IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i6p3564-d522552.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the Role of Perception: Understanding Stakeholders’ Collaboration in Natural Resources Management through the Evolutionary Theory of Innovation

Author

Listed:
  • Gonzalo Rodríguez-Rodríguez

    (Fisheries Economics and Natural Resources Research Unit, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, University of Santiago, Av. Burgo das Nacións s/n, Santiago de Compostela, 15782 A Coruña, Spain)

  • Hugo M. Ballesteros

    (Fisheries Economics and Natural Resources Research Unit, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, University of Santiago, Av. Burgo das Nacións s/n, Santiago de Compostela, 15782 A Coruña, Spain)

  • Helena Martínez-Cabrera

    (Fisheries Economics and Natural Resources Research Unit, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, University of Santiago, Av. Burgo das Nacións s/n, Santiago de Compostela, 15782 A Coruña, Spain)

  • Raúl Vilela

    (BioConsult SH GmbH&Co.KG, 25813 Husum, Germany)

  • María Grazia Pennino

    (Instituto Español de Oceanografía, Centro Oceanográfico de Vigo (IEO), Subida Radio Faro, 50, Vigo, 30740 Pontenvedra, Spain
    Fishing Ecology Management and Economics (FEME)—Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), Depto. de Ecología, Natal (RN) 59098-970, Brazil
    Statistical Modeling Ecology Group (SMEG), Departament d’Estadística i Investigació Operativa, Universitat de València, C/Dr. Moliner 50, Burjassot, 46100 Valencia, Spain)

  • José María Bellido

    (Instituto Español de Oceanografía, Centro Oceanográfico de Murcia (IEO), C/Varadero 1, Apdo. 22, San Pedro del Pinatar, 30740 Murcia, Spain)

Abstract

Natural resources management deals with highly complex socioecological systems. This complexity raises a conundrum, since wide-ranging knowledge from different sources and types is needed, but at the same time none of these types of knowledge is able by itself to provide the basis for a viable productive system, and mismatches between the two of them are common. Therefore, a growing body of literature has examined the integration of different types of knowledge in fisheries management. In this paper, we aim to contribute to this ongoing debate by integrating the evolutionary theory of innovation—and specifically the concept of proximity—and the theory of perception. We set up a theoretical framework that is able to explain not only why the different types of knowledge differ, but also why they should differ and why this divergence is useful to develop fisheries management. This framework is illustrated through a well-known complex scenario, as was the implementation of the Landing Obligation (LO) in Europe. We conclude that diversity (distance) between types of knowledge is essential for interactive learning, innovation, the incorporation of new ideas or to avoid lock-in, etc. At the same time, cognitive, institutional, geographical, etc. proximity is needed for effective communication, participation and dialogue.

Suggested Citation

  • Gonzalo Rodríguez-Rodríguez & Hugo M. Ballesteros & Helena Martínez-Cabrera & Raúl Vilela & María Grazia Pennino & José María Bellido, 2021. "On the Role of Perception: Understanding Stakeholders’ Collaboration in Natural Resources Management through the Evolutionary Theory of Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-11, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:6:p:3564-:d:522552
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/6/3564/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/6/3564/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:awi:wpaper:538 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Wuyts, Stefan & Colombo, Massimo G. & Dutta, Shantanu & Nooteboom, Bart, 2005. "Empirical tests of optimal cognitive distance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 277-302, October.
    3. Elkhan Richard Sadik-Zada, 2020. "Distributional Bargaining and the Speed of Structural Change in the Petroleum Exporting Labor Surplus Economies," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 32(1), pages 51-98, January.
    4. Röckmann, Christine & van Leeuwen, Judith & Goldsborough, David & Kraan, Marloes & Piet, Gerjan, 2015. "The interaction triangle as a tool for understanding stakeholder interactions in marine ecosystem based management," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 155-162.
    5. Andy Stirling, 2010. "Keep it complex," Nature, Nature, vol. 468(7327), pages 1029-1031, December.
    6. Jeffrey K. Lazo & Jason C. Kinnell & Ann Fisher, 2000. "Expert and Layperson Perceptions of Ecosystem Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 179-194, April.
    7. de Vos, B.I. & Döring, R. & Aranda, M. & Buisman, F.C. & Frangoudes, K. & Goti, L. & Macher, C. & Maravelias, C.D. & Murillas-Maza, A. & van der Valk, O. & Vasilakopoulos, P., 2016. "New modes of fisheries governance: Implementation of the landing obligation in four European countries," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 1-8.
    8. Schmaljohann, Maya, 2013. "Enhancing Foreign Direct Investment via Transparency? Evaluating the Effects of the EITI on FDI," Working Papers 0538, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    9. Reilly, Kieran & O’Hagan, Anne Marie & Dalton, Gordon, 2015. "Attitudes and perceptions of fishermen on the island of Ireland towards the development of marine renewable energy projects," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 88-97.
    10. Andrea Morrison, 2008. "Gatekeepers of Knowledge within Industrial Districts: Who They Are, How They Interact," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(6), pages 817-835.
    11. Brusco, Sebastiano, 1982. "The Emilian Model: Productive Decentralisation and Social Integration," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 6(2), pages 167-184, June.
    12. Edward H. Allison, 2001. "Big laws, small catches: global ocean governance and the fisheries crisis," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(7), pages 933-950.
    13. Ron Boschma, 2005. "Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 61-74.
    14. Silva, Monalisa R.O. & Lopes, Priscila F.M., 2015. "Each fisherman is different: Taking the environmental perception of small-scale fishermen into account to manage marine protected areas," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 347-355.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bartolomé Marco-Lajara & Eduardo Sánchez-García & Javier Martínez-Falcó & Esther Poveda-Pareja, 2022. "Regional Specialization, Competitive Pressure, and Cooperation: The Cocktail for Innovation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-17, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lorenzo Ciapetti, 2011. "Technological Change, Knowledge Integration and Adaptive Processes: The Mechatronic Evolution of the Reggio Emilia District," Chapters, in: Paul L. Robertson & David Jacobson (ed.), Knowledge Transfer and Technology Diffusion, chapter 5, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Fiorenza Belussi & Silvia R. Sedita, 2012. "Industrial Districts as Open Learning Systems: Combining Emergent and Deliberate Knowledge Structures," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(2), pages 165-184, April.
    3. Pierre-Alexandre Balland & Ron Boschma & Koen Frenken, 2020. "Proximity, Innovation and Networks: A Concise Review and Some Next Steps," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2019, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Mar 2020.
    4. Andrea Morrison, 2005. "Inside the Black Box of ‘Industrial Atmosphere’: Knowledge and Information Networks in an Italian wine local system," Working Papers 97, SEMEQ Department - Faculty of Economics - University of Eastern Piedmont.
    5. Lorenzo Cassi & Anne Plunket, 2014. "Proximity, network formation and inventive performance: in search of the proximity paradox," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 53(2), pages 395-422, September.
    6. Tom Broekel & Wladimir Mueller, 2018. "Critical links in knowledge networks – What about proximities and gatekeeper organisations?," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(10), pages 919-939, November.
    7. Ron Boschma & Ron Martin, 2010. "The Aims and Scope of Evolutionary Economic Geography," Chapters, in: Ron Boschma & Ron Martin (ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Economic Geography, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Alberto Marzucchi & Davide Antonioli & Sandro Montresor, 2012. "Research cooperation within and across regional boundaries. Does innovation policy add anything?," JRC Research Reports JRC76320, Joint Research Centre.
    9. Huasheng Zhu & Kelly Wanjing Chen & Juncheng Dai, 2016. "Beyond Apprenticeship: Knowledge Brokers and Sustainability of Apprentice-Based Clusters," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-17, December.
    10. Rik Wenting & Oedzge Atzema & Koen Frenken, 2008. "Urban Amenities or Agglomeration Economies? Locational Behaviour and Entrepreneurial Success of Dutch Fashion Designers," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 0803, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Jan 2008.
    11. Ron Boschma & Simona Iammarino, 2009. "Related Variety, Trade Linkages, and Regional Growth in Italy," Economic Geography, Clark University, vol. 85(3), pages 289-311, July.
    12. Gallo, Julie Le & Plunket, Anne, 2020. "Regional gatekeepers, inventor networks and inventive performance: Spatial and organizational channels," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(5).
    13. Haasnoot, Cornelis W. & de Vaal, Albert, 2022. "Heterogeneous firms and cluster externalities: how asymmetric effects at the firm level affect cluster productivity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(6).
    14. Ascani, Andrea & Bettarelli, Luca & Resmini, Laura & Balland, Pierre-Alexandre, 2020. "Global networks, local specialisation and regional patterns of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(8).
    15. Giuseppe Calignano & Rune Dahl Fitjar, 2017. "Strengthening relationships in clusters: How effective is an indirect policy measure carried out in a peripheral technology district?," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 59(1), pages 139-169, July.
    16. Díez-Vial, Isabel & Montoro-Sánchez, Ángeles, 2016. "How knowledge links with universities may foster innovation: The case of a science park," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 50, pages 41-52.
    17. Christian Omobhude & Shih-Hsin Chen, 2019. "The Roles and Measurements of Proximity in Sustained Technology Development: A Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-30, January.
    18. Marie Ferru, 2012. "Partners connection process and geography of innovation: new insights from a comparative inter-organizational partnerships analysis," Working Papers hal-00461258, HAL.
    19. Rosenfeld, Martin T. W. & Hornych, Christoph, 2021. "Wie vernetzt sind die privaten Firmen in Mitteldeutschland? Räumliche Muster der Kooperation im Rahmen "Formeller Unternehmensnetzwerke" (FUN)," Arbeitsberichte der ARL: Aufsätze, in: Rosenfeld, Martin T. W. & Stefansky, Andreas (ed.), "Metropolregion Mitteldeutschland" aus raumwissenschaftlicher Sicht, volume 30, pages 96-126, ARL – Akademie für Raumentwicklung in der Leibniz-Gemeinschaft.
    20. Criaco, Giuseppe & van Oosterhout, J. (Hans) & Nordqvist, Mattias, 2021. "Is blood always thicker than water? Family firm parents, kinship ties, and the survival of spawns," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 36(6).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:6:p:3564-:d:522552. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.