CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 524Coastal and Marine ManagementSustainability and Climate Change GovernanceConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Political Economy of Cross-Scale Networks in Resource Co-Management

Open access
Adger, W. Neil, Brown, Katrina, Tompkins, Emma L.·2005·Ecology and Society
DOI 10.5751/es-01465-100209
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We investigate linkages between stakeholders in resource management that occur at different spatial and institutional levels and identify the winners and losers in such interactions.So-called crossscale interactions emerge because of the benefits to individual stakeholder groups in undertaking them or the high costs of not undertaking them.Hence there are uneven gains from cross-scale interactions that are themselves an integral part of social-ecological system governance.The political economy framework outlined here suggests that the determinants of the emergence of cross-scale interactions are the exercise of relative power between stakeholders and their costs of accessing and creating linkages.Cross-scale interactions by powerful stakeholders have the potential to undermine trust in resource management arrangements.If government regulators, for example, mobilize information and resources from cross-level interactions to reinforce their authority, this often disempowers other stakeholders such as resource users.Offsetting such impacts, some cross-scale interactions can be empowering for local level user groups in creating social and political capital.These issues are illustrated with observations on resource management in a marine protected area in Tobago in the Caribbean.The case study demonstrates that the structure of the cross-scale interplay, in terms of relative winners and losers, determines its contribution to the resilience of social-ecological systems.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5751/es-01465-100209

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 45 references

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Berkes, F. 2002. Cross-scale institutional linkages for commons management: perspectives from the bottom up. Pages 293-321 in E. Ostrom, T. Dietz, N. Dolšak, P.C. Stern, S. Stonich, and E.U. Weber, editors. The Drama of the Commons. National Academy, Washington, D.C., USA.
  2. Cash, D. W., W. N. Adger, F. Berkes, P. Garden, L. Lebel, P. Olsson, L. Pritchard, and O. Young. 2005. Cross-scale dynamics in human-environment systems. Ecology and Society. In press.
  3. Dolšak, N., and E. Ostrom. 2003. The challenge of the commons. Pages 3-34 in N. Dolšak and E. Ostrom, editors. The Commons in the New Millennium. MIT, Cambridge, UK.
  4. Foucault, M. 1986. Disciplinary power and subjection. Pages 229-242 in S. Lukes, editor. Power. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.
  5. Pritchard, L., Jr., and S. E. Sanderson. 2002. The dynamics of political discourse in seeking sustainability. Pages 147-169 in L. Gunderson, and C.S. Holling, editors. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Island, Washington, D.C., USA.
  6. Richerson, P. J., R. Boyd, and B. Paciotti. 2002. An evolutionary theory of commons management. Pages 403-442 in E. Ostrom, T. Dietz, N. Dolšak, P.C. Stern, S. Stonich, and E.U. Weber, editors. The Drama of the Commons. National Academy , Washington, D.C., USA.
  7. Young, O. R. 2005. Vertical interplay among scale- dependent resource regimes. Ecology and Society. In press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 522

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Adger, W. N., Brown, K., & Tompkins, E. L.
Affiliations
  • Tyndall Centre (GB)
  • University of East Anglia (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Ecology and Society
Publisher
Resilience Alliance, Inc.
Published
2005
Volume
10
Issue
2
ISSN
1708-3087 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.5751/es-01465-100209
OpenAlex
W1918744767
Cited by
524
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 53 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 40 · 2013: 41 · 2012: 29
FWCI
71.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Ecology and Society (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
  • Digital Library Of The Commons Repository (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Leverhulme Trust
  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
  • Economic and Social Research Council
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Coastal and Marine Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Sustainability and Climate Change Governance
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Keywords
cross-scale interactions, political economy, stakeholder power relations, marine protected areas, resilience, Tobago

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review