274
R. Chuenpagdee and R. Mahon
Unlike values, images are not as well studied because they are often considered
unnecessary for governance. As Jentoft et al. ( 2010 ) argue, however, the current
problems with fi sheries are due in part to the lack of explicit discussion about the
images that governors use to arrive at their decisions and whether these images are
shared with other governance actors. Fisheries management is riddled with images
that have led mostly to negative consequences for the resources and fi shing communities. For instance, Thomas Huxley’s famous image of the inexhaustible sea may
have erased any concern anyone would have had about fi sheries development through
the modernization of fl eet and gear. Retrospective analysis of images and the role
they play in governance is easier than trying to determine what images currently
in fl uence decisions and behaviors. For the latter, surveys using different types of
questionnaires, such as paired comparisons (David 1988 ) and Q-sort (Ten Klooster
et al. 2008 ) , which may contain statements, photographs or symbols, can be used.
With respect to principles, they are what fi shers and other resource users are
familiar with, as something determined by the governments. Insuf fi cient attention is
paid to questions about where principles come from, how they are deliberated, and
what purpose they have. Deliberation about principles needs to take place, not only
within governments but also with other key stakeholders, especially to differentiate
between universal (e.g., human rights and the rights of indigenous peoples as speci fi ed
in UN conventions and declarations) and contextual (e.g., local self-determination)
principles (Kooiman and Jentoft 2009 ) . Similar methods to those used to study
values and images can be used to examine principles.
Conclusions
Virtually all tools that relate to assessing or evaluating the social and ecological
components of social-ecological systems may have a role to play when assessing
governability. What we have tried to achieve in this chapter is to demonstrate the
extent to which past assessments have focused on the ecological, social and governing subsystems, and to emphasize the diversity of new frameworks, approaches and
tools that are being brought to bear on the assessment of these systems, especially
the social component and, within that, the governing system.
Many of these approaches have only recently been adapted from other disciplines and are being tested in fi sheries contexts and other situations. We would like
to highlight that the conceptual and methodological boundaries of governance
assessment are expanding rapidly. This is being driven by the emerging appreciation
for the complexity of governance in contrast to conventional management. There is
an increasing understanding of governance that encompasses, for instance, the entire
fi sh chain, and all processes from setting principles and visions through institution
building to day-to-day operations of management bodies. Those interested in pursuing the assessment of governability will require a transdisciplinary perspective and
successful ‘end to end’ assessments will almost certainly require multidisciplinary
research teams.
R. Chuenpagdee and R. Mahon
Unlike values, images are not as well studied because they are often considered
unnecessary for governance. As Jentoft et al. ( 2010 ) argue, however, the current
problems with fi sheries are due in part to the lack of explicit discussion about the
images that governors use to arrive at their decisions and whether these images are
shared with other governance actors. Fisheries management is riddled with images
that have led mostly to negative consequences for the resources and fi shing communities. For instance, Thomas Huxley’s famous image of the inexhaustible sea may
have erased any concern anyone would have had about fi sheries development through
the modernization of fl eet and gear. Retrospective analysis of images and the role
they play in governance is easier than trying to determine what images currently
in fl uence decisions and behaviors. For the latter, surveys using different types of
questionnaires, such as paired comparisons (David 1988 ) and Q-sort (Ten Klooster
et al. 2008 ) , which may contain statements, photographs or symbols, can be used.
With respect to principles, they are what fi shers and other resource users are
familiar with, as something determined by the governments. Insuf fi cient attention is
paid to questions about where principles come from, how they are deliberated, and
what purpose they have. Deliberation about principles needs to take place, not only
within governments but also with other key stakeholders, especially to differentiate
between universal (e.g., human rights and the rights of indigenous peoples as speci fi ed
in UN conventions and declarations) and contextual (e.g., local self-determination)
principles (Kooiman and Jentoft 2009 ) . Similar methods to those used to study
values and images can be used to examine principles.
Conclusions
Virtually all tools that relate to assessing or evaluating the social and ecological
components of social-ecological systems may have a role to play when assessing
governability. What we have tried to achieve in this chapter is to demonstrate the
extent to which past assessments have focused on the ecological, social and governing subsystems, and to emphasize the diversity of new frameworks, approaches and
tools that are being brought to bear on the assessment of these systems, especially
the social component and, within that, the governing system.
Many of these approaches have only recently been adapted from other disciplines and are being tested in fi sheries contexts and other situations. We would like
to highlight that the conceptual and methodological boundaries of governance
assessment are expanding rapidly. This is being driven by the emerging appreciation
for the complexity of governance in contrast to conventional management. There is
an increasing understanding of governance that encompasses, for instance, the entire
fi sh chain, and all processes from setting principles and visions through institution
building to day-to-day operations of management bodies. Those interested in pursuing the assessment of governability will require a transdisciplinary perspective and
successful ‘end to end’ assessments will almost certainly require multidisciplinary
research teams.