Georgina Cundill

Linking futures across scales : a dialog on multiscale scenarios

Scenario analysis is a useful tool for exploring key uncertainties that may shape the future of social-ecological systems. This paper explores the methods, costs, and benefits of developing and linking scenarios of social-ecological systems across multiple spatial scales. Drawing largely on experiences in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, we suggest that the desired degree of cross-scale linkage depends on the primary aim of the scenario exercise. Loosely linked multiscale scenarios appear more appropriate when the primary aim is to engage in exploratory dialog with stakeholders. Tightly coupled cross-scale scenarios seem to work best when the main objective is to further our understanding of cross-scale interactions or to assess trade-offs between scales. The main disadvantages of tightly coupled cross-scale scenarios are that their development requires substantial time and financial resources, and that they often suffer loss of credibility at one or more scales. The reasons for developing multiscale scenarios and the expectations associated with doing so therefore need to be carefully evaluated when choosing the desired degree of cross-scale linkage in a particular scenario exercise.

Monitoring in adaptive co-management: Toward a learning based approach.

The recognition of complexity and uncertainty in natural resource management has lead to the development of a wealth of conceptual frameworks aimed at integrated assessment and complex systems monitoring. Relatively less attention has however been given to methodological approaches that might facilitate learning as part of the monitoring process. This paper reviews the monitoring literature relevant to adaptive co-management, with a focus on the synergies between existing monitoring frameworks, collaborative monitoring approaches and social learning. The paper discusses the role of monitoring in environmental management in general, and the challenges posed by scale and complexity when monitoring in adaptive co-management. Existing conceptual frameworks for monitoring relevant to adaptive co-management are reviewed, as are lessons from experiences with collaborative monitoring. The paper concludes by offering a methodological approach to monitoring that actively seeks to engender reflexive learning as a means to deal with uncertainty in natural resource management.

A review of assertions about the processes and outcomes of social learning in natural resource management

Social learning has become a central theme in natural resource management. This growing interest is underpinned by a number of assertions about the outcomes of social learning, and about the processes that support these outcomes. Yet researchers and practitioners who seek to engage with social learning through the natural resource management literature often become disorientated by the myriad processes and outcomes that are identified. We trace the roots of current assertions about the processes and outcomes of social learning in natural resource management, and assess the extent to which there is an emerging consensus on these assertions. Results suggest that, on the one hand, social learning is described as taking place through deliberative interactions amongst multiple stakeholders. During these interactions, it is argued that participants learn to work together and build relationships that allow for collective action. On the other hand, social learning is described as occurring through deliberate experimentation and reflective practice. During these iterative cycles of action, monitoring and reflection, participants learn how to cope with uncertainty when managing complex systems. Both of these processes, and their associated outcomes, are referred to as social learning. Where, therefore, should researchers and practitioners focus their attention? Results suggest that there is an emerging consensus that processes that support social learning involve sustained interaction between stakeholders, on-going deliberation and the sharing of knowledge in a trusting environment. There is also an emerging consensus that the key outcome of such learning is improved decision making underpinned by a growing awareness of human-environment interactions, better relationships and improved problem-solving capacities for participants.

Soft systems thinking and social learning for adaptive management

The success of adaptive management in conservation has been questioned and the objective-based management paradigm on which it is based has been heavily criticized. Soft systems thinking and social-learning theory expose errors in the assumption that complex systems can be dispassionately managed by objective observers and highlight the fact that conservation is a social process in which objectives are contested and learning is context dependent. We used these insights to rethink adaptive management in a way that focuses on the social processes involved in management and decision making. Our approach to adaptive management is based on the following assumptions: action toward a common goal is an emergent property of complex social relationships; the introduction of new knowledge, alternative values, and new ways of understanding the world can become a stimulating force for learning, creativity, and change; learning is contextual and is fundamentally about practice; and defining the goal to be addressed is continuous and in principle never ends. We believe five key activities are crucial to defining the goal that is to be addressed in an adaptive-management context and to determining the objectives that are desirable and feasible to the participants: situate the problem in its social and ecological context; raise awareness about alternative views of a problem and encourage enquiry and deconstruction of frames of reference; undertake collaborative actions; and reflect on learning.

Monitoring the governance dimension of natural resource co-management.

The governance outcomes of natural resource co-management have been neither systematically monitored nor rigorously assessed. We identified system attributes and key variables that could form the basis for monitoring the governance dimension of adaptive co-management. A methodology for collaboratively monitoring these system attributes and key variables was tested in four localities in South Africa. Our results suggest that creating the conditions that facilitate self-organization, and particularly cross-scale institutional linkages, is the major challenge facing attempts to initiate adaptive co-management. Factors requiring greater attention include community perceptions of support from outside agencies, access to long-term funding for adaptive decision making, and access to reliable information about changes in natural resources and legal options for the formation of decision-making bodies. Longterm and well-funded social facilitation is key to achieving this.

Monitoring Social Learning Processes in Adaptive Comanagement: Three Case Studies from South Africa

Learning provides the basis for fostering transitions toward adaptive comanagement. Understanding the ways in which arenas for collaboration and learning are created, and the outcomes of these processes in different contexts, is therefore crucial. This paper presents the results of an experimental research process that identified a small set of key variables that influence effective collaboration and learning, and tested a methodology for monitoring these in a collaborative way in three case studies in South Africa. The small set of key variables tested in this study was sensitive enough to register change over a period of 18 months. Results suggest that the background conditions necessary for social learning can be externally managed during an initiative, with positive outcomes for collaboration and learning. Monitoring outcomes suggest that for learning to be effective, a balance needs to be sought between maintaining key individuals within the system, preventing rigidity and vulnerability when this is achieved, and encouraging active participation within communities of practice. Effective facilitation by an ‘honest broker’ is one of the ways in which this can be achieved. The results point to an over simplification in the rhetoric that currently surrounds the learning outcomes of multilevel networks, and challenges the idea that democratic structures are necessarily important for effective natural resource management at the community level.

Barriers to implementing planned community-based adaptation in developing countries: a systematic literature review

Although adaptation to climate change is vital in vulnerable developing country communities, there are limits to what these communities can do autonomously. Many face existing challenges such as poverty, food insecurity and lack of resources. Hence, there seems to be a logical case for planned community-based adaptation (CBA) in these contexts, but there is limited empirical evidence of planned CBA in developing countries. Numerous barriers hinder the implementation of planned CBA. This systematic literature review investigated what these barriers are and how they influence adaptation. Context-specific social, resource and physical barriers are significant, and these overlap and interact with one another. The most pervasive of these barriers relate to poor coordination within and between organizations responsible for planning and implementing adaptation actions, who adhere to discourses that are often technical and managerial and therefore not well suited to supporting CBA, and a lack of, or irrelevant knowledge/information on climate change as well as ineffectual communication between stakeholders involved in CBA actions.

Nurturing communities of practice for transdisciplinary research

Transdisciplinary research practice has become a core element of global sustainability science. Transdisciplinary research brings with it an expectation that people with different backgrounds and interests will learn together through collective problem solving and innovation. Here we introduce the concept of “transdisciplinary communities of practice, ” and draw on both situated learning theory and transdisciplinary practice to identify three key lessons for people working in, managing, or funding such groups. (1) Opportunities need to be purposefully created for outsiders to observe activities in the core group. (2) Communities of practice cannot be artificially created, but they can be nurtured. (3) Power matters in transdisciplinary communities of practice. These insights challenge thinking about how groups of people come together in pursuit of transdisciplinary outcomes, and call for greater attention to be paid to the social processes of learning that are at the heart of our aspirations for global sustainability science.

Culture and food security: a case study of homestead food production in South Africa

Drawing on case study insights from a home gardening program in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa, this study explores the relationship between culture and food security in a local context. Informed by an ideational and a process-oriented understanding of cultural analysis, our inductive approach to field research reveals several elements of culture that have direct impacts on local food production: power, gender, identity and cultural change. The study offers insights into the multi-level dimensions of power as it relates to individuals, households, and broader community dynamics that are central to understanding the local dynamics of food security. Also, the local gardening program played a critical role in maintaining a “culture of farming” at the village level while also navigating important changes to local culture, such as the career preferences of local youth. Research implications include an understanding of the adaptive role that local institutions can play in the food security challenges within South Africa.

Transdisciplinary research for systemic change: who to learn with, what to learn about and how to learn

A key aim of transdisciplinary research is for actors from science, policy and practice to co-evolve their understanding of a social–ecological issue, reconcile their diverse perspectives and co-produce appropriate knowledge to serve a common purpose. With its concurrent grounding in practice and science, transdisciplinary research represents a significant departure from conventional research. We focus on mutual learning within transdisciplinary research and highlight three aspects that could guide other researchers in designing and facilitating such learning. These are: “who to learn with”, “what to learn about” and “how to learn”. For each of these questions, we present learning heuristics that are supported by a comparative analysis of two case studies that addressed contemporary conservation issues in South Africa but varied in scale and duration. These were a five-year national-scale project focusing on the prioritisation of freshwater ecosystems for conservation and a three-year local-scale project that used ecological infrastructure as a theme for advancing sustainability dialogues. Regarding the proposed learning heuristics, “who to learn with” is scale dependent and needs to be informed by relevant disciplines and policy sectors with the aim of establishing a knowledge network representing empirical, pragmatic, normative and purposive functions. This emergent network should be enriched by involving relevant experts, novices and bridging agents, where possible. It is important for such networks to learn about the respective histories, system processes and drivers, values and knowledge that exist in the social–ecological system of interest. Moreover, learning together about key concepts and issues can help to develop a shared vocabulary, which in turn can contribute to a shared understanding, a common vision and an agreed way of responding to it. New ways of group learning can be promoted and enhanced by co-developing outputs (boundary objects) for application across knowledge domains and creating spaces (third places) that facilitate exchange of knowledge and knowledge co-production. We conclude with five generic lessons for transdisciplinary researchers to enhance project success: (a) the duration, timing and continuation potential of a project influences its prospects for achieving systemic and sustainable change; (b) bridging agents, especially if embedded within an implementing agency, play a critical role in facilitating transdisciplinary learning with enhanced outcomes; (c) researchers need to participate as co-learners rather than masters of knowledge domains; (d) purposeful mixed-paradigm research designs could help to mend knowledge fragmentation within science; and (e) researchers must be vigilant for three pitfalls in mutual learning initiatives, namely biases in participant self-selection, perceived superiority of scientific knowledge and the attraction of simple solutions to wicked problems that retain the status quo.