Adaptive management; adaptive co-management; adaptive governance: what’s the difference?

Lyndal Hasselman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Since the late 1970s, the literature on adaptive management has grown markedly. Active and passive forms have been identified, implementation trialled and institutional requirements explored. Adaptive management is now an accepted quality of governance and, in some cases, a legislative requirement of natural resource management. The concept is widely encouraged; yet, there remain high rates of implementation failure. Confusion on the definition of adaptive management is one cause of implementation errors, with researchers, natural resource managers and policy-makers talking and acting cross-purposes. Adaptive management is variously described as ‘experimental management’, ‘learning by doing’ and ‘structured decision-making’. Adding to the confusion, the related terms adaptive co-management and adaptive governance have also emerged. This article analyses the definitions of adaptive management, adaptive co-management and adaptive governance, highlighting confusion within definitions, between definitions and misinterpretations of definitions. Furthermore, interchangeable use of these terms suggests a lack of additionality. Differing epistemologies, and consequently, interpretations of uncertainty, are shown to be at the core of misinterpretations and ensuing confusion. The findings identify distinguishing dimensions of adaptive management, adaptive co-management and adaptive governance before proposing clear definitions.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)31-46
Number of pages16
JournalAustralasian Journal of Environmental Management
Volume24
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2 Jan 2017

Fingerprint

co-management
comanagement
adaptive management
governance
management
natural resources
natural resource
learning
decision making
epistemology
uncertainty
manager
interpretation
cause
lack

Cite this

@article{986f47a86d7a49b381e673b3561f0d68,
title = "Adaptive management; adaptive co-management; adaptive governance: what’s the difference?",
abstract = "Since the late 1970s, the literature on adaptive management has grown markedly. Active and passive forms have been identified, implementation trialled and institutional requirements explored. Adaptive management is now an accepted quality of governance and, in some cases, a legislative requirement of natural resource management. The concept is widely encouraged; yet, there remain high rates of implementation failure. Confusion on the definition of adaptive management is one cause of implementation errors, with researchers, natural resource managers and policy-makers talking and acting cross-purposes. Adaptive management is variously described as ‘experimental management’, ‘learning by doing’ and ‘structured decision-making’. Adding to the confusion, the related terms adaptive co-management and adaptive governance have also emerged. This article analyses the definitions of adaptive management, adaptive co-management and adaptive governance, highlighting confusion within definitions, between definitions and misinterpretations of definitions. Furthermore, interchangeable use of these terms suggests a lack of additionality. Differing epistemologies, and consequently, interpretations of uncertainty, are shown to be at the core of misinterpretations and ensuing confusion. The findings identify distinguishing dimensions of adaptive management, adaptive co-management and adaptive governance before proposing clear definitions.",
keywords = "Learning, uncertainty, decision-making, knowledge, experiment",
author = "Lyndal Hasselman",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "2",
doi = "10.1080/14486563.2016.1251857",
language = "English",
volume = "24",
pages = "31--46",
journal = "Australasian Journal of Environmental Management",
issn = "2159-5356",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
number = "1",

}

Adaptive management; adaptive co-management; adaptive governance: what’s the difference? / Hasselman, Lyndal.

In: Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 24, No. 1, 02.01.2017, p. 31-46.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Adaptive management; adaptive co-management; adaptive governance: what’s the difference?

AU - Hasselman, Lyndal

PY - 2017/1/2

Y1 - 2017/1/2

N2 - Since the late 1970s, the literature on adaptive management has grown markedly. Active and passive forms have been identified, implementation trialled and institutional requirements explored. Adaptive management is now an accepted quality of governance and, in some cases, a legislative requirement of natural resource management. The concept is widely encouraged; yet, there remain high rates of implementation failure. Confusion on the definition of adaptive management is one cause of implementation errors, with researchers, natural resource managers and policy-makers talking and acting cross-purposes. Adaptive management is variously described as ‘experimental management’, ‘learning by doing’ and ‘structured decision-making’. Adding to the confusion, the related terms adaptive co-management and adaptive governance have also emerged. This article analyses the definitions of adaptive management, adaptive co-management and adaptive governance, highlighting confusion within definitions, between definitions and misinterpretations of definitions. Furthermore, interchangeable use of these terms suggests a lack of additionality. Differing epistemologies, and consequently, interpretations of uncertainty, are shown to be at the core of misinterpretations and ensuing confusion. The findings identify distinguishing dimensions of adaptive management, adaptive co-management and adaptive governance before proposing clear definitions.

AB - Since the late 1970s, the literature on adaptive management has grown markedly. Active and passive forms have been identified, implementation trialled and institutional requirements explored. Adaptive management is now an accepted quality of governance and, in some cases, a legislative requirement of natural resource management. The concept is widely encouraged; yet, there remain high rates of implementation failure. Confusion on the definition of adaptive management is one cause of implementation errors, with researchers, natural resource managers and policy-makers talking and acting cross-purposes. Adaptive management is variously described as ‘experimental management’, ‘learning by doing’ and ‘structured decision-making’. Adding to the confusion, the related terms adaptive co-management and adaptive governance have also emerged. This article analyses the definitions of adaptive management, adaptive co-management and adaptive governance, highlighting confusion within definitions, between definitions and misinterpretations of definitions. Furthermore, interchangeable use of these terms suggests a lack of additionality. Differing epistemologies, and consequently, interpretations of uncertainty, are shown to be at the core of misinterpretations and ensuing confusion. The findings identify distinguishing dimensions of adaptive management, adaptive co-management and adaptive governance before proposing clear definitions.

KW - Learning

KW - uncertainty

KW - decision-making

KW - knowledge

KW - experiment

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84994831723&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/14486563.2016.1251857

DO - 10.1080/14486563.2016.1251857

M3 - Article

VL - 24

SP - 31

EP - 46

JO - Australasian Journal of Environmental Management

JF - Australasian Journal of Environmental Management

SN - 2159-5356

IS - 1

ER -