Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
economic and bio-physical settings (Meinzen-Dick 2007 ; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007b ) .
The concept of adaptive governance is closely related to that of adaptive capacity.
It is often touted as the most appropriate approach for building adaptive capacity
within a system, for it is seen as meeting the call for dealing with increased uncer-
tainty and change, arising from the 'growing number of failures among current
approaches and increasing vulnerability of social-ecological system' (Olsson et al.
2006 , p 1). If adaptive capacity is an end goal, then adaptive governance can be seen
as one means to that end. Adaptive governance has many different iterations and
interpretations, but generally refers to the need to move from the conventional view
of institutions as static, rule-based, formal and fixed organisations with clear bound-
aries to one that is more dynamic, adaptive and flexible for coping in future climatic
conditions (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007b ) .
Adaptive management is closely aligned with that of adaptive governance, and is
also seen as a vital tool in building resilient SES. Adaptive management approaches
see each management step as an opportunity for further adaptive learning, thereby
embracing uncertainty through the navigation of changing circumstances, i.e. learn-
ing to manage by managing to learn (Pahl-Wostl and Sendzimir 2005 ) . Adaptive
management therefore focuses on methods such as learning by doing, scenario plan-
ning and social learning, with the aim of improving flexibility to re-address man-
agement approaches that might be perceived as inappropriate with hindsight
(Pahl-Wostl 2007a ). Allowing decision makers more flexibility for reflexive and
evaluative planning processes (i.e. testing and refining responses) has been seen as
highly appropriate in the context of climate change, where assumptions based on
hydrological or ecological baselines may need to be revised more regularly
(Tompkins and Adger 2005 ). The more iterative process of planning and manage-
ment sees a more balanced approach to and rigour in the monitoring of policies, as
for the initial formation of those policies (Garmestani and Benson 2010 ) .
Adaptive co-management has in turn emerged from adaptive management itself,
by combining its iterative learning dimension with collaborative management
approaches as emphasised in IWRM, where rights, responsibilities and obligations
are jointly shared (Huitema et al. 2009 ). The focus is on the creation of a community
of institutional learning that takes place at the collective rather than just individual
level (Berkes and Folke 2001 ), which aims to draw from and build memories and
experience of an entire institution. This focus on participation and multi-level gov-
ernance for incorporating different forms of knowledge and learning is also shared
with IWRM approaches (Hurlbert 2010 ). Studies have suggested that the combina-
tion of collaborative management approaches with adaptive management builds
more robust SES as it better accounts for cross-scale dynamics and linkages (with
the process being emergent and self-organising, but facilitated by rules and incen-
tives at higher levels), higher complexity, and focuses on the process of dynamic
learning (Berkes and Folke 2001 ; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007a ; Huitema et al. 2009 ) .
Both adaptive governance and management approaches focus heavily on the idea
of 'learning by judicious doing' (Holling 1978 ), which represents a departure from
the more traditional approach of rigid and irreversible planning and anticipatory
management to a concept of policy experimentation. It also represents a blend of the
IWRM focus on 'stakeholder participation and sectoral integration through systematic
Search WWH ::




Custom Search