Factors that constrain bridging
(from Yaffee et al. 1997) |
|
Strategies for dealing with constraining factors
in the Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve (KVBR) |
| |
| Situational factors |
Power imbalances |
|
Using a landscape perspective and ecosystem
approach to help actors perceive their interdependencies and
understand the need to work together to produce solutions
to problems.
Providing participants with joint ownership of processes and
outcomes— participants are directly and jointly responsible
for making and implementing the decisions that are reached.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Lack of communication, chemistry, or trust |
|
Organizing interactions among actors to develop
personal relationships and build trust.
Facilitating face-to-face communication and dialog among actors.
Providing opportunity for continuous interaction among actors. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Technical and scientific issues |
|
Sense making to facilitate the sharing of
information.
Engaging actors in monitoring and conducting inventories.
Acknowledging and integrating different types of knowledge. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Public opposition |
|
Creating public awareness of problems and
a sense of urgency by communicating about critical issues
and potential crises. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Fundamental differences that separate the
stakeholders |
|
Envisioning the future together with actors.
Identifying common problems and goals.
Using the KVBR to develop a sense of place and identity among
actors. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| Process-related factors |
Lack of focus on process |
|
Using an adaptive co-management approach,
a collaborative process that continuously evaluates and responds
to the effects of management actions and incorporates lessons
learned in a new set of strategies to improve management. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Lack of process management or interpersonal
skills |
|
Providing leadership and focusing on social
factors that enable ecosystem management.
Initiating, coordinating, and sustaining social networks of
key actors.
Making sense of and guiding the management process. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Resistance to collaborative management styles |
|
Starting small, producing small early successes.
Initiating projects and selecting problems that can be turned
into possibilities for trust building and partnerships.
Convening actors to participate in collaborative processes.
Structuring incentives for actions.
Assessing actors’ potential for advancing their self-interest
through collaboration. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Difficulty securing the involvement of all
stakeholders |
|
Defining the problem together with actors.
Encouraging and facilitating information sharing among actors.
Synthesizing and mobilizing multiple sources of knowledge
for ecosystem management. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| Societal context |
Cultural norms |
|
Facilitating norm-building around the new
management approach.
Using different pedagogical tools for communicating the links
between ecosystem health and human well-being. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Stereotypes and intergroup attitudes |
|
Focusing on individuals of actor groups that
can help change attitudes of people within their own groups.
Challenging actors’ mental models and frames of reference. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Polarization arising from traditional process |
|
Initiating a collaborative process of problem
solving and decision making.
Identifying and activating key individuals of actor groups
necessary for tackling a particular problem. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Opposition by public interest groups |
|
Participating in international programs like
UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere program and scientific
assessments like the Millennium Assessment to strengthen and
build public support for the adaptive co-management approach
and the KVBR.
Using the media to communicate progress and global relevance
of the work in the KVBR to build public support and change
people’s attitudes. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Politics |
|
Continuous dialog with all major political
parties, including the ones not currently in power, at all
levels to build support for the adaptive co-management approach
and the KVBR.
Building political support for legitimacy of the adaptive
co-management approach. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| Institutional context |
Conflicting agency goals and missions |
|
Encouraging agencies to participate to produce
superordinate goals at the landscape level.
Providing processes to overcome sectoral approaches to managing
ecosystems and landscape. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Organizational norms and culture |
|
Bringing actors together in problem-driven
projects to change organizational norms and cultures.
Offering the Man and the Biosphere program as a new arena
for interactions. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Lack of top level support for collaboration |
|
Influencing decision makers and politicians
at higher levels to maintain governance structures that allow
for adaptive co-management of the KVBR. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Resource constraints |
|
Maintaining diverse funding sources; not depending
on only one source.
Including financers in the policy networks of the KVBR. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Government policies and procedures |
|
Using the KVBR as an arena where new processes
can be used to overcome restraining government policies and
procedures.
Relying on governance networks for adaptive co-management.
Incorporating government agencies, with access to legal and
financial support schemes, into the policy network. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Differing decision-making authority among
participants |
|
Assisting actors in navigating formal institutions.
Providing participants with joint ownership of processes and
outcomes—participants are directly and jointly responsible
for making and implementing the decisions that are reached. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Inadequate opportunities for interaction |
|
Providing arenas and opportunity for actors
to meet face to face.
Managing social networks and creating multiple ties at multiple
levels. |