaptive co-management.Although different types of case studies exist, ours sought to provide initial descriptionsto show a situation or phenomenon (i.e., context and adaptive co-management) and there-fore can be considered exploratory (Yin 1994), instrumental (Stake, 1995), and illustrative(Lynn, 1991). In line with the inductive orientation of the article, we use the literature toinform our exploration of these cases. More specifically, the following cases illustrate theshared and unique contextual characteristics (e.g., commonly addressed fishery resources,different geographical locations, unique cultures) and the reflection of key features of adap-tive co-management (e.g., interaction of actors with varying interests, communicative andinteractive social processes, shared decision-making and authority, cross-scale and cross-level networks and interactions, flexibility and autonomy; learning; and, the capacity tochange and adapt).

Shell Fishery, Oita, Japan

Japan is a nation of islands: in addition to its four main ones, there are an additional6,852 smaller islands located along the Pacific Ring of Fire. Approximately 70% of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

02:

46 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

Adaptive Co-Management and Collaborative Conservation 227

land area of 37,800 km2 area is mountainous (JNTO, 2007). Oita Prefecture is locatedon Kyushu Island in the southern part of Japan. Waters surrounding the Island are sim-ilar to an inland sea—calm, shallow coast-lines with a sandy/muddy floor and relativelywarm water throughout the year. The many species of shellfish (including Mirukui, Torigai,Iwagaki, and Hamaguri) are mainly sold to Central Fish Market (national distribution cen-ter). Increased harvesting levels and pollution have caused a decline in many of thesepopulations since the 1970s. Indeed, the Shallow Water Lab in Oita records that a wholesalevolume of 30,000 tons of Asari peaked in 1985, but that stocks had been decimated by 1990(Oita Prefectural Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Research Center, Fisheries ResearchInstitute, 2006). In the same way, Mirukui, which has a much higher market value (BouzConnyaku, 2009) used to be abundant. The combination of over-harvesting along withrecent climate changes (especially El Niño and El Niña, red tides, etc.) have precipitateddrastic declines in stocks of fish, crustaceans, and seaweed in the region around Oita.

Social context is fundamental to understanding adaptive co-management as a problemsolving process in Japan and specifically in the Oita Shell fishery as it undoubtedly hashistorical roots in the feudal era. The community was the social unit of focus for Japaneseworking in agriculture, fisheries, and forestry. As competition for resources increased, eachfeudal territory or “Han” (the predecessor to the prefecture) protected its fishery resourcesin these isolated communities through a strict hierarchy from feudal lord down to thefisherman, and hence the cooperative system was established in the 14th century. Thetraditional Ringi system encourages broad vertical and horizontal participation and con-sensus in decision- and policy-making through interactions of actors with varying interests.Moreover, the well-known “Theory Z” by William Ouchi identified the key characteristicsof successful business culture in Japan. These included collective responsibility, shareddecision-making and a holistic attitude toward employees in which they are treated as“family members” (Ouchi, 1981).

With a long history of authoritarianism, the Japanese government oversees fisheriesmanagement while prefectural and municipal authorities carry the responsibility for man-aging local fisheries. Within the government, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry andFisheries (MAFF) in corporation with other ministries and departments regulates interna-tional issues such as the UNFAO and territorial disputes as well as directing research onmore universal concerns about the industry. Meanwhile, MAFF also oversees matters relat-ing to domestic fisheries such as licensing fishing co-operatives and individuals along withmore local research and workshops.

The Law on the Fisheries Co-operatives (1948) sought to enhance the socioeconomicpower of the fisheries industry and to increase levels of production (Government of Japan,n.d.). Local fishing communities are expected to report any resource-related concerns andto collaborate with any resource management strategies. In 2007 the Kaiyou Kihon-hou(Laws of Oceans) was passed guaranteeing the rights of these co-operatives and the histor-ically enshrined resource management systems followed by individual fishing communities(Nakajima, 2008).

In continuing the spirit of the 14th-century fisheries cooperatives, the present fish-eries management system protects the interests of the local fishermen, but also requireseach individual fisherman participate in resource management activities as directed byprefectural and municipal governmental authorities. Power sharing, communication, andinteraction thus occur across scales and levels as all involved in the process receive infor-mation and express opinions. Shared decision-making and authority is facilitated by theexistence of deliberately vague governmental gyosei shido [administrative guidelines], thatgive ministry officials sufficient flexibility to undertake their responsibilities (Barclay &

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

02:

46 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

228 R. Plummer and A. Hashimoto

Koh, 2005). This approach is integral to the Japanese management system, and in line withTheory Z, it encourages those closest to the problem to develop appropriate solutions. Thevagueness and latitude afforded by such guidelines encourages flexibility, experimentationand adaptability to address regional issues.

Within Oita prefecture, the Shallow Water Laboratory is responsible for overseeingfishery activities in the inland sea. It is organized into a number of divisions and eachone has a specific aim. For example, the Recovery Division aims to restore species indecline and enhance the health of the fishery for the future. Other divisions are concernedwith the introduction of new species, the development of new aquaculture methods, andthe prevention and handling of disease. An overarching challenge for the Shallow WaterLaboratory is to keep diminishing stock levels healthy while responding to demand fromelsewhere in the country.

In response to urgent requests from the local fishing communities, the Laboratoryhas recently initiated several projects to help recover stocks of fish (migratory andnative species), seaweed and crustaceans. These initiatives illustrate how an adaptiveco-management arrangement addresses a conservation challenge beyond the ability ofindividual fishermen. For example, the recovery of Mirukui stocks in Oita waters takeconsiderable time and effort and have shown mixed results (Hayashi, Etou, & Hirakawa,2009b). It will take three years before the research center can release farmed shellfishinto the ocean and observe the settlement and multiplication of the shellfish in the naturalhabitats, and even longer before fishermen can begin harvesting the shellfish once again(Hayashi, Etou, & Hirakawa, 2009a; Kurokawa, Kiyabu, Ogawa & Imoto, 1997). Anotherexample is the introduction of a new species of Iwagaki summer oyster (Crassostreanippona) in Oita water in Morie Bay of Kitsuki City where other winter colonies areoccasionally found (Hayashi, Etou, & Hirakawa, 2009c). Initial results of an experimentby the Fisheries Research Institute to introduce the Iwagaki species are quite promising(Hayashi, Etou, & Hirakawa, 2009d). Similarly, the Shallow Water Laboratory has devel-oped an effective method to breed, grow, release and resettle Asari shellfish, with a targetof 2.5 million in the second phase of the project (personal communication, 2010).

Recreational Fisheries Management in the Grand River, Ontario, Canada

The Grand River watershed is located in the southern part of the province of Ontario,Canada. The 6,800 km2 in area is characterized as being 93% rural and 7% urban (Nelson,2004). From the first settlement of Europeans in that late 1700s to the 1950s, the eco-logical health of the Grand River watershed and its water quality has declined rapidly.Causes include deforestation, draining of wetlands, erosion, and pollution. Not surpris-ingly, the fishery associated with the watershed has also deteriorated. Indeed, stocks ofnative species (e.g., sturgeon, muskellunge and brook trout) plummeted in the first half ofthe 20th century; and by 1966, a Ministry of the Environment survey revealed the com-plete absence of smallmouth bass and northern pike upstream of Brantford (Grand RiverFisheries Management Plan Implementation Committee, 2005). Discrete and site-bounddischarges into the river from industrial pollution were relatively easily addressed in the1970s, thus ensuring a marked improvement of the quality of both water and fishery stocks(Grand River Conservation Authority, 2008). The fishery began to “turn around” in theearly 1980s, and the watershed now contains 82 species of fish.

Social context as it pertains to this case is shaped by the resource decision-makingsystem, the balance of inter-organizational power and political culture. The British North

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

02:

46 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

Adaptive Co-Management and Collaborative Conservation 229

American Act of 1867 divided natural resources according to proprietary rights and legisla-tive authority; thus today resources are generally owned by the provinces and legislativeauthority is mixed between Government of Canada and the provinces (Mitchell, 2004).The province of Ontario created watershed agencies through the Conservation AuthoritiesAct in 1946 investing in them the authority to “establish and undertake, in the area overwhich it has jurisdiction, a program designed to further the conservation, restoration,development and management of natural resources other than gas, oil, coal and miner-als” (Government of Ontario, 1990, c. C.27, s. 20.). Under this umbrella, the Grand RiverConservation Authority (GRCA) was formed in 1966 and has collaboratively undertakenmanagement of natural resources within the Grand River watershed (see Veale, 2004 for asummary).

An important dimension to the social context of this watershed resource is the unre-solved land claim under the Haldimand Proclamation of 1784 as well as the presence ofthe most populous First Nations reserve in Canada, the Six Nations of the Grand River.In response to the former, the Grand River Notification Agreement was constructed andsigned in 1996 as a way to share information without prejudicing the land claim (seeGeneral, Plummer, Isaac, & FitzGibbon, 2004). A myriad of values associated with theriver (e.g., cultural and natural heritage, aesthetic, outdoor recreation) were formally recog-nized in 1994 when it was named a Canadian Heritage River for its outstanding recreationaland cultural attributes.

The Grand River Fisheries Management Planning process was initiated in 1995 as acomponent of a larger watershed management plan in partnership between the GRCA andthe Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. In response to the absence of funding at thetime, the actors involved pursued an innovative approach reflective of the collaborativeand adaptive hallmarks of adaptive co-management. Cherry, former Supervisor with theOntario Ministry of Natural Resources, remarked: “this was an unusual step, [as] until thistime no watershed based fisheries management plan had ever been prepared in Ontario withco-chairs from the province and the local conservation authority” (2003, p. 6). A steeringcommittee of horizontally and vertically connected networks representing fisheries’ inter-ests throughout the watershed was formed: a total of 23 individuals (10 representativesfrom nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and angling groups and 13 from governmentagencies) agreed to participate.

Background technical information was compiled in 1995, which was initially sharedwith the public a year later through a series of five town-hall meetings hosted by NGOand private sector representatives. The information shared and knowledge generated by the300 participants helped the committee develop a draft plan, which was presented back tothe “public” through a second series of town-hall meetings in 1997. The final plan wasadopted in 1998 by both the GRCA and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (GrandRiver Conservation Authority & Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 1998).

The subsequent Implementation Committee (composed of both private and publicactors) identified and prioritized 42 specific projects to be conducted when funds ofan estimated of $4.5 million become available (Cherry, 2003). It was supported by aco-ordinator and a technical advisory committee (also public–private) and functionedthrough several sub-committees (e.g., assessment and evaluation of migratory fish, tail-water fishery plan) and an extensive network of volunteers (e.g., anglers, NGOs, residents,businesses). Highlights among the numerous actions achieved include: the “ExceptionalWaters” community planning process for the reach of river from Paris to Brantford andcorresponding resource management plan; the ongoing stocking of Brown Trout and devel-opment of a more specific tailwater fisheries management plan; fisheries inventorying

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

02:

46 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

230 R. Plummer and A. Hashimoto

and assessment; creation of multiple access sites and accompanying interpretive signage;and, ongoing public involvement/awareness such as celebratory dinners. In 2004 theImplementation Committee prepared and distributed an update to communicate progressof the specific projects as well as to highlight actions taken by individuals, organizations,and communities regarding aquatic habitat protection.

In 1998, a mechanism for providing ongoing feedback about the actions was agreedin the form of a series of public information sessions to be held every five years. Thetwo that have occurred—in 2001 and in 2006—provided opportunities to share milestonesaccomplished and to garner input on further projects. They also represent evidence of fur-ther learning through reflection and building capacity for adaptation. Those involved in theGrand River fisheries management planning process have offered critical reflections aboutits distinctiveness from the traditional way of managing resources in Ontario. For example,a now retired representative of the government wrote that:

It should be recognized that this was a significant shift in direction from pastpractices in preparing resource management plans. The decision to involvethe public in actually preparing the plan meant that the steering committeerepresentatives had to undergo a paradigm shift to relinquish control of theprocess and allow the public to assume much of the responsibility. (Cherry,2003, p. 11)

The magnitude of this shift and the extent to which the process represents an innovativeapproach to conserve and develop recreational fisheries was recognized with the NationalRecreational Fisheries Award, granted by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) in 2009.Larry Mellors, a citizen and avid angler who has been involved throughout the process andserved on several committees, offered that “this plan has been applauded and held up as ashining success by many organizations across Canada” (Baine, 2009, p. 3).

Tailoring Adaptive Co-management and Enhancing Fit: A ProposedFramework

Given the inductive nature of this article, we build on the literature associated with contextin natural resource management and the distinct case studies of adaptive co-managementto offer a framework (Figure 1) for researchers and practitioners. In the framework wepropose what to consider when tailoring adaptive co-management to a particular situ-ation as well as how its outcomes may contribute to enhancing fit. Specific influentialelements associated with each aspect are identified, as synthesized from the literature andas illuminated by the case studies.

The initial portion of the framework is based on the pioneering work of Honadle(1999) and illustrates the setting that adaptive co-management negotiates as it emerges,is implemented or is transferred. The first aspect for consideration is context. Major influ-ential elements of setting context include the problem or resource situation (i.e., discretion,progression, mobility, boundary) as well as social conditions (i.e., culture; power; salience;scale, space and infrastructure; resource decision structure). In regards to context, the casestudies demonstrate the extent to which adaptive co-management has traction in diverseresource situations. Both the fishery case studies demonstrate connectedness to broaderaspects of the environment (e.g., water quality) and largely occur within a defined bound-ary, the Grand River Watershed in Ontario and the Inland Sea in Japan. In the case of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

02:

46 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

Adaptive Co-Management and Collaborative Conservation 231

Resource dependency Psychological dependency Fluidity

Ecological system Livelihoods Process

Social-Ecological Resilience –Sustainable Trajectories Plummer &Armitage (2007)

Embeddedness (Honadle, 1999 p. 104)

Problem (Resource) Context

Discreteness Progression (connections) (temporal)

Mobility

Social Context

Culture Power Salience

Scale, space & Resource decisioninfrastructure system

ContextAdapted from Honadle (1999); Edwards and Steins (1999)

Setting of Adaptive Co-management

Outcomes of Adaptive Co-management

Boundary

Figure 1. A framework for tailoring adaptive co-management and enhancing adaptability.

former, mobility is an added consideration as fish migrate from Lake Eire and dams impedetheir movement. While the Oita shell fishery does not share these mobility characteristics,the progression or temporal cycle from seed to maturity is an important concern, as are theimpacts from climatic changes in exceeding critical thresholds. The cases also illustratehow the social context shapes adaptive co-management. In the Grand River case study,a marked departure was taken from reliance on the conventional resources managementdecision-making system to one involving power sharing committees and the involvementof citizen resource stakeholders with a propensity for volunteer involvement. In the Oitacase, traditions of collective commonwealth (collective good before individual good) andcooperation are deeply embedded in Japanese culture, even though the salience of theresource to the livelihood of individuals’ is significant. Adaptive co-management in theOtia fishery as a problem-solving process thus involves direction from authoritarian gov-ernmental agencies at the federal, prefectural, and municipal levels with participation andinput by resource users and a sensitivity to specific regional needs via flexible guidelines.

The second aspect for consideration within the setting is embeddedness.Embeddedness is concerned with “the centrality of a resource to the local lifestyle [that]can either complicate or simplify efforts at policy change” and includes characteristicsof resource dependency, psychological dependency and fluidity (Honadle, 1999, p. 104).Adaptive co-management in the Grand River fishery case encountered a situation that wasinitially not embedded insofar as there was relatively low dependence on the recreationalnature of the fishery. This situation has changed over time as various commercial activitiessuch as guiding services and outfitters now depend on its vibrancy. Moreover, althoughthe many people who closely identified themselves with the river resource and fisheryprecipitated the extensive volunteer participation and engagement, it was the adaptive

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

02:

46 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

232 R. Plummer and A. Hashimoto

co-management approach that provided an opportunity for their voices to be heard. At thesame time, few individuals clung to entrenched management mechanisms; but the views ofthose who did were changed over time. As a result, the initial lack of funding created a fluidsituation in which the search for novel solutions and approaches was welcomed. Adaptiveco-management strategies are deeply embedded in the Oita case. Fishermen depend on thewell-being of the fishery for their own sustenance as well as a source of livelihood. Theauthoritative and hierarchical society is firmly established and longstanding: the benefitsfor the entire “community” (indeed, a “nation”) instead are embraced as being more impor-tant than individual needs or rights. The flexible guidelines that encourage local problemsolving, experimentation, and adaptation to regional situations provide a mechanism toaddress resource upheaval, in this situation brought about by a myriad of environmentaland socioeconomic factors.

The second portion of the framework is based on the work of Plummer and Armitage(2007) and focuses consideration on the relationship between the setting and the multi-faceted outcomes of adaptive co-management. As Plummer and Armitage (2007, p. 65)have observed, “the instrumental rationale of adaptive co-management is sustainability: itaims to solve resource problems through a collaborative process which fosters ecologi-cally sustainable livelihoods.” They have argued that resilience thinking offers a unifyingconcept when evaluating the impacts of adaptive co-management since it highlights com-ponents that speak to ecology, livelihood, and process. While each case study exhibitedimpacts related to these components, different specific outcomes appeared in the twocases. For the Grand River fisheries case study, these include both tangible manifestations(e.g., resource management plans, codified statements of action) as well as intangible out-comes (e.g., enhanced legitimization for policies, ongoing use of co-operative approaches).For the Oita case study, sanctions and new strategies for conservation experiments, incor-poration of creative ideas, and enhanced capacity and learning at the local level have allbeen agreed upon. From the patterns exhibited in these cases it appears that (1) the settingshapes adaptive co-management and its outcomes and (2) adaptive co-management and itsoutcomes shape the setting. Adaptive co-management, as a dynamic and ongoing problemsolving process that aims to address complexity and uncertainty (Berkes, 2007), offers amechanism for ongoing adaptability. This is represented by the synchronization symbol inFigure 1 that is positioned between the setting and outcomes of adaptive co-management.

Conclusion

Adaptive co-management is garnering considerable attention because it uniquely combinesthe cooperative and participatory elements of collaborative management and the iterativeand learning aspects of adaptive management. While it has tremendous potential to addressthe “problem of fit,” its applicability or transferability are challenging for two reasons:first, there are “no ready-made formulas”; and second, it must be “tailor-made” to theparticular case (Berkes, 2007, p. 31). Honadle (1999) has noted the challenges associatedwith generalizing policies and programs and implementing strategies when dealing withnatural resources. In arguing that they must be fit to a local context, he strongly advocatedthe need for situational thinking. In the same way, an understanding of context shouldplay a more central role in issues related to adaptive co-management and, more broadly,collaborative conservation.

Through exploring the natural resource and environmental management literatureassociated with context and probing two distinct case studies, this article has identifiedaspects and elements of settings that influence adaptive co-management. Examinations of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

02:

46 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

Adaptive Co-Management and Collaborative Conservation 233

the Grand River recreational fishery and the Oita shell fishery case studies illustrate theextent to which collaborative conservation strategies—such as adaptive co-management—can become uniquely manifest in specific situations. One size does not fit all in applyingcollaborative conservation strategies and there are inherent difficulties in both applicabilityand transferability.

Coming to terms with misfits between biophysical systems and governance as wellas harnessing strategies that enhance their synchronicity is essential in the face of com-plexity and uncertainty (Galaz et al., 2008). Adaptive co-management is recognized forits potential to enhance fit. The framework developed and advanced herein seeks to assistresearchers, practitioners and policy makers when considering adaptive co-managementand issues of collaborative conservation in general. The framework proposes what to con-sider when tailoring adaptive co-management to a particular setting and how its outcomesmay contribute to enhancing fit with a particular situation. This study signals the valuein future deductive research where the proposed framework is used to examine adaptiveco-management, other settings, and the problem of fit.

References

Armitage, D., Berkes, F., & Doubleday, N. (2007). Introduction: Moving beyond co-management.In D. Armitage, F. Berkes, & N. Doubleday (Eds.), Adaptive co-management: Collaboration,learning and multi-level governance (pp. 1–18). Vancouver, Canada: UBC Press.

Baine, J. (2009). National award for Grand fishery committee. Grand Actions (May/June), 3.Barclay, J., & Koh, S.-H. (2005). Neoliberalism in Japan’s tuna fisheries? Government intervention

and reform in the distant water longline industry. (International and Development EconomicsWorking Paper No. 05-2). Asia Pacific School of Economics and Government, the AustralianNational University. Retrieved from http://www.eaber.org/intranet/documents/26/556/APSEG_Barclay_05.pdf

Berkes, F. (2007). Adaptive co-management and complexity: Exploring the many faces of co-management. In D. Armitage, F. Berkes, & N. Doubleday (Eds.), Adaptive co-management:Collaboration, learning and multi-level governance (pp. 19–38). Vancouver, Canada: UBC Press.

Berkes, F. (2009). Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organiza-tions and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 1692–1702.

Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (1998). Linking sustainability and ecological systems for resilience and sus-tainability. In F. Berkes & C. Folke (Eds.), Linking social and ecological systems (pp. 1–27).Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Bouz Connyaku. (2009). Suzhi-zukan. In Sushi encyclopaedia. Retrieved from http://sushi.zukan-bouz.com/sushi_id/13

Carlsson, L., & Berkes, F. (2005). Co-management: Concepts and methodological implications.Journal of Environmental Management, 75, 65–76.

Cherry, D. (2003). Process manual for the preparation of the Grand River Fisheries ManagementPlan. (Technical Report). Cambridge, Canada: Grand River Conservation Authority.

Dolowitz, D. P., & Marsh, D. (2000). Learning from abroad: The role of policy transfer in con-temporary policy making. Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration,13(1), 5–24.

Edwards, V. M., & Steins, N. A. (1999). A framework for analyzing contextual factors in commonpool resource research. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 1, 205–221.

Fennell, D., Plummer, R., & Marschke, M. (2008). Is adaptive co-management ethical? Journal ofEnvironmental Management, 88(1), 62–75.

Folke, C., Berkes, F., & Colding, J. (1998). Ecological practices and social mechanisms for buildingresilience and sustainability. In F. Berkes & C. Folke (Eds.), Linking social and ecological systems(pp. 414–437). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

02:

46 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

234 R. Plummer and A. Hashimoto

Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecologicalsystems. The Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 441–473.

Folke, C., Pritchard, L. Jr., Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Svedin U. (1998). The problem of fit betweenecosystems and institutions. A Report for the IHDP. Bonn, Germany: International HumanDimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change.

Folke, C., Pritchard, L., Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Svedin, U. (2007). The problem of fit betweenecosystems and institutions: Ten years later. Ecology and Society, 12(1), 30. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art30/

Galaz, V., Olsson, P., Hahn, T., Folke, C., & Svedin, U. (2008). The problem of fit between ecosys-tems and governance systems: Insights and emerging challenges. In O. Young, L. A. King, &H. Schroeder (Eds.), The institutional dimensions of global environmental change: Principalfindings and future directions (pp. 147–186). Boston, MA: MIT Press.

General, P., Isaac, M., Plummer, R., & FitzGibbon, J. (2004). A way forward for Six Nations ofthe Grand River: Onkwehow:we. In G. Nelson (Ed.), Towards a grand sense of place (pp. 177–190). Waterloo, Canada: Environments Publications and the University of Waterloo GeographyPublications Series.

Government of Japan. (n.d.) Suisangyou Kyoudou Kumiai Hou. Retrieved from http://law.egov.go.jp/cgibin/idxselect.cgi

Government of Ontario. (1990). Conservation Authorities Act. R.S.O. C. 27. Toronto, Canada:Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Retrieved from http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90c27_ev002.htm

Grand River Conservation Authority & Ontario Ministry of Natural Resoruces. (1998). Grand Riverfisheries management plan. Cambridge, Ontario: Grand River Conservation Authority?

Grand River Conservation Authority. (2008). Charting a new course. Retrieved fromhttp://www.grandriver.ca/publication/2008_fall_grand.pdf

Grand River Fisheries Management Plan Implementation Committee. (2005). A community-basedapproach to fisheries management in the Grand River watershed. (CD Rom). Cambridge, Canada:Grand River Conservation Authority.

Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness.American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.

Hayashi, K., Etou, J., & Hirakawa, S. (2009a). Shallow water aquaculture (1) MIRUKUI seedproduction. Jigyou Houkoku [Annual Report] (pp. 147–148). Oita, Japan: Oita PrefecturalAgriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Research Center, Fisheries Research Institute.

Hayashi, K., Etou, J., & Hirakawa, S. (2009b). Shallow water aquaculture (2) MIRUKUI farm-ing. Jigyou Houkoku [Annual Report] (pp. 149–150). Oita, Japan: Oita Prefectural Agriculture,Forestry and Fisheries Research Center, Fisheries Research Institute.

Hayashi, K., Etou, J., & Hirakawa, S. (2009c). Shallow water aquaculture (3) IWAGAKI seedproduction. Jigyou Houkoku [Annual Report] (pp. 151–153). Oita, Japan: Oita PrefecturalAgriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Research Center, Fisheries Research Institute.

Hayashi, K., Etou, J., & Hirakawa, S. (2009d). Shallow water aquaculture (4) IWAGAKI farm-ing. Jigyou Houkoku [Annual Report] (pp. 154–156). Oita, Japan: Oita Prefectural Agriculture,Forestry and Fisheries Research Center, Fisheries Research Institute.

Honadle, G. (1999). How context matters. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.Japan National Touirst Organization (JNTO). (2007). Winter in Japan. Retrieved from

http://www.jnto.go.jp/eng/Kiser, L., & Ostrom, E. (1982). The three worlds of action: A meta-theoretical synthesis of insti-

tutional approaches. In E. Ostrom (Ed.), Strategies of political inquiry (pp. 179–222). BeverleyHills, CA: Sage.

Kurokawa, A., Kiyabu, H., Ogawa, H., & Imoto, A. (1997). Murukui-gai no Shobyou Seisan,Youshoku Gijutsu Kaihatsu [Mirukui shellfish Seed Production and development of AquacultureTechniques]. Oita, Japan: Oita Prefectural Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Research Center,Fisheries Research Institute. Retrieved from http://feis.fra.affrc.go.jp/seika/h11/feis1127.html

Lynn, D. (1991). The application of case study evaluations. Practical Assessment, Research &Evaluation, 2(9), Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=2&n=9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

02:

46 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

Adaptive Co-Management and Collaborative Conservation 235

Mitchell, B. (1989). Geography and resource analysis (2nd ed). Essex, UK: Longman.Mitchell, B. (2004). Introduction: Policy context, issues and challenges. In B. Mitchell (Ed.),

Resources and environmental management in Canada (pp. 1–19). Don Mills, Canada: OxfordUniversity Press.

Nadasdy, P. (2003). Hunters and bureaucrats: Power, knowledge, and aboriginal-state relations inthe Southwest Yukon. Vancouver, Canada: UBC Press.

Nakajima, M. (2008). “Satoumi” tte Nanadarou? Enkai-iki no Riyou to Rokaru Ruru no Katsuyou[What is “satoumi”? The use of coastal zones and adaptation of Local Rules]. Suisan Shinkou,487(42), 2–83.

Napier, V. R., Branch, G. M., & Harris, J. M. (2005). Evaluating conditions for success-ful co-management of subsistence fisheries in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. EnvironmentalConservation, 32, 165–177.

Natcher, D. C., Davis, S., & Hickey, C. G. (2005). Co-management: Managing relationships, notresources. Human Organization, 64(3), 240–250.

Nelson, G. (2004). Towards a grand sense of place: An introduciton. In G Nelson (Ed.), Towards agrand sense of place (pp. 1–11). Waterloo, Canada: Environments Publications and the Universityof Waterloo Geography Publications Series.

Oakerson, R. (1992). Analyzing the commons: A framework. In D. Bromley (Ed.), Making thecommons work: Theory, practice, and policy (pp. 41–59). San Francisco, CA: Institute forContemporary Studies Press.

Oita Prefectural Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Research Center, Fisheries Research Institute.(2006). Kennkyu Seika Happyoukai: Asaumi Higata Gyojou no Saisei wo MezasHite [Researchpresentation: To rejuvenate shallow water fishing area]. Presentation handout.

Olsson, P., Folke, C., & Berkes, F. (2004). Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in social-ecological systems. Environmental Management, 34(1), 75–90.

Olsson, P., Folke, C., Galaz, V., Hahn, T., & Schultz, L. (2007). Enhancing the fit through adap-tive co-management: Creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in theKristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve Sweden. Ecology and Society, 12(1), 28. Retrievedfrom http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art28/

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective actions.Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Ostrom, E. (2007). A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences, 104(39), 15181–15187.Ouchi, W. (1981) Theory Z: How American business can meet the Japanese challenge. New York,

NY: Avon BooksPlummer, R., & Armitage, D. (2007). A resilience-based framework for evaluating adaptive co-

management: Linking ecology, economy and society in a complex world. Ecological Economics,61, 62–74.

Plummer, R., & Fennell, D. (2009). Managing protected areas for sustainable tourism: Prospects foradaptive co-management. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(2), 149–168.

Plummer, R., & FitzGibbon, J. (2004). Co-management of natural resources: A proposed framework.Environmental Management, 33(6), 876–885.

Robards, M. D., & Lovecraft, A. L. (2010). Evaluating comanagement for social-ecological fit:Indigenous priorities and agency mandates for Pacific Walrus. The Policy Studies Journal, 38(2),257–279.

Shakir, M. (2002). The selection of case studies: Strategies and their applications to IS imple-mentation case studies. Research Letters in the Information and Mathematical Sciences, 3,191–198.

Stake, R. (1995). The art of case research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Veale, B. J. (2004). A decade in the Canadian Heritage Rivers System: A review of the Grand

Strategy. Cambridge, Canada: Grand River Conservation Authority.Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). London, England: Sage.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

02:

46 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014