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
Local people and conservation officials’ perceptions on relationships and conflicts in South African protected areas
- Thondhlana, Gladman, Cundill, Georgina
- Authors: Thondhlana, Gladman , Cundill, Georgina
- Date: 2017
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/68640 , vital:29300 , https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2017.1315742
- Description: Protected areas (PAs) are often conflict-ridden, but conflict resolution mechanisms are often constrained by little appreciation of the perceptions of the principal agents (PA managers and local communities) about such conflicts. Getting local people’s support in PA management efforts is considered important for achieving conservation and livelihood goals. Using data from 13 nature reserves in South Africa, this study explores the perceptions of reserve managers and local communities about their relationships and the existence and underlying causes of conflicts. The findings showed sharp contrasts in perceptions between reserve managers and local communities. Reserve managers generally perceived that there were no conflicts with local communities and that their relationship with them was positive while local communities thought otherwise, claiming conflicts were centred around restricted access to PAs, lack of benefits from PAs and communication problems. These findings have profound implications for conservation, especially considering the importance of getting local people’s support in PA management.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2017
- Authors: Thondhlana, Gladman , Cundill, Georgina
- Date: 2017
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/68640 , vital:29300 , https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2017.1315742
- Description: Protected areas (PAs) are often conflict-ridden, but conflict resolution mechanisms are often constrained by little appreciation of the perceptions of the principal agents (PA managers and local communities) about such conflicts. Getting local people’s support in PA management efforts is considered important for achieving conservation and livelihood goals. Using data from 13 nature reserves in South Africa, this study explores the perceptions of reserve managers and local communities about their relationships and the existence and underlying causes of conflicts. The findings showed sharp contrasts in perceptions between reserve managers and local communities. Reserve managers generally perceived that there were no conflicts with local communities and that their relationship with them was positive while local communities thought otherwise, claiming conflicts were centred around restricted access to PAs, lack of benefits from PAs and communication problems. These findings have profound implications for conservation, especially considering the importance of getting local people’s support in PA management.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2017
A case study of the opportunities and trade-offs associated with deproclamation of a protected area following a land claim in South Africa
- Krüger, Ruth, Cundill, Georgina, Thondhlana, Gladman
- Authors: Krüger, Ruth , Cundill, Georgina , Thondhlana, Gladman
- Date: 2016
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/67791 , vital:29145 , https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2015.1065804
- Description: Publisher version , Reconciling conservation and social justice imperatives is a major challenge facing many postcolonial states worldwide. Where historically disenfranchised communities have laid legal claim to protected areas, the typical resolution has been collaborative management agreements between the state and claimant communities. The real outcomes of such strategies for people and ecosystems have been seriously questioned, although alternative approaches are seldom explored. Here, we reflect on one such alternative that was pursued in a case in South Africa, where the land was handed back to the community and a replacement protected area created. Our objective was to explore the opportunities and trade-offs associated with this approach for communities and conservation agencies alike, and to compare these to typical collaborative management outcomes. Methods included key informant interviews, focus group discussions and household surveys. We find that, surprisingly, this approach created more benefits for the conservation agency than for claimant communities. Indeed, the community experiences bore a striking resemblance to those experienced in collaborative management settings: intra-community conflict, confusion over leadership and serious questions about the boundaries of the “community”. Processes aimed at redressing past injustice in disputes over conservation land, regardless of the approach adopted, must bring with them a strong commitment to building institutional and leadership capacities within communities, and pay serious attention to the ways in which equity and social justice can be fostered after the settlement of a land claim. Settlement agreements are frequently treated as the final step towards social justice, but are in fact just the beginning.
- Full Text: false
- Date Issued: 2016
- Authors: Krüger, Ruth , Cundill, Georgina , Thondhlana, Gladman
- Date: 2016
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/67791 , vital:29145 , https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2015.1065804
- Description: Publisher version , Reconciling conservation and social justice imperatives is a major challenge facing many postcolonial states worldwide. Where historically disenfranchised communities have laid legal claim to protected areas, the typical resolution has been collaborative management agreements between the state and claimant communities. The real outcomes of such strategies for people and ecosystems have been seriously questioned, although alternative approaches are seldom explored. Here, we reflect on one such alternative that was pursued in a case in South Africa, where the land was handed back to the community and a replacement protected area created. Our objective was to explore the opportunities and trade-offs associated with this approach for communities and conservation agencies alike, and to compare these to typical collaborative management outcomes. Methods included key informant interviews, focus group discussions and household surveys. We find that, surprisingly, this approach created more benefits for the conservation agency than for claimant communities. Indeed, the community experiences bore a striking resemblance to those experienced in collaborative management settings: intra-community conflict, confusion over leadership and serious questions about the boundaries of the “community”. Processes aimed at redressing past injustice in disputes over conservation land, regardless of the approach adopted, must bring with them a strong commitment to building institutional and leadership capacities within communities, and pay serious attention to the ways in which equity and social justice can be fostered after the settlement of a land claim. Settlement agreements are frequently treated as the final step towards social justice, but are in fact just the beginning.
- Full Text: false
- Date Issued: 2016
Co-management, land rights, and conflicts around South Africa’s Silaka Nature Reserve
- Thondhlana, Gladman, Cundill, Georgina, Kepe, Thembele
- Authors: Thondhlana, Gladman , Cundill, Georgina , Kepe, Thembele
- Date: 2016
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/67781 , vital:29144 , https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2015.1089609
- Description: Publisher version , Globally, co-management of protected areas (PAs) offers promise in efforts to achieve ecological integrity and livelihood needs. Most co-management agreements are premised on joint decision making in defining equitable sharing of benefits from and the management responsibilities for natural resource management. However, co-managed PAs are often conflict ridden. The forceful closure of Silaka Nature Reserve in South Africa in 2013 by a local community epitomizes the conflicts that can emerge in co-management arrangements. Using Silaka Reserve as a case study, we ask questions related to the meaning of land to local people, with an interrogative focus beyond “material benefits” in co-management discourse. The results of this study show that apart from nonaccrual of material benefits, conflicts arise from nonrecognition of nonmaterial aspects such as cultural values of and historical attachment to land and limited involvement of land claimants in decision making. The implications for co-management as a desired outcome on settled land claims are discussed.
- Full Text: false
- Date Issued: 2016
- Authors: Thondhlana, Gladman , Cundill, Georgina , Kepe, Thembele
- Date: 2016
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/67781 , vital:29144 , https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2015.1089609
- Description: Publisher version , Globally, co-management of protected areas (PAs) offers promise in efforts to achieve ecological integrity and livelihood needs. Most co-management agreements are premised on joint decision making in defining equitable sharing of benefits from and the management responsibilities for natural resource management. However, co-managed PAs are often conflict ridden. The forceful closure of Silaka Nature Reserve in South Africa in 2013 by a local community epitomizes the conflicts that can emerge in co-management arrangements. Using Silaka Reserve as a case study, we ask questions related to the meaning of land to local people, with an interrogative focus beyond “material benefits” in co-management discourse. The results of this study show that apart from nonaccrual of material benefits, conflicts arise from nonrecognition of nonmaterial aspects such as cultural values of and historical attachment to land and limited involvement of land claimants in decision making. The implications for co-management as a desired outcome on settled land claims are discussed.
- Full Text: false
- Date Issued: 2016
Land claims and the pursuit of co-management on four protected areas in South Africa
- Cundill, Georgina, Thondhlana, Gladman, Sisitka, Lawrence, Shackleton, Sheona E, Blorea, M
- Authors: Cundill, Georgina , Thondhlana, Gladman , Sisitka, Lawrence , Shackleton, Sheona E , Blorea, M
- Date: 2013
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/391223 , vital:68632 , xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.05.016"
- Description: Successful land claims on protected areas by previously disenfranchised communities often result in co-management agreements between claimant communities and state conservation agencies. South Africa, in particular, has pursued co-management as the desired outcome of land claims on its protected areas. We review four cases of co-management on protected areas in South Africa, and reflect on the appropriateness of the pursuit of co-management as the preferred outcome of land claims. Despite promises of pro-poor, democratically informed management, the practical experience of co-management has seen the continuation of the status quo in terms of conservation, with very few material benefits for claimant communities and limited sharing of responsibilities and decision-making functions. The findings underscore two deep challenges facing co-management in cases of land claims worldwide. First, during land claims negotiations in cases involving protected areas, the state cannot be expected to represent the best interests of its citizens (the land claimants), while simultaneously seeking to meet national and international obligations for protected area coverage. Second, the concept of democratic co-management may sit uncomfortably beside the realities of managing loss-making protected areas with ever-shrinking conservation budgets. Where co-management agreements have already been signed, ensuring that new landowners do indeed have a say in management should form the driving focus for co-management practice going forward.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2013
- Authors: Cundill, Georgina , Thondhlana, Gladman , Sisitka, Lawrence , Shackleton, Sheona E , Blorea, M
- Date: 2013
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/391223 , vital:68632 , xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.05.016"
- Description: Successful land claims on protected areas by previously disenfranchised communities often result in co-management agreements between claimant communities and state conservation agencies. South Africa, in particular, has pursued co-management as the desired outcome of land claims on its protected areas. We review four cases of co-management on protected areas in South Africa, and reflect on the appropriateness of the pursuit of co-management as the preferred outcome of land claims. Despite promises of pro-poor, democratically informed management, the practical experience of co-management has seen the continuation of the status quo in terms of conservation, with very few material benefits for claimant communities and limited sharing of responsibilities and decision-making functions. The findings underscore two deep challenges facing co-management in cases of land claims worldwide. First, during land claims negotiations in cases involving protected areas, the state cannot be expected to represent the best interests of its citizens (the land claimants), while simultaneously seeking to meet national and international obligations for protected area coverage. Second, the concept of democratic co-management may sit uncomfortably beside the realities of managing loss-making protected areas with ever-shrinking conservation budgets. Where co-management agreements have already been signed, ensuring that new landowners do indeed have a say in management should form the driving focus for co-management practice going forward.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2013
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »