Adaptive Co-Management for Social-Ecological Complexity

Abstract

Building trust through collaboration, institutional development, and social learning enhances efforts to foster ecosystem management and resolve multi-scale society-environment dilemmas. One emerging approach aimed at addressing these dilemmas is adaptive co-management. This method draws explicit attention to the learning ( experiential and experimental) and collaboration ( vertical and horizontal) functions necessary to improve our understanding of, and ability to respond to, complex social-ecological systems. Here, we identify and outline the core features of adaptive co-management, which include innovative institutional arrangements and incentives across spatiotemporal scales and levels, learning through complexity and change, monitoring and assessment of interventions, the role of power, and opportunities to link science with policy.

Full text

95
© The Ecological Society of America wwwwww..ffrroonnttiieerrssiinneeccoollooggyy..oorrgg
E
fforts to resolve multi-scale environment–society dilem-
mas require innovative governance approaches (Berkes et
al. 2003; Dietz et al. 2003; Hughes et al. 2005). Adaptive and
ecosystem-based forms of management have drawn attention
to this need (Lee 1993, 1999; Grumbine 1994), yet much
emphasis has been directed at the role of science, overcoming
information gaps, and the construction of models. As a result,
translating ecosystem management principles into practice
has remained a challenge. Flexible social arrangements are
necessary to develop the rules, institutions, and incentives
(see Brown 2003; Ostrom 2005) that influence ecosystem
management outcomes in a complex and uncertain world.
While consensus on best management practices has been
slow to evolve, there is evidence of progress.
One emerging and interdisciplinary approach that holds
promise for complex social–ecological systems is adaptive
co-management. This approach explicitly links learning
(experiential and experimental) and collaboration to facili-
tate effective governance, defined here as the public and pri-
vate interactions undertaken to resolve societal challenges,
and the institutions and principles which mediate those
interactions (Kooiman and Bavinck 2005). In this paper, we
identify and define the principal features of adaptive co-
management and draw attention to its corollary ideas (see
Panel 1): innovative institutional arrangements and incen-
tives across spatiotemporal scales and levels (sensu Cash et
al. 2006), learning through complexity and change, moni-
toring and assessment of interventions, the role of power,
and opportunities to link science with policy. This review is
intended to foster reflection and action on the societal
processes and institutional arrangements appropriate in
complex social–ecological systems, and to highlight their
importance in moving ecosystem management forward.
Adaptive co-management
A reinvention of resource management is underway.
Value and interest disputes, the cross-scale nature of
environmental problems, and pervasive ecological and
social uncertainty demand new strategies (Holling and
Meffe 1996; Ravetz 2003; Waltner-Toews et al. 2003).
The neglect of culture and the persistence of conven-
tional assumptions about social and ecological stability,
scientific certainty, and the place of experts in gover-
nance, all create challenging decision-making condi-
tions. Centralized bureaucracies are often limited in their
ability to respond to rapid social–ecological transforma-
tions (MA 2005) and to cope with uncertainty.
Reductionism and disciplinary isolation restrict our
understanding of a world characterized by surprises and
REVIEWS REVIEWS REVIEWS
Adaptive co-management for social–
ecological complexity
DDeerreekk RR AArrmmiittaaggee11**,, RRyyaann PPlluummmmeerr22,, FFiikkrreett BBeerrkkeess33,, RRoobbeerrtt II AArrtthhuurr44,, AAnntthhoonnyy TT CChhaarrlleess55,,
IIaaiinn JJ DDaavviiddssoonn--HHuunntt33,, AAllaann PP DDiidduucckk66,, NNaannccyy CC DDoouubblleeddaayy77,, DDeerreekk SS JJoohhnnssoonn88,, MMeelliissssaa MMaarrsscchhkkee99,,
PPaattrriicckk MMccCCoonnnneeyy1100,, EEvveellyynn WW PPiinnkkeerrttoonn1111,, aanndd EEvvaa KK WWoolllleennbbeerrgg1122
Building trust through collaboration, institutional development, and social learning enhances efforts to foster
ecosystem management and resolve multi-scale society–environment dilemmas. One emerging approach
aimed at addressing these dilemmas is adaptive co-management. This method draws explicit attention to the
learning (experiential and experimental) and collaboration (vertical and horizontal) functions necessary to
improve our understanding of, and ability to respond to, complex social–ecological systems. Here, we identify
and outline the core features of adaptive co-management, which include innovative institutional arrange-
ments and incentives across spatiotemporal scales and levels, learning through complexity and change, mon-
itoring and assessment of interventions, the role of power, and opportunities to link science with policy.
Front Ecol Environ
2009; 7(2): 95–102, doi:10.1890/070089 (published online 24 Jan 2008)
IInn aa nnuuttsshheellll::
•“Command-and-control” resource management is limited in
a complex and changing world
•Innovative strategies that explicitly foster collaboration and
learning are emerging, and contribute to trust building and
the formation of social networks of researchers, communities,
and policy makers
•One approach suited to conditions of uncertainty and con-
flict is adaptive co-management
•Adaptive co-management merges the principles and practices
of co-management and adaptive management
1Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Wilfrid
Laurier University, Waterloo, ON, Canada *(darmitage@wlu.ca);
2Department of Tourism and Environment, Brock University, St
Catherines, ON, Canada; 3Natural Resources Institute, University of
Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada; 4WorldFish Center, Phnom
Penh, Cambodia; 5Management Science/Environmental Studies, Saint
Mary’s University, Halifax, NS, Canada (continued on page 102)

Social–ecological complexity DR Armitage et al.
96
wwwwww..ffrroonnttiieerrssiinneeccoollooggyy..oorrgg©© The Ecological Society of America
discontinuities (Levin 1999). These considerations reveal
the limitations of yield-oriented, “command-and-con-
trol” governance.
In contrast, novel governance approaches emphasize
group decision making that accommodates diverse views,
shared learning, and the social sources of adaptability,
renewal, and transformation (Folke et al. 2005; Campbell
et al. 2006). While a considerable theoretical base has
evolved for both co-management (eg Hanna 1994;
Pinkerton 1994; Jentoft et al. 1998) and adaptive man-
agement (eg Holling 1978; Walters 1986), merging the
two concepts engenders an approach that is distinct from
either. The result is a flexible system of resource manage-
ment, tailored to specific places and situations, supported
by, and working in conjunction with, various organiza-
tions at different scales (Buck et al. 2001; Olsson et al.
2004; Colfer 2005). Ecological and social uncertainty is
acknowledged as inherent to governance, and is best
addressed with collaborative processes and recognition
that multiple sources and types of knowledge are relevant
to problem solving. As Olsson et al. (2004) suggest, the
“self-organizing process of adaptive co-management
development, facilitated by rules and incentives of higher
levels, has the potential to make…social–ecological sys-
tems more robust to change”.
Attention to management objectives and structures is
necessary. However, an emphasis on trust building, institu-
tional development, and social learning takes adaptive co-
management into the realm of governance. Creating the
social and institutional space for such interactions is a
daunting task; most resources are contested by multiple
stakeholders, while management institutions are often
internally divided. Competing interests and values are the
norm, and conflict is a frequent operating condition, while
social relationships and rules regarding use and manage-
ment are complex. New directions in research and practice
are required to further support effective interventions
under these challenging social conditions. We outline five
thematic areas of adaptive co-management.
Institutions, incentives, and governance
The study of institutions has generated useful insights for
governance in diverse resource contexts (Ostrom et al.
2002). Such factors as group size and levels of homogene-
ity, reciprocity and trust in social dilemmas, benefit and
cost distribution mechanisms, the existence of monitor-
ing systems, and clearly defined resource system bound-
aries are highlighted. However, these insights are largely
derived from the study of self-organizing, community-
based systems of management of the commons. Very few
published papers about co-management have dealt with
the complexities of multi-party and multi-scaled gover-
nance (Pinkerton 1994; Brown 2003). Recognition of the
challenge of governance in multi-scale systems highlights
additional priorities: deliberative processes among all
stakeholders, redundant and layered institutions, and a
mix of institutional types (Dietz et al. 2003). Adaptive co-
management reflects these combined insights.
Responding to non-linear social–ecological feedback
and cross-scale interplay requires multi-level governance
arrangements that link social actors (vertically and hori-
zontally) in the pursuit of shared learning (Young 2002;
Ostrom 2005). Effective linkages will establish the basis
for regularized flows of information, shared understand-
ing, and problem articulation (Young 2002), and will
move governance beyond simplified network perspec-
tives. Figure 1 illustrates the potential multi-level institu-
tional features of adaptive co-management, in which het-
erogeneous networks of actors are connected in a process
of social learning. Using the case of narwhal management
in Nunavut, Canada, Figure 1 depicts horizontal and verti-
cal linkages among local hunters’ and trappers’ organiza-
tions, regional wildlife organizations, and the Nunavut
Wildlife Management Board. These entities are further
linked to the national-level organizations (eg Fisheries and
Panel 1. Glossary of selected terms
Cross-scale/multi-level linkages: Social, institutional, or eco-
logical connections among individuals or organizations. Such con-
nections may be horizontal (eg across geographical space) or ver-
tical (eg across different levels of organization).
Governance: The public and private interactions undertaken to
address challenges and create opportunities within society.
Governance thus includes the development and application of the
principles, rules,norms, and enabling institutions that guide public
and private interactions.
Institutions: The formal (rules, laws,constitutions, organizational
entities) and informal (norms of behavior, conventions, codes of
conduct) practices that structure human interaction.
Memory: Accumulated experience and history of the system
(both ecological and social), which provide the basis for self-orga-
nization.
Networks: The interconnections among people and organiza-
tions within a social–ecological system. Networks may structure
themselves around resource use, administrative responsibility,
and/or other functions, and may be connected to other networks
within and outside of the system of interest.
Self-organization: In adaptive co-management, self-organization
involves the emergence of formal and informal networks, working
in a collaborative and creative process, often drawing on a range of
knowledge sources and ideas, to resolve issues and move forward
in response to disturbance.
Social capital: The social norms, networks of reciprocity and
exchange, and relationships of trust that enable people to act col-
lectively.
Social–ecological system: Integrated, coupled systems of peo-
ple and environments.
Social learning: The collaborative or mutual development and
sharing of knowledge by multiple stakeholders (both people and
organizations) through learning-by-doing.

DR Armitage et al. Social–ecological complexity
97
© The Ecological Society of America wwwwww..ffrroonnttiieerrssiinneeccoollooggyy..oorrgg
Oceans Canada) that are vested
with authority for the manage-
ment of narwhal. National-level
entities also provide opportunities
for transnational linkages and
conflict resolution. In this nar-
whal management regime, local-
level actors should have an
increasingly central role in harvest
decision making and enforcement,
with support from higher level
organizations and institutions (ie
the Nunavut Final Agreement, a
comprehensive land claim accord
between the Inuit and the
Canadian Government).
A number of factors have con-
strained learning among those
participating in narwhal manage-
ment, indicating a need to
deepen our understanding of
social networks (as in Figure 1).
These factors include evolving
motivations for resource harvest-
ing as individuals and communi-
ties engage with the market economy, the formalized
nature of interactions among local actors and govern-
ment agencies, which can create barriers to Inuit partici-
pation in decision making, and the uncertainty about
mobile and transboundary narwhal stocks. Despite many
challenges, the linking and learning features of this inno-
vative narwhal regime offer additional opportunities for
the organizations involved to better collaborate and
respond to change (Diduck et al. 2005).
While high levels of motivation and capacity may
increase the rate at which successful institutional arrange-
ments develop, more often such arrangements must be fos-
tered for a long time. Experiences from earlier collabora-
tive processes offer no recipe for trust building, but do
reveal the need for repeated interaction among stake-
holder groups and individuals, and a commitment to open
communication. Thus, it may take a decade or more for
these arrangements to mature to the point where levels of
trust and social capital contribute to self-organizing sys-
tems of governance. Conversely, trust can be eroded very
quickly, as a result of sudden shifts in harvest intensity by a
particular group, unexpected regulations or restrictions on
harvesting, or failure to meet a commitment. It is impor-
tant to note, therefore, that the interactions associated
with institutional arrangements for adaptive co-manage-
ment are not necessarily fixed in time or space, and that
institutional arrangements will vary with context.
Institutional arrangements of adaptive co-management
are likely to unfold in many hybrid forms.
Finally, it is valuable to recognize the importance of
rights, responsibilities, and benefits within multi-level
institutional arrangements, given the challenges of
accountability, resource sharing, and knowledge transfor-
mation. To date, these concerns have been explored pri-
marily with reference to the role of state and community-
based entities, while that of non-governmental organ-
izations and market incentives in adaptive, multi-level
governance has not been fully explored (Ostrom et al.
2002). Careful analysis of institutional processes, struc-
tures, and incentives is vital, since the interactions of the
various stakeholders are unlikely to be socially or politi-
cally neutral.
Learning through complexity
The struggle to learn from social–ecological feedback and
to respond with appropriate strategies reflects a limitation
of the conventional command-and-control paradigm
(Gunderson and Holling 2002). Adaptive co-manage-
ment takes learning as a necessary starting point, yet goes
further and requires greater specificity with respect to
learning objectives, approaches, outcomes, and risks. We
highlight four issues in relation to learning.
First, systematic learning under conditions of complex-
ity and uncertainty requires meaningful social interaction
and a concerted effort to build trust. Technical expertise
has a crucial yet restricted role in this regard (Waltner-
Toews et al. 2003). Local and traditional knowledge also
have a crucial (although similarly bounded) role (Figures
2 and 3), and can support learning through dialogue and
deliberation.
Second, the transition toward adaptive co-management
signals a need to apply diverse learning strategies to under-
stand social–ecological feedback. These learning strategies
FFiigguurree 11..Horizontal and vertical linkages among narwhal management organizations.
Adapted from Armitage (2005).
International
Nunavut Tunngavik Inc Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Nunavut Wildlife Management Board
Regional wildlife
organization
Regional wildlife
organization
Regional wildlife
organization
Hunters’ and trappers’
organization Hunters’ and trappers’
organization
Hunters’ and trappers’
organization Hunters’ and trappers’
organization

Social–ecological complexity DR Armitage et al.
98
wwwwww..ffrroonnttiieerrssiinneeccoollooggyy..oorrgg©© The Ecological Society of America
are intentional, whether experimental or experiential, and
focus on the development of flexible institutional and
organizational arrangements to encourage reflection and
innovation (see Lee 1999; Cook et al. 2004). In this latter
regard, scientists and decision makers must recognize that
learning may often emerge from experience when individ-
uals (and the organizations of which they are a part) pay
attention to both their actions and the outcomes of their
actions. Understanding the experiential dimension of
learning draws attention to the importance of creating a
shared understanding of the consequences of actions and
behaviors, and the possibilities for positive change that can
emerge as a result. In this sense, learning processes fit with
the concepts of passive and active adaptive management in
the resource management literature (see Walters 1986).
Third, careful attention to how learning is defined and
conceptualized is critical, because learning theories are
drawn from diverse disciplines and have various process
and outcome implications (Parson and Clark 1995). What
is apparent is that adaptive co-management requires a
model of learning that accounts for social context (eg con-
flict and power imbalances), pluralism, critical reflection,
adaptive capacity, systems thinking or interconnected-
ness, a diversity of approaches to adaptation, and para-
digm shifts.
Fourth, careful attention to who is learning and the
linkages among learners is required. Adaptive co-manage-
ment involves more than individual learning; it also
entails scaling up individual learning outcomes to various
social levels, implying a certain sense of common purpose
in the learning, and the capability of identifying, explain-
ing, and ultimately facilitating effective cross-scale insti-
tutional arrangements (as outlined above). In the absence
of clearly articulated learning objectives and strategies,
definitive conclusions about individual or group learning
outcomes will be slow to emerge. Similarly, learning is
strongly related to the collective “memory” of groups
engaged in deliberative governance and the cultural and
collective historical experiences of those groups. Learning
through complexity in the absence of collaboration and
attention to social–ecological memory will undermine
governance prospects.
Power asymmetries
With recognition of adaptive co-management as an evo-
lutionary process, emphasis shifts toward the social
processes that encourage flexibility and innovation – key
ingredients of adaptive capacity. Trust building, conflict
resolution, and social learning become governance
requirements in a rapidly changing world, and highlight
the role of power in adaptive co-management
(Doubleday 2007). It is therefore necessary to examine
the many sources and manifestations of power, how it
emerges and persists (through control, resistance, and sol-
idarity), and its influence – good and bad – on collabora-
tion and learning. Different social entities continuously
exert their power (eg through the use or misuse of infor-
mation). Power is therefore linked to deliberation, learn-
ing (eg who defines what type of learning), the choice of
indicators for measuring outcomes, and the sharing of risk
– all key components of adaptive co-management.
With its greater emphasis on linking and learning,
adaptive co-management provides a process for mediat-
ing conflict, where other approaches may ignore, or dis-
count as too complex, the dynamics of power inherent in
novel institutional arrangements. Establishing such
arrangements depends first on a thorough understanding
of the social, economic, and other sources of power which
influence regulatory bodies, and society more widely.
Without an understanding of class, ethnicity, gender, and
the other structuring dimensions of society, the social,
bureaucratic, and scientific segmental tendencies that
constrain flexibility and the sharing of governing author-
ity will go unchallenged (Figure 4). These tendencies are
exemplified in bureaucracies that fragment interests and
values, responsibilities, and authority into separate, non-
communicating departments, to partition information
and engage in dysfunctional learning, to give preference
FFiigguurree 22..A hunting party traveling in uncertain sea ice
conditions. Here, the knowledge and experience of local hunters
are essential.
Courtesy of A Dale
Courtesy of A Dale
FFiigguurree 33..Crossing a lead. Changing conditions can add an
additional layer of uncertainty for local harvesters and may
require the adoption of new technologies.

DR Armitage et al. Social–ecological complexity
99
© The Ecological Society of America wwwwww..ffrroonnttiieerrssiinneeccoollooggyy..oorrgg
to decisions targeting only short-term outcomes, and to
compete rather than to cooperate within and between
divisions and departments. Adaptive co-management can
have a corrective effect on these inherent tendencies
(Pinkerton 2007).
Assessment: monitoring, indicators, and
outcomes
Ongoing assessment and reflection are crucial within a
complex adaptive systems worldview, which places a pri-
ority on responding to feedback (Holling 1978).
Assessment is at the core of determining appropriate
institutional responses to change, enabling an adaptive
approach, and learning at multiple levels (Bellamy et al.
2001). Monitoring acts to position assessment, reflection,
and learning in specific empirical contexts. Nevertheless,
a number of challenges must be faced. First, while emerg-
ing experience points to the potential of adaptive co-
management to encourage constructive interaction
among stakeholders, contextual specificity makes it diffi-
cult to develop widely applicable blueprint solutions.
Ostrom (2007) challenges the appropriateness of such
panaceas for social–ecological systems and argues that
researchers and practitioners considering outcomes must
take into account contextual variables at multiple tiers in
different domains (social and biophysical).
Second, the existing gap between theory and practice
is further complicated by the shifting conditions of com-
plex social–ecological systems, particularly in areas at
the terrestrial–marine interface (Figure 5). Moving
through the assessment process to the establishment of
assessment parameters or indicators is particularly chal-
lenging. Useful parameters must draw attention to key
slow and fast variables that structure most complex
social–ecological systems (Gunderson and Holling
2002). Moreover, these parameters must provide the
basis for context-appropriate indicator selection directed
at ecosystem conditions, socioeconomic and livelihood
outcomes, and process and institutional conditions (see
Table 1). Matching indicators to the scale of the
social–ecological system is particularly important, since,
for example, indicators commonly used in large-scale sys-
tems may be inappropriate at the community level (Boyd
and Charles 2006).
Third, assessment in adaptive co-management should
take into account the specific context, uncertainties, and
objectives prior to determining what outcomes will be
monitored. This extends to the consideration of the role
of different organizations in determining what questions
to ask, what outcomes to encourage, and the choice of
indicators used to assess outcomes (as previously noted),
as well as the use of participatory processes for indicator
development and monitoring (Prabhu et al. 2001;
Garaway and Arthur 2004). Ultimately, to facilitate sys-
tematic assessment and learning across sites, consistent
parameter and indicator selection is required.
Linking to policy
Adaptive co-management links scientists with resource
users, government managers, and other stakeholders in
collaborative problem-solving. To link the process of
adaptive co-management with policy, two issues are of
paramount importance. First, care must be taken when
developing the policy conditions to enable adaptive co-
management. Adaptive co-management processes are
slow to develop, or will fail to develop at all, unless policy
environments are supportive of multi-level learning net-
works, and unless scientists and managers are rewarded
for participating in those networks (see Davidson-Hunt
and O’Flaherty 2007).
Many of the conditions identified above highlight key
policy directions. These include more attention to assess-
ment, directing additional funds to building the social
sources of learning and adaptation, fostering flexible
institutions and bureaucracies designed to work in a
rapidly changing world, using the full range of knowledge
sources, and explicitly considering the role of power.
Other requirements will emerge with additional experi-
ence and as a result of tests of adaptive co-management in
a variety of social–ecological contexts. What is clear,
FFiigguurree 44..An Inuit hunter on the lookout. Less powerful groups
require particular attention in co-management arrangements.
Courtesy of A Dale
FFiigguurree 55..The terrestrial–marine interface deepens social–eco-
logical complexity.
Courtesy of A Dale

Social–ecological complexity DR Armitage et al.
100
wwwwww..ffrroonnttiieerrssiinneeccoollooggyy..oorrgg©© The Ecological Society of America
however, is that an absence of the necessary ingredients
for adaptive co-management can have strongly negative
implications for the sustainability and resilience of the
social–ecological system (Charles 2004, 2007).
Second, the incentives required to establish enabling
policy conditions for adaptive co-management, over and
above regular policy review and assessment, require fur-
ther analysis. It is also important to consider the benefits
policy makers expect from adaptive co-management
processes, and how these expectations can best be met.
Experience over several decades with conventional nat-
ural resource management has revealed a process that is
often adversarial, pitting stakeholder groups against one
another. Furthermore, given advances in our understand-
ing of social–ecological feedback, those policies that seek
to maximize yield and reduce uncertainty appear misdi-
rected (Kates et al. 2001; Gunderson and Holling 2002).
Optimism can be difficult to maintain. For policy makers
and managers, there is merit in considering how adaptive
co-management processes can encourage better outcomes,
despite the apparent risks and higher transaction costs.
For instance, adaptive co-management will better
enable learning over the mid- to long term as social net-
works are formed and trust accumulates, and will bear
fruit, in the form of mutual respect and cooperative rela-
tionships (Hanna 1994). Transaction costs associated
with this process-oriented approach may appear high in
the short term, but long-term benefits associated with the
development of policy and resource management deci-
sions are likely to emerge (see Brown 2003; Waltner-
Toews et al. 2003). In fact, where adaptive co-manage-
ment emerges, both in structure and in spirit, there can
be an important element of risk sharing (but not neces-
sarily less risk) for policy makers and managers.
Management experiments carry with them the possibility
of failure, and risk sharing in collaborative partnerships is
an important part of adaptive co-management processes.
Thus, it is crucial to consider who bears both the transac-
tion costs and the risks in adaptive co-management.
If such concerns are suitably addressed, the
enhanced capacity for adaptation, forged through
collaboration, should help foster social and ecologi-
cal sustainability.
Conclusions
Adaptive co-management is not a governance
panacea, and will not be appropriate in all cases.
On-the-ground examples and tools for successful
adaptive co-management are still being developed,
in what is a highly adaptive process of experimenta-
tion in many locations around the world. At the
same time, researchers are seeking to synthesize
these experiences to better understand the specific
conditions under which this approach is most likely
to succeed. To this end, Table 2 identifies ten key
“conditions for success” in adaptive co-manage-
ment. Based on case study evidence, we feel that these
conditions must all be met to some extent in order to
achieve a successful outcome, but there will certainly be
variation depending on the system of interest.
Some resource management dilemmas (whether in
rural or urban settings) will overwhelm novel institu-
tional arrangements such as adaptive co-management.
This may occur when it is difficult to identify a clear set
of place-based entities linked to a defined resource stock,
or where there is little commitment or incentive among
participants to encourage long-term learning around a
shared goal (ie sustainability rather than rapid resource
exploitation; see Berkes et al. 2006).
Adaptive co-management, however, is one potential
tool in a suite of governance options to modify unsustain-
able social–ecological feedbacks. Conventional institu-
tional responses, including strictly enforced regulations,
the development of protected areas and set-asides, and
other social and market incentives, are still needed.
Within adaptive co-management, however, the ability to
link adaptive and collaborative mechanisms offers the
potential to produce deliberative processes (Stern 2005)
that encourage reflection, observation, and opportunities
for communication and persuasion among social groups,
where uncertainties are high (Lee 1999). An adaptive co-
management process can also help many such groups to
articulate the full range of values and assumptions that
will shape governance outcomes. Ultimately, this leads to
several key attributes: (1) a greater recognition of differ-
ent needs and an emphasis on distributive arrangements
among stakeholders; (2) continued effort to build on cul-
turally embedded, formal and informal rules and norms;
(3) formation of horizontal and vertical linkages and net-
works to foster trust building and social learning; (4) a
wide variety of types and sources of knowledge, and the
shared development of such knowledge among stakehold-
ers; and (5) enhanced capacity among resource manage-
ment organizations to respond proactively to uncertainty.
Table 1. Broad assessment parameters
Domains Parameters
Ecological system Components (ecosystem types/habitats,
species, and biophysical features);
relationships between components
(nutrients, biogeochemical cycles, trophic
interactions); diversity and functional
diversity;ecological memory and continuity
Socioeconomics and Increased well-being; decreased poverty;
livelihoods increased income; decreased vulnerability;
increased food security; sustainable
resource use
Institutions and process Multiple interests, perspectives and
linkages among institutions; communication
and negotiation; transactive decision
making; social learning
Notes: Adapted from Plummer and Armitage (2007)

DR Armitage et al. Social–ecological complexity
Acknowledgements
This synthesis is one outcome of an expert Delphi process
and a two-day workshop (at Wilfrid Laurier University,
October, 2006). We thank all of the respondents of the
Delphi process, and the participants of the workshop,
whose insights have contributed to the ideas in this
paper. The Adaptive Co-Management research group is
supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council of Canada and the Ocean
Management Research Network (www.omrn-rrgo.ca).
Additional support has been provided by Brock
University, the Canada Research Chair in Community
Based Resource Management – Natural Resources
101
© The Ecological Society of America wwwwww..ffrroonnttiieerrssiinneeccoollooggyy..oorrgg
Institute (University of Manitoba), and Wilfrid Laurier
University (through the Cold Regions Research Centre).
References
Armitage D. 2005. Community-based narwhal management in
Nunavut, Canada: change, uncertainty and adaptation. Soc Natur
Resour 1188: 715–31.
Bellamy JA, Walker DH, McDonald GT, and Syme GJ. 2001. A sys-
tems approach to the evaluation of natural resource management
initiatives. J Environ Manage 6633: 407–23.
Berkes F, Hughes TP, Steneck RS, et al. 2006. Globalization, roving
bandits and marine resources. Science 331111: 1557–58.
Berkes F, Folke C, and Colding J. 2003. Navigating social–ecological
systems: building resilience for complexity and change.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Boyd H and Charles AT. 2006. Creating community-based indicators
Table 2. Ten conditions for successful adaptive co-management
Condition of success Explanation
Well-defined resource system Systems characterized by relatively immobile (as opposed to highly migratory and/or transboundary)
resource stocks are likely to generate fewer institutional challenges and conflicts,while creating an
enabling environment for learning.
Small-scale resource use Small-scale systems (eg management of a specific rangeland or local fishery) will reduce the number
contexts of competing interests, institutional complexities, and layers of organization. Larger-scale resource
contexts (transboundary stocks, large watersheds) will exacerbate challenges.
Clear and identifiable set of In situations where stakeholders have limited or no connection to “place”, building linkages and trust
social entities with shared will be problematic. In such situations, efforts by local/regional organizations to achieve better
interests outcomes may be undermined by non-local economic and political forces.
Reasonably clear property Where rights or bundles of rights to resource use are reasonably clear (whether common property
rights to resources of concern or individual), enhanced security of access and incentives may better facilitate governance innovation
(eg fisheries, forest) and learning over the long term. Such rights need to be associated with corresponding responsi-
bilities (eg for conservation practices, participation in resource management).
Access to adaptable portfolio Participants in an adaptive co-management process must have flexibility to test and apply a diversity
of management measures of management measures or tools to achieve desired outcomes. These measures may include
licensing and quota setting, regulations, technological adjustments (eg gear size),education schemes,
and so on. In other words, economic,regulatory,and collaborative tools should all be available.
Commitment to support a Success is more likely where stakeholders accept the long-term nature of the process,and recognize
long-term institution-building that a blueprint approach to institutions or management strategies is probably not advantageous.
process Commitments of this type can provide a degree of relative stability in the context of numerous
changes and stresses from within and outside the system.
Provision of training, capacity Few stakeholder groups will possess all the necessary resources in an adaptive co-management
building, and resources for context. At the local level, resources that facilitate collaboration and effective sharing of decision-
local-, regional-, and national- making power are required. Regional- and national-level entities must also be provided with the
level stakeholders necessary resources.
Key leaders or individuals Key individuals are needed to maintain a focus on collaboration and the creation of opportunities for
prepared to champion the reflection and learning. Ideally, these individuals will have a long-term connection to “place” and the
process resource, or,within a bureaucracy, to policy and its implementation. Such individuals will be viewed
as effective mediators in resolving conflict.
Openness of participants to Both expert and non-expert knowledge can play productive and essential roles in problem identifica-
share and draw upon a tion,framing, and analysis.The tendency in most resource management contexts is to emphasize
plurality of knowledge differences in knowledge systems. However, there are substantial contributions to social–ecological
systems and sources understanding, trust building, and learning, where the complementarities between formal, expert
knowledge and non-expert knowledge are recognized.
National and regional policy Explicit support for collaborative processes and multi-stakeholder engagement will enhance success.
environment explicitly This support can be articulated through federal or state/provincial legislation or land claim
supportive of collaborative agreements, and the willingness to distribute functions across organizational levels. Additionally,
management efforts consistent support across policy sectors will enhance the likelihood of success, and encourage
clear objectives, provision of resources, and the devolution of real power to local actors and
user groups.

Social–ecological complexity DR Armitage et al.
to monitor sustainability of local fisheries. Ocean Coast Manage
4499: 237–58.
Brown K. 2003. Integrating conservation and development: a case of
institutional misfit. Front Ecol Environ 11: 479–87.
Buck L, Geisler CC, Schelhas J, and Wollenberg E (Eds). 2001.
Biological diversity: balancing interests through adaptive collabo-
rative management. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Campbell BM, Hagmann J, Stroud A, et al. 2006. Navigating amidst
complexity: guide to implementing effective research and devel-
opment to improve livelihoods and the environment. Bogor,
Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research.
Cash DW, Adger W, Berkes F, et al. 2006. Scale and cross-scale dynam-
ics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecol Soc
1111: 8.
Charles AT. 2004. Sustainability and resilience in natural resource sys-
tems: policy directions and management institutions. In:
Encyclopaedia of Life Support Systems. Oxford, UK: UNESCO
and Eolss Publishers.
Charles AT. 2007. Adaptive co-management for resilient resource sys-
tems: some ingredients and the implications of their absence. In:
Armitage D, Berkes F, and Doubleday N (Eds). Adaptive co-man-
agement: collaboration, learning and multi-level governance.
Vancouver, Canada: UBC Press.
Colfer CJP. 2005. The complex forest: communities, uncertainty, and
adaptive collaborative management. Washington, DC: Resources
for the Future and Center for International Forestry Research.
Cook W, Casagrande D, Hope D, et al. 2004. Learning to roll with the
punches: adaptive experimentation in human-dominated systems.
Front Ecol Environ 22: 467–74.
Davidson-Hunt I and O’Flaherty M. 2007. Researchers, indigenous
peoples, and place-based learning communities. Soc Natur Resour
2200: 1–15.
Diduck A, Bankes N, Clark D, and Armitage D. 2005. Unpacking
social learning in social-ecological systems: case studies of polar
bear and narwhal management in northern Canada. In: Berkes F,
Huebert R, Fast H, et al. (Eds). Breaking ice: renewable resource
and ocean management in the Canadian North. Calgary, Canada:
Arctic Institute of North America and University of Calgary Press.
Dietz T, Ostrom E, and Stern P. 2003. The struggle to govern the com-
mons. Science 330022: 1907–12.
Doubleday N. 2007. Culturing adaptive co-management: finding
“keys” to resilience in asymmetries of power. In: Armitage D,
Berkes F, and Doubleday N (Eds). Adaptive co-management: col-
laboration, learning and multi-level governance. Van-
couver, Canada: UBC Press.
Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, and Norberg J. 2005. Adaptive governance
of social–ecological systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour 3300:
8.1–8.33.
Garaway CJ and Arthur R. 2004. Adaptive learning: a practical frame-
work for the implementation of adaptive co-management –
lessons from selected experiences in south and southeast Asia.
London, UK: MRAG Ltd.
Grumbine RE. 1994. What is ecosystem management? Conserv Biol 88:
27–38.
Gunderson LH and Holling CS. 2002. Panarchy: understanding trans-
formations in human and natural systems. Washington, DC:
Island Press.
Hanna S. 1994. Co-management. In: Gimbel KL (Ed). Limiting
access to marine fisheries: keeping the focus on conservation.
Washington, DC: Center for Marine Conservation and World
Wildlife Fund.
Holling CS (Ed). 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and man-
agement. New York, NY: Wiley.
Holling CS and Meffe GK. 1996. Command and control and the
pathology of natural resource management. Conserv Biol 1100:
328–37.
Hughes T, Bellwood D, Folke C, et al. 2005. New paradigms for sup-
porting the resilience of marine ecosystems. Trends Ecol Evol 2200:
380–86.
Jentoft S, McCay BJ, and Wilson DC. 1998. Social theory and fish-
eries co-management. Mar Pol 2222: 423–36.
Kates R, Clark W, Corell R, et al. 2001. Sustainability science. Science
229922: 641–42.
Kooiman J and Bavinck M. 2005. The governance perspective. In:
Kooiman J, Jentoft S, Pullin R, and Bavinck M (Eds). Fish for life:
interactive governance for fisheries. Amsterdam, Nether-lands:
Amsterdam University Press.
Lee K. 1993. Compass and gyroscope: integrating science and politics
for the environment. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Lee K. 1999. Appraising adaptive management. Conserv Ecol 33: 3.
Levin SA. 1999. Fragile dominion: complexity and the commons.
Reading, MA: Perseus Books.
MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005. Ecosystems and
human well-being: synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Olsson P, Folke C, and Berkes F. 2004. Adaptive co-management for
building resilience in social–ecological systems. Environ Manage
3344: 75–90.
Ostrom E. 2005. Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Ostrom E. 2007. A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. P
Natl Acad Sci USA 110044: 15181–87.
Ostrom E, Dietz T, Dols˘ak N, et al. (Eds). 2002. The drama of the com-
mons. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Parson EA and Clark WC. 1995. Sustainable development as social
learning: theoretical perspectives and practical challenges. In:
Gunderson L, Holling CS, and Light S (Eds). Barriers and bridges
to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions. New York, NY:
Columbia University Press.
Pinkerton E. 1994. Local fisheries co-management: a review of inter-
national experiences and their implications for salmon manage-
ment in British Columbia. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 5511: 2363–78.
Pinkerton E. 2007. Integrating holism and segmentalism: overcoming
barriers to adaptive co-management between management agen-
cies and multi-sector bodies. In: Armitage D, Berkes F, and
Doubleday N (Eds). Adaptive co-management: collaboration,
learning and multi-level governance. Vancouver, Canada: UBC
Press.
Plummer R and Armitage D. 2007. A resilience-based framework for
evaluating adaptive co-management: linking ecology, economy
and society in a complex world. Ecol Econ 6611: 62–74.
Prabhu R, Ruitenbeek HJ, Boyle TJB, and Colfer CJP. 2001. Between
voodoo science and adaptive management: the role and research
needs for indicators of sustainable forest management. In: Raison
J, Brown A, and Flinn D (Eds). Criteria and indicators for sustain-
able forest management. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.
IUFRO Research Series 7.
Ravetz J. 2003. The post-normal science of precaution. Futures 3366:
347–57.
Stern P. 2005. Deliberative methods for understanding environmental
systems. BioScience 5555: 976–82.
Walters CJ. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources. New
York, NY: MacMillan Publishing Company.
Waltner-Toews D, Kay J, Neudoerffer C, and Gitau T. 2003.
Perspective changes everything: managing ecosystems from the
inside out. Front Ecol Environ 11: 23–30.
Young O. 2002. Institutional interplay: the environmental conse-
quences of cross-scale interactions. In: Ostrom E, Dietz T, Dols
vak
N, et al. (Eds). The drama of the commons. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
6Environmental Studies Program, University of Winnipeg,
Winnipeg, MB, Canada; 7Department of Geography and Environ-
mental Studies, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada;
8Department of Anthropology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg,
MB, Canada; 9International Development and Globalization
Program, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada; 10Center
for Resource Management and Environmental Studies, University
of the West Indies, St Michael, Barbados, West Indies; 11School of
Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser
University, Burnaby, BC, Canada; 12Center for Sustainable
Agriculture, University of Vermont, Burlington,VT
102
wwwwww..ffrroonnttiieerrssiinneeccoollooggyy..oorrgg©© The Ecological Society of America