Expanding the social-ecological science of resource management requires resolving some fundamental issues around the scale of management costs and benefits and the associated values and desires of managers and resource users. Interdisciplinary research and its application alone will not solve this problem, as there are more fundamental problems than inclusiveness and cooperation among academic disciplines. Rather, there is a need for a more explicit evaluation and implementation of stakeholder preferences, those most involved in decisions and those most involved in accessing resources (McClanahan, 2011). I believe that the resolution lies more in the political process of identifying these preferences, developing mutual respect, and co-mingling conceptual narratives and associated management actions rather than deconstructing, reinforcing, and polarizing ideological values and world views (Verweij et al., 2006). Institutional and governance design principles are likely to play key roles in increasing the chances of resolving these problems (Ostrom, 1990). Nevertheless, the elements of successful social institutional design may largely reflect the ability of people to effectively communicate, trust one another, and find and implement shared values. I suspect from experience that when dialogues are focused more specifically on preferences and the political process of compromise, then the resolution of management conflicts is likely to be accelerated (McClanahan, 2007, 2010). Many people using common-pool aquatic resources, particularly in poor or developing countries, lean towards cultural tradition and metaphysical or environmentally indeterminate views of causation while more formally educated managers and donors frequently embrace deterministic biophysical views and associated value systems (Schultz, 2000). This is not a simple north–south cultural divide but more likely to be associated with the time spent in formal education systems – seen even among some of the poorest countries, such as those in south-eastern Africa (Figure 1). Consequently, when these two groups are evaluating cause and effect relationships there is frequently a gap in the culture and education that is not easily scaled and results in conflicting interpretations of causation and consequent plans of action. Additionally, the scale question of who benefits from the change and the perceived disparities is often a key problem – as costs and benefits are not shared equally and net benefits accrue at different scales of time and space and individuals associated with those scales (Bene et al., 2009; Cinner et al., 2012). These differences are easily exemplified by the difference between professions associated with managing and using the aquatic environment (Salomon et al., 2011). Fisheries managers will be more focused on annual yields, accepting of longer-term risks, and aim to reduce resources to target reference points where yields are maximized and cost-benefits optimized (Hilborn, 2007). Conservation professionals, on the other hand, are less willing to exceed points where long-term use could create risks that could
Read full abstract