1 / 15

Institutional performance in social-ecological systems in Alaska

Chanda Meek, PhD Candidate Department of Resources Management University of Alaska Fairbanks. Institutional performance in social-ecological systems in Alaska. EPSCOR Living on Earth May 11, 2009. Coastal Arctic social-ecological system (SES). Research questions.

gitano
Télécharger la présentation

Institutional performance in social-ecological systems in Alaska

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Chanda Meek, PhD Candidate Department of Resources Management University of Alaska Fairbanks Institutional performance in social-ecological systems in Alaska EPSCOR Living on Earth May 11, 2009

  2. Coastal Arctic social-ecological system (SES)

  3. Research questions • Why do two federal agencies co-managing subsistence policy in the same Alaska Native villages do it differently? • Do these differences matter for conservation and subsistence livelihoods?

  4. Theoretical underpinnings • Institutional theory • How do rules affect outcomes? • Common-pool resource theory • How do communities sustain resources held in common? • Resilience theory

  5. Alaskan whaling and pb villages

  6. Conceptual model Independent variables Performance variables Agency culture Output (policies) Agency structure Agency cultural manifestation Outcomes (change in behavior) Fit with ecological and social context Agency history Impacts to resource Amalgam of Easton 1965, Ostrom et al. 1994, Alvesson 2002 and Young 2002.

  7. NMFS Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission Barrow Wainwright USFWS Nanuuq Commission Barrow Wainwright Cases

  8. USFWS Protective mission Internally oriented Prefer joint implementation Low tolerance for ecological risk NMFS Competing priorities Externally oriented Use contracts, devolve responsibilities Low tolerance for political risk Influences on policy choices

  9. Different policy outputs, different networks • The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission assesses harvests of bowhead whales through their co-management structure • Polar bear harvests are assessed through an ad-hoc network created by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to implement the Marking, Tagging, and Reporting Program

  10. Barrow networks (ideal v. advice) AEWC WCA DWM NMFS elders Q: If you had a question about harvesting rules, who would you talk to?

  11. Wainwright networks (ideal v. advice) Q: If you had a question about harvesting rules, who would you talk to?

  12. Differences in co-management

  13. Differences in outcomes

  14. Conclusions • Agency culture shapes policy preferences, these policies affect network implementation • Subsistence policy is most effective when it fits the ecological and social characteristics of a community • If an agency tends to be hierarchical, local networks and organizations are less likely to develop and sustain local management

More Related