304
R. Mahon and P. McConney
Density is the proportion of potential ties that actually occur among the nodes in the
network, and measures the richness of connections among those nodes (Mohrman
et al. 2006 ). In other words, the more actors that have ties to one another, the denser
is the network and the more interactions there are among the actors in the network
(Scott 1991 ) . The implications of high or low network density are often situation
speci fi c. For example, a dense network in one fi shery may result in shared conservation-oriented norms and values, whereas in another fi shery high density may
serve to consolidate a group of illegal and irresponsible fi shers. Centrality (which
has several sub-types: degree, closeness and betweenness) measures the extent to
which a node occupies a critical location between others in the network and, hence,
may exercise control. This measure assists in the identi fi cation of key players (the
more central nodes) within the network. Density and centrality can also be used to
study the power relations and resource fl ows within the network that have implications for governability.
A Network Perspective on the Interactive Governance Approach
The Fish Chain as a Network
In fi sheries, network models such as ECOPATH are commonly used to depict natural
components of the system-to-be-governed, but they typically ignore the social components and other governing system interactions. There are many ecosystem and
social system interactions in the fi sh chain. Some of these and their linkages to the
ecological part of the chain are illustrated in Fig. 16.1 . All of these need to be
accounted for and modeled in the interactive governance approach.
From the perspective of the interactive governance approach, which emphasizes
interactions, the entire fi sh chain of fi sheries with its governing system, system-tobe-governed and governing interactions can also be viewed as a network of nodes or
actors with links among them. Some nodes will belong to the system-to-be-governed,
some to the governing system and others to both the system-to-be-governed and
governing system. The interaction or linkage between any pair of nodes can take any
of four forms: goods, services, payment or a governing interaction. A link between
any two nodes can consist of more than one of these four linkage types. Among the
nodes that comprise the system-to-be-governed, the interactions are solely goods,
services or payment in money or kind. This is essentially a resource use network that
corresponds to the combined ‘Resource Systems and Users’ in Ostrom’s ( 2009 ) general framework for analyzing sustainability in Social Ecological Systems. It is worth
mentioning that the network approach has been noted as having potential for operationalizing that framework as well.
When the fi sh chain (Fig. 16.2a ) is ‘unpacked’ into a network, it will probably
resemble the image shown in Fig. 16.2b . This network is intended to illustrate a
relatively simple system and is based on categories of individuals. There will be
R. Mahon and P. McConney
Density is the proportion of potential ties that actually occur among the nodes in the
network, and measures the richness of connections among those nodes (Mohrman
et al. 2006 ). In other words, the more actors that have ties to one another, the denser
is the network and the more interactions there are among the actors in the network
(Scott 1991 ) . The implications of high or low network density are often situation
speci fi c. For example, a dense network in one fi shery may result in shared conservation-oriented norms and values, whereas in another fi shery high density may
serve to consolidate a group of illegal and irresponsible fi shers. Centrality (which
has several sub-types: degree, closeness and betweenness) measures the extent to
which a node occupies a critical location between others in the network and, hence,
may exercise control. This measure assists in the identi fi cation of key players (the
more central nodes) within the network. Density and centrality can also be used to
study the power relations and resource fl ows within the network that have implications for governability.
A Network Perspective on the Interactive Governance Approach
The Fish Chain as a Network
In fi sheries, network models such as ECOPATH are commonly used to depict natural
components of the system-to-be-governed, but they typically ignore the social components and other governing system interactions. There are many ecosystem and
social system interactions in the fi sh chain. Some of these and their linkages to the
ecological part of the chain are illustrated in Fig. 16.1 . All of these need to be
accounted for and modeled in the interactive governance approach.
From the perspective of the interactive governance approach, which emphasizes
interactions, the entire fi sh chain of fi sheries with its governing system, system-tobe-governed and governing interactions can also be viewed as a network of nodes or
actors with links among them. Some nodes will belong to the system-to-be-governed,
some to the governing system and others to both the system-to-be-governed and
governing system. The interaction or linkage between any pair of nodes can take any
of four forms: goods, services, payment or a governing interaction. A link between
any two nodes can consist of more than one of these four linkage types. Among the
nodes that comprise the system-to-be-governed, the interactions are solely goods,
services or payment in money or kind. This is essentially a resource use network that
corresponds to the combined ‘Resource Systems and Users’ in Ostrom’s ( 2009 ) general framework for analyzing sustainability in Social Ecological Systems. It is worth
mentioning that the network approach has been noted as having potential for operationalizing that framework as well.
When the fi sh chain (Fig. 16.2a ) is ‘unpacked’ into a network, it will probably
resemble the image shown in Fig. 16.2b . This network is intended to illustrate a
relatively simple system and is based on categories of individuals. There will be