Abstract
Collaborative management, or co-management, is recognized as best practice for protected area management. A vast literature explores the benefits and challenges of implementing co-management, but more literature is not always better. We propose that the term co-management has been uncritically “stretched”, losing its original framing of actors working together collaboratively. Co-management has become a facade under which traditional hierarchical and market-based management regimes can occur. Conceptual stretching inhibits the capacity to critically articulate variations within models of collaborative governance. We investigate this stretching through a nuanced framework of co-management models with varying intensities. By considering participating actors, institutions and delivery objectives, the theoretically informed and empirically tested framework highlights the stretched implementation of co-management, enabling protected area managers an opportunity to align their practice with the promise of co-management.
| Language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages | 1-19 |
| Number of pages | 19 |
| Journal | Society and Natural Resources |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | E-pub ahead of print - 11 Jan 2019 |
Fingerprint
Cite this
}
Framing up the “Stretching” of Co-Management. / Pearson, Leonie J.; Dare, Melanie (Lain).
In: Society and Natural Resources, 11.01.2019, p. 1-19.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
TY - JOUR
T1 - Framing up the “Stretching” of Co-Management
AU - Pearson, Leonie J.
AU - Dare, Melanie (Lain)
PY - 2019/1/11
Y1 - 2019/1/11
N2 - Collaborative management, or co-management, is recognized as best practice for protected area management. A vast literature explores the benefits and challenges of implementing co-management, but more literature is not always better. We propose that the term co-management has been uncritically “stretched”, losing its original framing of actors working together collaboratively. Co-management has become a facade under which traditional hierarchical and market-based management regimes can occur. Conceptual stretching inhibits the capacity to critically articulate variations within models of collaborative governance. We investigate this stretching through a nuanced framework of co-management models with varying intensities. By considering participating actors, institutions and delivery objectives, the theoretically informed and empirically tested framework highlights the stretched implementation of co-management, enabling protected area managers an opportunity to align their practice with the promise of co-management.
AB - Collaborative management, or co-management, is recognized as best practice for protected area management. A vast literature explores the benefits and challenges of implementing co-management, but more literature is not always better. We propose that the term co-management has been uncritically “stretched”, losing its original framing of actors working together collaboratively. Co-management has become a facade under which traditional hierarchical and market-based management regimes can occur. Conceptual stretching inhibits the capacity to critically articulate variations within models of collaborative governance. We investigate this stretching through a nuanced framework of co-management models with varying intensities. By considering participating actors, institutions and delivery objectives, the theoretically informed and empirically tested framework highlights the stretched implementation of co-management, enabling protected area managers an opportunity to align their practice with the promise of co-management.
KW - Australia
KW - collaborative management
KW - environmental governance
KW - natural resource management
KW - protected areas
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85060090022&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/08941920.2018.1544677
DO - 10.1080/08941920.2018.1544677
M3 - Article
SP - 1
EP - 19
JO - Society Natural Resources
T2 - Society Natural Resources
JF - Society Natural Resources
SN - 0894-1920
ER -