IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v118y2020ics1389934118300455.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Protected areas management: A comparison of perceived outcomes associated with different co-management types

Author

Listed:
  • Soliku, Ophelia
  • Schraml, Ulrich

Abstract

While it has been established that co-management outcomes vary based on the forms, processes and rules of co-management types, studies on co-management have focused on the processes and conditions necessary for co-management instead of critically assessing how and why different co-management arrangements result in different outcomes. Using the socio-ecological systems framework as an analytical tool, the study examines the extent to which actors' perceptions of co-management outcomes vary as a result of different co-management types and the factors accounting for such variations. The study employs focused group discussions with resource groups within the study communities and in-depth interviews with key stakeholders including local chiefs, NGOs and managers of the Mole National Park (MNP) in data collection. Results indicate that co-management arrangements involving key stakeholders but spearheaded by managers of the MNP results primarily in positive institutional outcomes whereas co-management arrangements that devolve natural resource management to local communities results in positive socio-economic, institutional and ecological outcomes. Key variables responsible for variations in perceived outcomes include the degree of power devolved to local people to manage resources, the governance structures including means of rules creation and enforcement and the extent to which co-management provides economic incentives to local people. The theoretical constructs on which the study is based provides a basis for inferences beyond this case study as it provides a general overview of variables that influence differences in co-management outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Soliku, Ophelia & Schraml, Ulrich, 2020. "Protected areas management: A comparison of perceived outcomes associated with different co-management types," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:118:y:2020:i:c:s1389934118300455
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102258
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934118300455
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102258?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pomeroy, Robert S & Berkes, Fikret, 1997. "Two to tango: The role of government in fisheries co-management," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 465-480, September.
    2. Kobe De Pourcq & Evert Thomas & Bas Arts & An Vranckx & Tomas Léon-Sicard & Patrick Van Damme, 2015. "Conflict in Protected Areas: Who Says Co-Management Does Not Work?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-15, December.
    3. Blaikie, Piers, 2006. "Is Small Really Beautiful? Community-based Natural Resource Management in Malawi and Botswana," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(11), pages 1942-1957, November.
    4. Campbell, Stuart J. & Kartawijaya, Tasrif & Yulianto, Irfan & Prasetia, Rian & Clifton, Julian, 2013. "Co-management approaches and incentives improve management effectiveness in the Karimunjawa National Park, Indonesia," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 72-79.
    5. Zhu, Ting & Krott, Max & Chen, Haiyun, 2014. "Co-management implementation in forested national reserves: Contradicting cases from China," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 72-80.
    6. Mohammed, Abrar J & Inoue, Makoto & Shivakoti, Ganesh, 2017. "Moving forward in collaborative forest management: Role of external actors for sustainable Forest socio-ecological systems," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 13-19.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Espada, Ana Luiza Violato & Kainer, Karen A., 2024. "Decision making processes and power dynamics in timber production co-management: A comparative analysis of seven Brazilian Amazonian community-based projects," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    2. Fischer, Richard & Lippe, Melvin & Dolom, Priscilla & Kalaba, Felix Kanungwe & Tamayo, Fabian & Torres, Bolier, 2023. "Effectiveness of policy instrument mixes for forest conservation in the tropics – Stakeholder perceptions from Ecuador, the Philippines and Zambia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    3. Begum, Flora & de Bruyn, Lisa Lobry & Kristiansen, Paul & Islam, Mohammad Amirul, 2023. "Development pathways for co-management in the Sundarban mangrove forest: A multiple stakeholder perspective," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    4. Ting Ma & Lizhi Jia & Linsheng Zhong & Xinyu Gong & Yu Wei, 2023. "Governance of China’s Potatso National Park Influenced by Local Community Participation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-19, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Uddin, Mohammad Nizam & Hossain, Mohammad Mosharraf & Chen, Yong & Siriwong, Wapakorn & Boonyanuphap, Jaruntorn, 2019. "Stakeholders' perception on indigenous community-based management of village common forests in Chittagong hill tracts, Bangladesh," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 102-112.
    2. Brewer, T.D. & Moon, K., 2015. "Towards a functional typology of small-scale fisheries co-management informed by stakeholder perceptions: A coral reef case study," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 48-56.
    3. García-López, Gustavo A., 2019. "Rethinking elite persistence in neoliberalism: Foresters and techno-bureaucratic logics in Mexico’s community forestry," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 169-181.
    4. Ishmael B. M. Kosamu, 2014. "Conditions for Sustainability of the Elephant Marsh Fishery in Malawi," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(7), pages 1-18, June.
    5. Béné, Christophe & Belal, Emma & Baba, Malloum Ousman & Ovie, Solomon & Raji, Aminu & Malasha, Isaac & Njaya, Friday & Na Andi, Mamane & Russell, Aaron & Neiland, Arthur, 2009. "Power Struggle, Dispute and Alliance Over Local Resources: Analyzing 'Democratic' Decentralization of Natural Resources through the Lenses of Africa Inland Fisheries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 1935-1950, December.
    6. Julia Brown, 2014. "Evaluating Participatory Initiatives in South Africa," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(2), pages 21582440145, April.
    7. Schusser, Carsten, 2013. "Who determines biodiversity? An analysis of actors' power and interests in community forestry in Namibia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 42-51.
    8. Ashley Peiffer & Michael Harte, 2023. "Development from a distance: Exploring an international non‐profit's interactions with communities during the COVID‐19 pandemic," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 35(6), pages 979-994, August.
    9. Hamilton-Hart, Natasha & Stringer, Christina, 2016. "Upgrading and exploitation in the fishing industry: Contributions of value chain analysis," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 166-171.
    10. Mulugheta G. Araia & Paxie W. Chirwa, 2019. "Revealing the Predominance of Culture over the Ecological Abundance of Resources in Shaping Local People’s Forest and Tree Species Use Behavior: The Case of the Vhavenda People, South Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-16, June.
    11. Zhan, Shaohua, 2015. "From Privatization to Deindustrialization: Implications of Chinese Rural Industry and the Ownership Debate Revisited," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 108-122.
    12. Gao, Yuan & Yu, Lu, 2024. "Understanding the impacts of ecological compensation policies on energy poverty: insights from forest communities in Zhejiang, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    13. Salla Eilola & Lalisa Duguma & Niina Käyhkö & Peter A. Minang, 2021. "Coalitions for Landscape Resilience: Institutional Dynamics behind Community-Based Rangeland Management System in North-Western Tanzania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-23, October.
    14. Barbara Quimby & Arielle Levine, 2018. "Participation, Power, and Equity: Examining Three Key Social Dimensions of Fisheries Comanagement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-20, September.
    15. Song, Andrew, 2018. "Reconstructing Governability: How Fisheries Are Made Governable," MarXiv zavwc, Center for Open Science.
    16. Stefanie Engel & Charles Palmer & Alexander Pfaff, 2013. "On the Endogeneity of Resource Co-management: Theory and Evidence from Indonesia," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(2), pages 308-329.
    17. Mengina Gilli & Muriel Côte & Gretchen Walters, 2020. "Gatekeeping Access: Shea Land Formalization and the Distribution of Market-Based Conservation Benefits in Ghana’s CREMA," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-15, September.
    18. Tyler D Eddy & Jonathan P A Gardner & Alejandro Pérez-Matus, 2010. "Applying Fishers' Ecological Knowledge to Construct Past and Future Lobster Stocks in the Juan Fernández Archipelago, Chile," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(11), pages 1-12, November.
    19. Ana Guzman Ruíz & Edwin Hes & Klaas Schwartz, 2011. "Shifting Governance Modes in Wetland Management: A Case Study of Two Wetlands in Bogotá, Colombia," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 29(6), pages 990-1003, December.
    20. Service Opare, 2011. "Sustaining water supply through a phased community management approach: lessons from Ghana’s “oats” water supply scheme," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 13(6), pages 1021-1042, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:118:y:2020:i:c:s1389934118300455. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.