The arguments in favor of comanagement are relevant in many situations where there are conflicts over the use of natural resources. However, the complexity of factors associated with comanagement make its implementation difficult. A general conclusion of considerations based on analytical frameworks developed to study comanagement is that implementation can be facilitated through a design consistent with three key concepts: participation, power sharing, and process. However, since these concepts are treated ambiguously in the literature, their utility as guiding principles can be limited in real life situations. This ambiguity may be traced back to underlying theoretical assumptions, from either sociological or rational choice institutionalism embedded in the analytical frameworks of comanagement. Depending on the type of framework adopted, comanagement arrangements can be defined as either a success or a failure, indicating a need to develop more robust frameworks to guide politicians or managers introducing comanagement arrangements as an effective management tool.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Camilla Sandström (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: