Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T19:35:53.763Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tracking the development of co-management: using network analysis in a case from the Canadian Arctic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 August 2014

John-Erik Kocho-Schellenberg  and
Fikret Berkes
John-Erik Kocho-Schellenberg
Affiliation:
Natural Resource Institute, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3T 2N2, Canada (jkochosc@gmail.com)
Fikret Berkes
Affiliation:
Natural Resource Institute, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3T 2N2, Canada (jkochosc@gmail.com)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To understand the interplay of factors that shape changes in management strategies, we tracked the evolution of beluga whale co-management involving the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the Fisheries Joint Management Committee (FJMC), and the Tuktoyaktuk Hunter and Trapper Committee from its beginnings in the mid-1980s to the present. The objective was to analyse changes over time in the communication network involved in dealing with the Husky Lakes beluga entrapment issue, using social network analysis (SNA). Along with qualitative information, the use of SNA provided quantitative data to document the development of co-management over time. According to both government and indigenous parties, a fully functional problem-solving partnership developed over the course of two decades. Using the beluga case as the illustration, we traced the development of joint management processes, overcoming some of the initial obstacles and accommodating the needs of the various parties. This case demonstrates the importance of legal arrangements (the indigenous land claims agreement), the role of key individuals and the bridging organisation (FJMC) created by the agreement, and the maturation of co-management over time.

Type
Research Article
Information
Polar Record , Volume 51 , Issue 4 , July 2015 , pp. 422 - 431
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Armitage, D., Berkes, F. and Doubleday, N. (editors). 2007. Adaptive co-management: collaboration, learning and multi-level governance. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Armitage, D., Berkes, F., Dale, A., Kocho-Schellenberg, J.E. and Patton, E.. 2011. Co-management and the co-production of knowledge: learning to adapt in Canada's Arctic. Global Environmental Change 21: 995–1004.Google Scholar
Armitage, D. and Plummer, R. (editors) 2010. Adaptive capacity and environmental governance. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Ayles, B., Bell, R. and Hoyt, A.. 2007. Adaptive fisheries co-management in the western Canadian Arctic. In: Armitage, D., Berkes, F. and Doubleday, N. (editors). Adaptive co-management: collaboration, learning and multi-level governance. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press: 125–150.Google Scholar
Ayles, B.N. and Snow, N.B.. 2000. Canadian Beaufort Sea 2000: the environmental and social setting. Arctic 55: 4–17.Google Scholar
Berkes, F. 2009. Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management 90 (5): 1692–1702.Google Scholar
Berkes, F. and Armitage, D.. 2010. Co-management institutions, knowledge and learning: adapting to change in the Arctic. Etudes/Inuit/Studies 34 (1): 109–131.Google Scholar
Bodin, O., Crona, B and Ernstson, H.. 2006. Social networks in natural resource management: what is there to learn from a structural perspective? Ecology and Society 11 (2): URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/resp2/ (accessed 1 July 2014)Google Scholar
Bonacich, P. 1972. Factoring and weighting approaches to clique identification. Journal of Mathematical Sociology 2 (1): 113–120.Google Scholar
Bonacich, P. 2007. Some unique properties of eigenvector centrality. Social Networks 29 (4): 555–564.Google Scholar
Bonny, E. and Berkes, F.. 2008. Communicating traditional environmental knowledge: addressing the diversity of knowledge, audiences and media types. Polar Record 44 (230): 243–253.Google Scholar
Chuenpagdee, R. and Jentoft, S.. 2007. Step zero for fisheries co-management: what precedes implementation? Marine Policy 31: 657–668.Google Scholar
Carlsson, L. and Berkes, F.. 2005. Co-management: concepts and methodological implications. Journal of Environmental Management 75 (1): 65–76.Google Scholar
Cash, D. and Moser, S.C.. 2000. Linking global and local scales: designing dynamic assessment and management processes. Global Environmental Change 10 (2): 109–120.Google Scholar
Cox, M., Arnold, G., and Villamayor–Tomás, S.. 2010. A review of design principles for community–based natural resource management. Ecology and Society 15 (4): 38. URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art38/ (accessed 1 September 2010)Google Scholar
Dale, A. and Armitage, D.. 2011. Marine mammal co-management in Canada's Arctic: knowledge co–production for learning and adaptive capacity. Marine Policy 35 (4): 440–449.Google Scholar
Doubleday, N. 1989. Co-management provisions of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. In: Pinkerton, E. (editor). Co–operative management of local fisheries. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press: 209–227.Google Scholar
Evans, L., Cherrett, N. and Pemsl, D.. 2011. Assessing the impact of fisheries co-management interventions in developing countries. Journal of Environmental Management 92: 1838–1949.Google Scholar
Ford, J.D. and Berrang–Ford, L.. 2009. Food security in Igloolik, Nunavut: an exploratory study. Polar Record 45 (234): 225–236.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez, N., Hilborn, R. and Defeo, O.. 2011. Leadership, social capital and incentives promote successful fisheries. Nature 470 (7334): 386–389.Google Scholar
Hahn, T., Olsson, P., Folke, C. and Johansson, K.. 2006. Trust building, knowledge generation and organizational innovations: the role of a bridging organization for adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape around Kristianstad, Sweden. Human Ecology 34 (4): 573–592.Google Scholar
Hill, R.M. 1967. Observations on beluga whales trapped by ice in Eskimo Lakes, winter 1966/67. Inuvik: Inuvik Research Laboratory (report).Google Scholar
Hovelsrud, G.K. and Smit, B. (editors). 2010. Community adaptation and vulnerability in Arctic regions. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
INAC. (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada). 1984. The western Arctic claim: the Inuvialuit Final Agreement . Ottawa: Indian Affairs and Northern Development.Google Scholar
Janssen, M.A., Bodin, O., Anderies, J.M., Elmqvist, T., Ernstson, H., McAllister, R.R.J., Olsson, P. and Ryan, P.. 2006. Toward a network perspective of the study of resilience in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society 11 (1): 15. URL:http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art15/ (accessed 1 July 2014)Google Scholar
Laidler, G.J., Ford, J.D., Gough, W.A., Ikummaq, T., Gagnon, A.S., Kowal, S., Qrunnut, K. and Irngaut, C. 2009. Travelling and hunting in a changing Arctic: assessing Inuit vulnerability to sea ice change in Igloolik, Nunavut. Climatic Change 94:363–397.Google Scholar
Lane, D.E. and Stephenson, R.L.. 1998. Fisheries co-management: organization, process, and decision support. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Science 23: 251–265 Google Scholar
Napier, V.R., Branch, G.M. and Harris, J.M.. 2005. Evaluating conditions for successful comanagement of subsistence fisheries in KwaZulu, Natal, South Africa. Environmental Conservation 32 (2): 165–177.Google Scholar
Newig, J., Günther, D. and Pahl–Wostl, C.. 2010. Neurons in the network: learning in governance networks in the context of environmental management. Ecology and Society 15 (4): 24.Google Scholar
Olsson, O., Folke, C. and Berkes, F.. 2004. Adaptive co-management for building resilience in social–ecological systems. Environmental Management 34 (1): 75–90.Google Scholar
Olsson, P., Folke, C., Galaz, V., Hahn, T. and Schultz, L.. 2007. Enhancing the fit through adaptive co-management: creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve Sweden. Ecology and Society 12 (1): 28. URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art28/ (accessed 1 July 2014)Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Porsild, M.P. 1918. On ‘Savssats’: a crowding of Arctic animals at holes in the sea ice. Geographical Review 6 (3): 215–228.Google Scholar
Streeter, C.L. and Gillespie, D.F.. 1993. Social network analysis. In: Gillespie, D.F. and Glisson, C. (editors). Quantitative methods in social work: state of the art. Binghampton: Haworth Press.Google Scholar
Scott, J. 1991. Social network analysis: a handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Tichy, N.M., Tushman, M.L. and Fombrun, C.. 1979. Social network analysis for organizations. The Academy of Management Review 4 (4): 507–519.Google Scholar
Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. 1994. Social network analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
White, G. 2006. Cultures in collision: traditional knowledge and Euro–Canadian governance processes in northern land–claim boards. Arctic 59 (4): 401–419.Google Scholar
Wilson, D.C., Ahmed, M., Siar, S.V. and Kanagaratnam, U.. 2006. Cross–scale linkages and adaptive management: fisheries co-management in Asia. Marine Policy 30 (5): 523–533.Google Scholar