272
R. Chuenpagdee and R. Mahon
can be used to reveal the purpose, aims, mandate and responsibility of the governing
system (Ekstrom et al. 2009 ) , as well as its relationship to the natural system
(Ekstrom and Young 2009 ) . As with the system-to-be-governed, the full complexity
of the governing system can be comprehended using higher level analysis such as
social networks. Resilience, adaptability and robustness of the governing system
can also be assessed in a variety of ways (Allison et al. 2009 ; Resilience Alliance
2010 ) . These include using institutional analysis frameworks like those developed
by Anderies et al. ( 2004 ) and Ostrom ( 2009 ) , or discursive- institutional analysis
(Arts and Buizer 2009 ) . The emphasis of the latter is on understanding institutional
dynamics through an examination of ideas, concepts and narratives.
Other measures of the governing system relate to how well they perform their
roles and pursue their mandates. Certain criteria are set and performance indicators
are employed to gauge the capability of the governing system. As previously noted,
there are many frameworks that have been developed to provide a context for the
assessment of governance systems. There is vast literature on public policy analysis
that many managers of fi shery systems overlook all too frequently (Fischer et al.
2007 ) . Other frameworks developed speci fi cally for the linked social-ecological
system range from relatively simple constructs to conceptually complex models.
Grafton et al. ( 2007 ) , for instance, provide a set of 23 indicators for benchmarking
and subsequently monitoring fi sheries governance in fi ve categories: accountability;
transparency; incentives; risk assessment and management; and adaptability. In each
case, the indicator is scored on the basis of fi ve levels from missing to fully in place
and operational. Garcia et al. ( 2008 ) provide a more complex assessment system,
offering a guide that links assessment approach with system characteristics and type
of governance needed.
Governing Interactions
One approach to assessing the governing interactions among stakeholders or their
organizations is to view them and their interactions as a network, and to analyze them
using SNA described above (Mahon and McConney 2013 ) . This can provide insights
into where interventions could be expected to have the greatest effect, as well as
prescribing a baseline against which progress can be measured. Until recently, SNA
has not been prominent in discussions of adaptive governance and resilience (Carlsson
and Sandström 2008 ) . Moreover, as Cross et al. ( 2002 ) suggest, when viewed together
by managers, decision-makers and fi sheries stakeholders, the SNA diagrams can
generate discussion re fl ective of the existing relationships, and recommendations
about governing interventions that can help strengthen the network.
One area that is essential for effectively dealing with socio-ecological systems is
the capacity to learn and retain knowledge; to build ‘learning organizations’. This
aspect of adaptability is fl agged by the interactive governance approach as requiring
special attention (Bavinck et al. 2005 ; Mahon et al. 2005 ) . There is a rich body
of literature on building and assessing learning organizations in other sectors
R. Chuenpagdee and R. Mahon
can be used to reveal the purpose, aims, mandate and responsibility of the governing
system (Ekstrom et al. 2009 ) , as well as its relationship to the natural system
(Ekstrom and Young 2009 ) . As with the system-to-be-governed, the full complexity
of the governing system can be comprehended using higher level analysis such as
social networks. Resilience, adaptability and robustness of the governing system
can also be assessed in a variety of ways (Allison et al. 2009 ; Resilience Alliance
2010 ) . These include using institutional analysis frameworks like those developed
by Anderies et al. ( 2004 ) and Ostrom ( 2009 ) , or discursive- institutional analysis
(Arts and Buizer 2009 ) . The emphasis of the latter is on understanding institutional
dynamics through an examination of ideas, concepts and narratives.
Other measures of the governing system relate to how well they perform their
roles and pursue their mandates. Certain criteria are set and performance indicators
are employed to gauge the capability of the governing system. As previously noted,
there are many frameworks that have been developed to provide a context for the
assessment of governance systems. There is vast literature on public policy analysis
that many managers of fi shery systems overlook all too frequently (Fischer et al.
2007 ) . Other frameworks developed speci fi cally for the linked social-ecological
system range from relatively simple constructs to conceptually complex models.
Grafton et al. ( 2007 ) , for instance, provide a set of 23 indicators for benchmarking
and subsequently monitoring fi sheries governance in fi ve categories: accountability;
transparency; incentives; risk assessment and management; and adaptability. In each
case, the indicator is scored on the basis of fi ve levels from missing to fully in place
and operational. Garcia et al. ( 2008 ) provide a more complex assessment system,
offering a guide that links assessment approach with system characteristics and type
of governance needed.
Governing Interactions
One approach to assessing the governing interactions among stakeholders or their
organizations is to view them and their interactions as a network, and to analyze them
using SNA described above (Mahon and McConney 2013 ) . This can provide insights
into where interventions could be expected to have the greatest effect, as well as
prescribing a baseline against which progress can be measured. Until recently, SNA
has not been prominent in discussions of adaptive governance and resilience (Carlsson
and Sandström 2008 ) . Moreover, as Cross et al. ( 2002 ) suggest, when viewed together
by managers, decision-makers and fi sheries stakeholders, the SNA diagrams can
generate discussion re fl ective of the existing relationships, and recommendations
about governing interventions that can help strengthen the network.
One area that is essential for effectively dealing with socio-ecological systems is
the capacity to learn and retain knowledge; to build ‘learning organizations’. This
aspect of adaptability is fl agged by the interactive governance approach as requiring
special attention (Bavinck et al. 2005 ; Mahon et al. 2005 ) . There is a rich body
of literature on building and assessing learning organizations in other sectors