IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enscpo/v55y2016ip3p424-435.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Knowledge governance for ecosystem-based management: Understanding its context-dependency

Author

Listed:
  • Giebels, Diana
  • van Buuren, Arwin
  • Edelenbos, Jurian

Abstract

The governance of knowledge is a crucial element of ecosystem-based management (EBM) and is deemed important for its effectiveness. In this paper we analyze from an empirical perspective how the governance of knowledge in different EBM practices is organized and with what consequences. Based upon four different case studies – all derived from the Wadden Sea – which resemble different contexts (in terms of available knowledge and level of conflict) we reconstruct four different ways of knowledge governance. These four approaches are labeled the database, the alignment, the assessment and the holistic approach. These approaches differ in how the interaction between knowledge production and decision-making is organized. They show different degrees of success, partly related to the extent to which they fit in the context in which they are applied. Understanding the differences in contexts in which knowledge for EBM has to be organized, can help decision-makers to apply the most suitable way of knowledge governance in their specific case. In cases of low conflict and high knowledge capacity a more static, one-directional way of knowledge governance can suffice, while in more complex contexts a holistic approach seems to be necessary.

Suggested Citation

  • Giebels, Diana & van Buuren, Arwin & Edelenbos, Jurian, 2016. "Knowledge governance for ecosystem-based management: Understanding its context-dependency," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(P3), pages 424-435.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enscpo:v:55:y:2016:i:p3:p:424-435
    DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.08.019
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901115300721
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.08.019?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:eee:enscpo:v:55:y:2016:i:p3:p:424-435. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/environmental-science-and-policy/ .

    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.