Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

From Experiential Knowledge to Public Participation: Social Learning at the Community Fisheries Action Roundtable

Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Extensive research demonstrates that public participation in environmental decision making can increase understanding of diverse worldviews and knowledge bases, public faith in governance institutions, and compliance with resulting rules. Concerns linger around costs, possibilities of polarization and decreased legitimacy in cases of poorly executed processes, and the ability of newly empowered groups to gain political leverage over others. If participants in public processes can bracket their personal experience to better assess other viewpoints, establishing mutual respect and understanding through deliberative exchange, they increase the likelihood of maximizing participatory benefits and minimizing risks. Such reflexivity indicates double-loop social learning, change undertaken through collective discussion and interaction. A capacity-building workshop program aims to foster such learning within the Maine fishing industry. Case material draws primarily on participant observation and interview data, using a grounded theory approach to qualitative analysis. Evidence indicates that in social contexts removed from the norms of daily life and the frustrations of past fishery management confrontations, harvesters acquire knowledge and skills that facilitate more strategic and productive behavior in formal and informal marine resource decision venues. Suspensions of longstanding spatio-temporal assumptions around the prosecution and management of fisheries comprise key learning moments, and yield corresponding changes in industry attitudes and actions. With heightened appreciation for a diversity of experiences and management priorities, harvesters can better mobilize a broad spectrum of local knowledge to develop viable regulatory proposals and collaborative decision processes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price includes VAT (Canada)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. The term grounded theory was conceived to describe a way of linking empirical evidence with theory-building through inductive logic. It is less a social theory than a research methodology, and has evolved into a broad epistemological tradition that encompasses both orthodox and more flexible applications.

  2. Iterated development of interview questions, themes, and codes involved topics such as: perceptions of program participants and staff, historical and ongoing management debates, newly acquired skills, mechanics of group process, attitudes toward resource management and stewardship, exposure to diverse sources of knowledge and knowledge-generation, relationships between science and local knowledge, group identities, community tensions, economic challenges and opportunities, individual participation in management venues, interpersonal dynamics, geographic differences, change over time, future visions, conscious communication strategies, pending action agendas, indications of behavioral and cognitive change, tradeoffs between nearer and longer term costs and benefits, balance between individual preferences and the well-being of collectivities at local to larger scales, and intra-organizational administrative issues.

  3. The vast majority of fishers in Maine are male, though women are now fishing in increasing numbers, especially as crew on family boats. Most fisherwomen proudly identify themselves as fishermen. They only know the gender-neutral term “fisher” as an aggressive mammal that often kills pet cats.

  4. Down east is a relative term once used along the eastern seaboard, originally referring to downwind sail transit with prevailing southwesterlies. When used to specify a region of Maine from a statewide perspective, present usage most often refers to the eastern quarter to half of the state coastline.

  5. This comment contributed directly to the focus of this article, effectively goading the researcher to assess the purpose and effect of initial workshop exercises.

References

  • Acheson JM (2003) Capturing the commons: devising institutions to manage the Maine lobster industry. University Press of New England, Hanover

    Google Scholar 

  • Acheson JM, Gardner R (2012) Modeling disaster: the failure of the management of the New England groundfish industry. North Am J Fish Manag 31:1005–1018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allan C, Curtis A (2005) Nipped in the bud: why regional scale adaptive management is not blooming. Environ Manag 36:414–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyris C, Schön DA (1978) Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Armitage D (2005) Adaptive capacity and community-based natural resource management. Environ Manag 35:703–715

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armitage D, Marschke M, Plummer R (2008a) Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning. Global Environ Change 18:86–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armitage DR, Plummer R, Berkes F, Arthur RI, Charles AT, Davidson-Hunt IJ, Diduck AP, Doubleday NC, Johnson DS, Marschke M, McConney P, Pinkerton EW, Wollenberg EK (2008b) Adaptive co-management for social-ecological complexity. Front Ecol Environ 7:95–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura A (1986) Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkes F (2010) Devolution of environment and resources governance: trends and future. Environ Conserv 37:489–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer JF (2011) Paper fish and policy conflict: catch shares and ecosystem-based management in Maine’s groundfishery. Ecol Soc 16:15

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer JF (2012) Don't fence me in: boundaries, policy, and deliberation in Maine's lobster commons. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 102:383–402

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers R (1983) Rural development: putting the last first. Longman, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers R (2008) Revolutions in development inquiry. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Chess C, Purcell K (1999) Public participation and the environment: do we know what works? Environ Sci Technol 33:2685–2692

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke B, Kothari U (2001) Participation: the new tyranny?. Zed Books, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Creighton JL (2005) The public participation handbook: making better decisions through citizen involvement. Wiley, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek J (1990) Discursive democracy: politics, policy, and political science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishkin J, Laslett P (2003) Debating deliberative democracy. Blackwell, Malden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Freire P (1970) Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Genskow KD, Wood DM (2011) Improving voluntary environmental management programs: facilitating learning and adaptation. Environ Manag 47:907–916

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser B (1994) More grounded theory: a reader. Sociology Press, Mill Valley

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Aldine, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall DJ, Paradice D (2005) Philosophical foundations for a learning-oriented knowledge management system for decision support. Decision Support System 39:445–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes T, Persha L (2010) Nesting local forestry initiatives: revisiting community forest management in a REDD+ world. Forest Policy Econ 12:545–553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson AM, Soto F (2008) Decentralization of natural resource governance regimes. Annu Rev Environ Resour 33:213–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin K (1946) Action research and minority problems. J Soc Issues 2:34–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLain RJ, Lee RG (1996) Adaptive management: promises and pitfalls. Environ Manag 20:437–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller N, Dollard J (1941) Social learning and imitation. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohan G (2007) Participatory development: from epistemological reversals to active citizenship. Geogr Compass 1:779–796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muñoz Erickson TA, Aguilar González B, Loeser MR, Sisk TD (2010) A framework to evaluate ecological and social outcomes of collaborative management: lessons from implementation with a northern Arizona collaborative group. Environ Manag 45:132–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muro M, Jeffrey P (2008) A critical review of the theory and application of social learning in participatory natural resource management processes. J Environ Plan Manag 51:325–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (1999) Our common journey: a transition toward sustainability. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2008) Public participation in environmental assessment and decision making. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2009) Informing decisions in a changing climate. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson F, Agrawal A (2008) Patronage or participation? Community-based natural resource management reform in sub-Saharan Africa. Dev Change 39:557–585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsson P, Folke C, Berkes F (2004) Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in social-ecological systems. Environ Manag 34:75–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E, Dietz T, Dolšak N, Stern P, Stonich S, Weber E (2002) Drama of the commons. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Pahl-Wostl C (2009) A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environ Change 19:354–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinkerton E, Heaslip R, Silver J, Furman K (2008) Finding “space” for comanagement of forests within the neoliberal paradigm: rights, strategies, and tools for asserting a local agenda. Hum Ecol 36:343–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poteete AR, Ribot JC (2011) Repertoires of domination: decentralization as process in Botswana and Senegal. World Dev 39:439–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed MS, Evely AC, Cundill G, Fazey I, Glass J, Laing A, Newig J, Parrish B, Prell C, Raymond C, Stringer LC (2010) What is social learning? Ecol Soc 15:1. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/resp1/

  • Rittel HJW, Webber MW (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4:155–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodela R (2011) Social learning and natural resource management: the emergence of three research perspectives. Ecol Soc 16:30

    Google Scholar 

  • St. Martin K (2001) Making space for community resource management in fisheries. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 91:122–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss A, Corbin J (1990) Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger E (1988) Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I wish to thank the editors and three anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful attention to this manuscript. The research would not have been possible without the trust and cooperation of Penobscot East Resource Center staff and CFAR participants. It also relied on generous contributions of time and information from fishing community members and public servants over the course of a decade. I am grateful for travel funds provided by Maine Sea Grant program development Grant No. DV-09-13, and for a course release from East Carolina University. I consulted with Penobscot East staff about research design, submitted the proposal to Maine Sea Grant as a Penobscot East visiting researcher, and received a small amount of administrative support from Penobscot East. Data collection and analysis were conducted by myself alone, and I received no remuneration for my work on this project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography and Institute for Coastal Science and Policy, Brewster A230, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, 27858, USA

    Jennifer F. Brewer

Authors
  1. Jennifer F. Brewer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer F. Brewer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brewer, J.F. From Experiential Knowledge to Public Participation: Social Learning at the Community Fisheries Action Roundtable. Environmental Management 52, 321–334 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0059-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0059-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation