Evaluating and reflecting on coproduction of protected area management plans
- Roux, Dirk J, Nel, Jeanne L, Freitag, Stefanie, Novellie, Peter, Rosenberg, Eureta
- Authors: Roux, Dirk J , Nel, Jeanne L , Freitag, Stefanie , Novellie, Peter , Rosenberg, Eureta
- Date: 2021
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/370550 , vital:66353 , xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.542"
- Description: Protected areas are complex social-ecological systems, hence their management should be guided by engagement and co-learning with diverse stakeholders. The challenge of effective stakeholder participation has generated a body of literature on the design and facilitation of coproduction processes. In this study, we used this literature to develop a principle-based framework for assessing coproduction. We then applied this framework to evaluate how well “adaptive planning” (a sub-process of adaptive management used for visioning and objective setting with stakeholders), as applied to the Garden Route National Park in South Africa, aligned with the ideals of coproduction. Our analysis revealed shortcomings in the adaptive planning process, which could be improved through broadening the agenda beyond the mandate and control of national parks, empowering collective agency among a wider stakeholder network, and embedding co-learning with stakeholders as an ongoing journey. A significant finding was that adaptive management does not align well with the ideals of coproduction, which may be better supported by an adaptive comanagement approach. The latter is particularly necessary in complex national parks that are diverse in terms of both ecosystems and stakeholders, and where governance may be contested.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2021
- Authors: Roux, Dirk J , Nel, Jeanne L , Freitag, Stefanie , Novellie, Peter , Rosenberg, Eureta
- Date: 2021
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/370550 , vital:66353 , xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.542"
- Description: Protected areas are complex social-ecological systems, hence their management should be guided by engagement and co-learning with diverse stakeholders. The challenge of effective stakeholder participation has generated a body of literature on the design and facilitation of coproduction processes. In this study, we used this literature to develop a principle-based framework for assessing coproduction. We then applied this framework to evaluate how well “adaptive planning” (a sub-process of adaptive management used for visioning and objective setting with stakeholders), as applied to the Garden Route National Park in South Africa, aligned with the ideals of coproduction. Our analysis revealed shortcomings in the adaptive planning process, which could be improved through broadening the agenda beyond the mandate and control of national parks, empowering collective agency among a wider stakeholder network, and embedding co-learning with stakeholders as an ongoing journey. A significant finding was that adaptive management does not align well with the ideals of coproduction, which may be better supported by an adaptive comanagement approach. The latter is particularly necessary in complex national parks that are diverse in terms of both ecosystems and stakeholders, and where governance may be contested.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2021
Understanding the context of multifaceted collaborations for social-ecological sustainability: A methodology for cross-case analysis
- Cockburn, Jessica J, Schoon, Michael, Cundill, Georgina, Robinson, Cathy, Aburto, Jamie A, Alexander, Steve M, Baggio, Jacopo A, Barnaud, Cecile, Chapman, Mollie, Llorente, Marina G, Garcia-Lopez, Gustavo A, Hill, Rosemary, Speranza, Chinwe I, Lee, Jean, Meek, Chanda L, Rosenberg, Eureta, Schultz, Lisen, Thondhlana, Gladman
- Authors: Cockburn, Jessica J , Schoon, Michael , Cundill, Georgina , Robinson, Cathy , Aburto, Jamie A , Alexander, Steve M , Baggio, Jacopo A , Barnaud, Cecile , Chapman, Mollie , Llorente, Marina G , Garcia-Lopez, Gustavo A , Hill, Rosemary , Speranza, Chinwe I , Lee, Jean , Meek, Chanda L , Rosenberg, Eureta , Schultz, Lisen , Thondhlana, Gladman
- Date: 2020
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/370725 , vital:66371 , xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11527-250307"
- Description: There are limited approaches available that enable researchers and practitioners to conduct multiple case study comparisons of complex cases of collaboration in natural resource management and conservation. The absence of such tools is felt despite the fact that over the past several years a great deal of literature has reviewed the state of the science regarding collaboration. Much of this work is based on case studies of collaboration and highlights the importance of contextual variables, further complicating efforts to compare outcomes across case-study areas and the likely failure of approaches based on one size fits all generalizations. We expand on the standard overview of the field by identifying some of the challenges associated with managing complex systems with multiple resources, multiple stakeholder groups with diverse knowledges/understandings, and multiple objectives across multiple scales, i.e., multifaceted collaborative initiatives. We then elucidate how a realist methodology, within a critical realist framing, can support efforts to compare multiple case studies of such multifaceted initiatives. The methodology we propose considers the importance and impact of context for the origins, purpose, and success of multifaceted collaborative natural resource management and conservation initiatives in social-ecological systems.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2020
- Authors: Cockburn, Jessica J , Schoon, Michael , Cundill, Georgina , Robinson, Cathy , Aburto, Jamie A , Alexander, Steve M , Baggio, Jacopo A , Barnaud, Cecile , Chapman, Mollie , Llorente, Marina G , Garcia-Lopez, Gustavo A , Hill, Rosemary , Speranza, Chinwe I , Lee, Jean , Meek, Chanda L , Rosenberg, Eureta , Schultz, Lisen , Thondhlana, Gladman
- Date: 2020
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/370725 , vital:66371 , xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11527-250307"
- Description: There are limited approaches available that enable researchers and practitioners to conduct multiple case study comparisons of complex cases of collaboration in natural resource management and conservation. The absence of such tools is felt despite the fact that over the past several years a great deal of literature has reviewed the state of the science regarding collaboration. Much of this work is based on case studies of collaboration and highlights the importance of contextual variables, further complicating efforts to compare outcomes across case-study areas and the likely failure of approaches based on one size fits all generalizations. We expand on the standard overview of the field by identifying some of the challenges associated with managing complex systems with multiple resources, multiple stakeholder groups with diverse knowledges/understandings, and multiple objectives across multiple scales, i.e., multifaceted collaborative initiatives. We then elucidate how a realist methodology, within a critical realist framing, can support efforts to compare multiple case studies of such multifaceted initiatives. The methodology we propose considers the importance and impact of context for the origins, purpose, and success of multifaceted collaborative natural resource management and conservation initiatives in social-ecological systems.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2020
The green economy learning assessment South Africa: Lessons for higher education, skills and work-based learning
- Rosenberg, Eureta, Lotz-Sisitka, Heila, Ramsarup, Presha
- Authors: Rosenberg, Eureta , Lotz-Sisitka, Heila , Ramsarup, Presha
- Date: 2018
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/182765 , vital:43872 , xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1108/HESWBL-03-2018-0041"
- Description: The purpose of this paper is to share and analyse the methodology and findings of the 2016 Green Economy Learning Assessment South Africa, including learning needs identified with reference to the competency framings of Scharmer (2009) and Wiek et al. (2011); and implications for university and work-based sustainability education, broadly conceptualised in a just transitions framework. The assessment was conducted using desktop policy reviews and an audit of sustainability education providers, online questionnaires to sector experts, focus groups and interviews with practitioners driving green economy initiatives. Policy monitoring and evaluation, and education for sustainable development, emerged as key change levers across nine priority areas including agriculture, energy, natural resources, water, transport and infrastructure. The competencies required to drive sustainability in these areas were clustered as technical, relational and transformational competencies for: making the case; integrated sustainable development planning; strategic adaptive management and expansive learning; working across organisational units; working across knowledge fields; capacity and organisational development; and principle-based leadership. Practitioners develop such competencies through formal higher education and short courses plus course-activated networks and “on the job” learning. The paper adds to the literature on sustainability competencies and raises questions regarding forms of hybrid learning suitable for developing technical, relational and transformative competencies. A national learning needs assessment methodology and tools for customised organisational learning needs assessments are shared. The assessment methodology is novel in this context and the workplace-based tools, original.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2018
- Authors: Rosenberg, Eureta , Lotz-Sisitka, Heila , Ramsarup, Presha
- Date: 2018
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/182765 , vital:43872 , xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1108/HESWBL-03-2018-0041"
- Description: The purpose of this paper is to share and analyse the methodology and findings of the 2016 Green Economy Learning Assessment South Africa, including learning needs identified with reference to the competency framings of Scharmer (2009) and Wiek et al. (2011); and implications for university and work-based sustainability education, broadly conceptualised in a just transitions framework. The assessment was conducted using desktop policy reviews and an audit of sustainability education providers, online questionnaires to sector experts, focus groups and interviews with practitioners driving green economy initiatives. Policy monitoring and evaluation, and education for sustainable development, emerged as key change levers across nine priority areas including agriculture, energy, natural resources, water, transport and infrastructure. The competencies required to drive sustainability in these areas were clustered as technical, relational and transformational competencies for: making the case; integrated sustainable development planning; strategic adaptive management and expansive learning; working across organisational units; working across knowledge fields; capacity and organisational development; and principle-based leadership. Practitioners develop such competencies through formal higher education and short courses plus course-activated networks and “on the job” learning. The paper adds to the literature on sustainability competencies and raises questions regarding forms of hybrid learning suitable for developing technical, relational and transformative competencies. A national learning needs assessment methodology and tools for customised organisational learning needs assessments are shared. The assessment methodology is novel in this context and the workplace-based tools, original.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2018
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »