Adaptive capacity within a multi-level governance system

Sustainable wildlife management is a major challenge around the globe. Management regimes have to account for the fact that wildlife is part of complex social-ecological systems, which are prone to change. Diverse multi-use... [ view full abstract ]

Sustainable wildlife management is a major challenge around the globe. Management regimes have to account for the fact that wildlife is part of complex social-ecological systems, which are prone to change. Diverse multi-use landscapes, changing wildlife populations and other external stressors (e.g. wildlife diseases) can create new challenges. Thus, management and existing institutions have to develop over time. Adaptive capacity allows the system and involved actors to react successfully to social-ecological changes and to develop even in times of no eminent change. Using the ecosystem based management for moose in Sweden as a case; we assessed moose managers’ perceived adaptive capacity (PAC). We used a psychometric approach to compare which factors contribute to managers’ PAC at two levels of the management system. A web-based survey was administered to all moose management groups (n=765, response rate=81%) and moose management units in four counties (n=1380, response rate=72%). Using structural equation modelling, we measured the relative importance of governance aspects (i.e. fairness and legitimacy), social capital (i.e. trust, communication, and collaboration), as well as human and physical capital (i.e. knowledge and resources) on PAC. Our results show that on the higher level (moose management groups) knowledge (β = .17), resources (β = .11), and input from local collaboration (β = .16) had significant positive effects on managers PAC. Managers perception of the governance system to be fair (β = .18), and social trust to the county administration (β = .17) contributed positively to their PAC. On the lower level (moose management units) the perception of fairness (β = .35), trust to the county administration (β = .15) and the moose management groups (β = .18), as well as input from local collaboration (β = .13) had a significant positive influence on PAC. Our results suggest that for both groups trust to the management levels above and input from the level below give managers the feeling of being prepared to handle future challenges in moose management. However fairness in decision making seems to be a more critical factor at the lower level. These results can contribute to a future improvement of the governance system by targeted adjustments on different levels.