Marine Policy 71 (2016) 82–93

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Fisheries management approaches as platforms for climate change

adaptation: Comparing theory and practice in Australian fisheries
Emily M. Ogier a,e,n, Julie Davidson b,e, Pedro Fidelman c, Marcus Haward a,e,
Alistair J. Hobday d,e, Neil J. Holbrook a,e,f, Eriko Hoshino d, Gretta T. Pecl a,e
a
Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 49, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia
b
Discipline of Geography and Spatial Sciences, School of Land and Food, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia
c
Sustainability Research Centre, University of the Sunshine Coast, Locked bag 4, Maroochydore DC, Queensland 4558, Australia
d
CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Hobart, Tasmania 7000, Australia
e
Centre for Marine Socioecology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia
f
ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study examines the extent to which the choice of management approach is a critical factor in en-
Received 23 December 2015 abling climate change adaptation in marine fisheries. Climate change is expected to compound many
Received in revised form pressing issues affecting fisheries management. Good governance of fisheries, which is critical to building
1 May 2016
their adaptive capacity and social-ecological resilience, is seen as ever more important in the context of
Accepted 11 May 2016
climate change. A range of fisheries management approaches have been developed and, to varying de-
Available online 26 May 2016
grees, applied. Each has been described in the literature as a promising way to manage marine resources.
Keywords: Through literature reviews and a survey of practitioners, this study explores how theoretical properties
Climate change adaptation of selected major management approaches (i.e., ecosystem-based management, adaptive management,
Fisheries management
co-management, adaptive co-management, and active adaptive management) enable climate change
Co-management
adaptation, and how such properties are perceived by practitioners to manifest in practice using an
Adaptive management
Ecosystem-based management Australian marine fisheries context. Overall, the selected management approaches have the potential to
Practitioner perceptions enable climate change adaptation to varying degrees. Ecosystem-based management, in combination
with adaptive management and co-management as nested management approaches, possesses the full
array of adaptation capacities and attributes required for adaptation in fisheries. Distinctions between
theory and practice observed in this study highlight the importance of practitioner perceptions and
enabling institutional arrangements in adapting management to climate change.
& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction strategies and supply chains [9–11]. In sum, climate change is a

As global climate changes as a result of increased greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere, marine fisheries are being impacted by
warming sea temperatures, sea-level rise, changing ocean cur-
rents, changes in nutrient supply and primary productivity, and
the increased frequency and intensity of extreme climate and
weather events [1,2]. These changes are also altering species
composition, abundance and distribution [3–5]. Consequently,
fisheries resources, and the stability of supply, access and utiliza-
tion of those resources, are also being affected [6–8] with sig-
nificant implications for dependent communities and industries,
including requiring modification to fishing practices, livelihood
n
Corresponding author at: Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University
of Tasmania, Private Bag 49, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia.
E-mail address: Emily.Ogier@utas.edu.au (E.M. Ogier).
major threat to the sustainability of marine fisheries, and is ex-
pected to exacerbate existing biophysical, social and economic
pressures [12,13].
The impacts of climate change on fisheries need to be appre-
ciated in the context of fisheries as sociol-ecological systems [14]
and the linked societal drivers, such as changes in markets, tech-
nology and governance. Because of the dynamic and evolving
context in which fisheries are embedded, it is likely that climate
change will affect future fisheries systems differently [8,15] adding
to uncertainty surrounding the effects of climate change on fish-
eries and management regimes. The dynamic nature of climate
change adds to the challenges regarding the effectiveness and
flexibility of management focusing on single species fisheries
systems, single gear-type management controls, and conventional
property-rights approaches [16–18].
There is a considerable volume of literature describing the need
to enhance resilience and build adaptive capacity in marine

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.05.014
0308-597X/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 E.M. Ogier et al. / Marine Policy 71 (2016) 82–93
fisheries [10,19–21], and associated management and governance
attributes required in the face of climate change [22–28]. In this
paper, resilience refers to the “amount of change a system can
undergo and still retain the same function and structure while
maintaining options to develop” [29]; and, adaptive capacity de-
notes “…the preconditions necessary to enable adaptation, in-
cluding social and physical elements, and the ability to mobilise
these elements” [30]. Theoretical analyses have emphasised the
need to engender the required attributes through implementation
of adaptive governance approaches informed by resilience think-
ing [30–35]. In contrast, embedding or “mainstreaming” the de-
velopment of adaptive capacity within existing fisheries manage-
ment systems has been seen as the more practical approach to
addressing climate-driven changes [8]. As climate change is likely
to exacerbate existing fisheries management problems [11],
adaptation options need to be assessed within prevailing devel-
opment contexts and governance goals [26,36–38].
Tension between normative and pragmatic considerations has
highlighted the perceptions of practitioners as an important, but
still little understood, variable affecting conceptualisation and
operationalisation of resilience and adaptation [39–41]. Normative
resilience-based management approaches have been critiqued for
their grounding in ecological theory to the exclusion of practi-
tioner experience [42], and considerations of utility and costs
posed by substantive changes to management systems [19]. On the
other hand, pragmatic public policy can significantly enable or
constrain climate change adaptation in natural resource manage-
ment [41,43,44].
What remains unclear is the means available to enhance fish-
eries adaptive capacity and resilience that would be more effective
and timely in the face of climate change. Are development and
implementation of new management approaches explicitly de-
rived from resilience thinking required? Or, can resilience prop-
erties and adaptive capacity be embedded and enhanced in fish-
eries management approaches currently in use (for example,
ecosystem-based management)?
A mixed-method approach is used to examine the suitability of
resilience-based and best-practice management approaches as
platforms for climate change adaptation in the context of Aus-
tralia's marine fisheries. Five management approaches were se-
lected for analysis. Two of these are derived from resilience
thinking (i.e., adaptive co-management and active adaptive man-
agement), and have not yet been widely operationalised in prac-
tice [45,46]. The remaining three management approaches (i.e., co-
management, adaptive management, and ecosystem-based man-
agement) are recognised as best-practice fisheries management
[45–48], and have been operationalised and implemented ex-
tensively [49]. Literature describing the normative and theoretical
properties of each of the management approaches was reviewed
to identify and compare the degree to which they engender ca-
pacities identified as critical for adaptation in the context of cli-
mate change (e.g., building resilience and adaptive capacity). At-
tributes identified in the literature as requirements of manage-
ment regimes conducive to climate change adaptation were then
identified [8,22,23,25]. Practitioner perceptions of the selected
management approaches were ascertained using a survey of se-
nior fisheries managers to determine the presence or absence of
adaptive attributes. The comparative suitability of the selected
management approaches as platforms for climate change adapta-
tion is examined, with particular considerations given to the role
of practitioner perceptions. Concluding remarks on the implica-
tions of this study for fisheries management systems and for
adaptation research are then outlined.
83
2. Background
2.1. Mainstreaming climate change adaptation in Australian fisheries
management
Australia is currently regarded as being at the forefront of
marine fisheries management [50,51]. Major reforms established
in the early 1990s provide the basis for significant development in
two related directions. The introduction of output controls in a
wide range of fisheries with individual transferable quotas (ITQs)
and harvest control rules (HCRs) have been matched by develop-
ing collaborative partnership approaches to co-management, and
industry contributions to management through cost recovery
principles. The establishment of iterative and adaptive manage-
ment approaches has been facilitated by the development of tools
such as management strategy evaluation (MSE) [52,53]. These
fishery or species based approaches have been matched by in-
creasing attention to the management of broader marine systems,
including a focus on ecosystem approaches to fisheries [50–52,54].
Species-based approaches are being extended to encompass
management of by-catch and, in some cases, habitat [55]. While a
number of ecological and economic parameters are embedded,
there has been more limited progress in including the social sys-
tem in fisheries management [56]. There is, however, widespread
recognition of the significance of social objectives in Australian
fisheries management, and increasing concern with concepts such
as a “social license to fish” [57].
Australian fisheries management reflects the country's federal
political structure, with jurisdiction over Australian fisheries
shared between federal, state and territory governments [58].
Federal government legislation has established statutory fishing
rights, their registration and mechanisms for review of allocations,
and mechanisms for allocation of permits and licences [59,60]. It
has been federal government policy that ITQs are the preferred
management tool in its fisheries since 1990, with many state
fisheries also adopting quota management systems [61]. Industry
has been responsible for 100 per cent of required attributed costs
of management of federal government managed fisheries since
1994/95 [62]. Cost recovery approaches underpin a number of
elements of the co-management approach including funding for
scientific assessments and enhancing partnership approaches to
management [53,63].
The reach of national-level environmental legislation to en-
compass fisheries management has been one of the most sig-
nificant changes affecting Australian fisheries policy and man-
agement. More specifically, this has included the introduction of
strategic assessment of fisheries for federal government managed
fisheries and state export fisheries under the Environment Protec-
tion and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). This as-
sessment is made against a standard set of guidelines for the
ecologically sustainable development (ESD) of fisheries [64]. In
explicitly identifying target and limit reference points related to
biomass, the development of a harvest strategy is significant, with
harvest control rules being established as part of a formal man-
agement procedure [65].
The current state of practice of the selected management ap-
proaches varies across Australian marine fisheries (Table 1). As
mentioned above, while there has been implementation of co-
management, adaptive management and ecosystem-based man-
agement, there has been limited application of those management
approaches informed by resilience thinking within Australia.
2.2. Role of management approaches in contributing to climate
change adaptation in fisheries
In this study, management approaches determine the key
84 E.M. Ogier et al. / Marine Policy 71 (2016) 82–93
Table 1
Examples of applications of the selected management approaches in Australian marine fisheries management. The Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) is
responsible for federally-managed fisheries, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) is a federally-established authority, while the state acronyms indicate
state management; South Australia (SA), Queensland (QLD), Tasmania (TAS) and Western Australia (WA).
Management approach Australian fishery application and management
Co-management Northern Prawn Fishery (AFMA)
Lakes Entrance Fishery (part of the Southern and Eastern The Lakes Entrance Fishermen's Cooperative is applying its cooperative en-
Scalefish and Shark Fishery, AFMA)
Spencer Gulf Prawn Fishery (SA)
Tasmanian Scallop Fishery (TAS)
Adaptive management Lakes and Coorong Fishery (SA)
Majority of federally-managed fisheries (i.e. those fish- Each AFMA harvest strategy sets out management actions that are needed to
eries managed by AFMA) through application of MSE and achieve defined biological and economic objectives for a single fish stock or
HCR
Tasmanian Scallop Fishery (TAS)
Spencer Gulf Prawn Fishery (SA)
Ecosystem-based Great Barrier Reef (QLD/GBRMPA)
approaches
Ecosystem-based Fisheries Management (EBFM) frame-
work (WA)
normative, theoretical and operational elements and the broad
relationships between those elements that inform the specific
management arrangements for common-pool marine resources
within a broad governance system. Management approaches are
high-level conceptualisations of normative, generalised govern-
ance arrangements (Fig. 1) [47,66,67]. They can inform all levels of
fisheries management, in the case of ecosystem-based manage-
ment, or inform specific management components such as harvest
control rules or decision-making processes, in the case of co-
management or adaptive management [68,69]. In practice, multi-
ple management approaches are commonly implemented for the
same fishery or marine system in reflection of the iterative de-
velopment and broad mandate of fisheries governance arrange-
ments (Table 1).
Because management approaches delineate the breadth of va-
lues and concerns included in the scope of management ar-
rangements and the array of actors engaged in decision-making,
they exert a determining influence on the capability of marine
fisheries management arrangements to enhance adaptive capacity
and build resilience [24]. In particular, management approaches
can create leverage in implementing policy options and activities
to enable adaptation in marine fisheries [8].
Adaptation to climate change requires enabling at all levels of a
fisheries management system. There has been limited evaluation
Context
Collaborative approach whereby industry association assumed responsibility
for real-time data collection and scientific and crew-based observation adaptive
for fishery assessment and management. Small number of commercial opera-
tors [103].
terprise structure and capabilities to take responsibility for: quota pooling and
monitoring; quota transaction and reconciliation processes; automated data
transmission and data collection protocols; and, industry self-regulated com-
pliance functions [103,104].
A fishery in which annual and intra-annual growth is variable and therefore the
optimal time to harvest is also variable. Industry association coordinates pre-
season surveys and has authority to develop the annual harvest strategy. Small
number of commercial operators and no recreational sector [63,103].
A boom and bust fishery (sporadic and intermittent recruitment). Industry as-
sociation coordinates pre-season surveys to inform annual harvest strategy and
has authority to manage fine-scale spatial management of fishing effort within
designated zones, in accordance with industry codes of practice. Small number
of commercial operators [63].
A multi-species, multi-gear fishery exploited using a rotational harvest system,
which shifts effort from one species to another when one becomes financially
non-viable to target, or spreads effort across several species when conditions
are ideal. Low mechanisation fishing methods enables rapid shift in target
species as adaptive. Various input and output controls are triggered by key
environmental parameters (namely, water flow) falling outside reference levels
[105].
group of fish stocks. This includes specifying: ‘control rules’ that regulate the
level of fishing activity, and monitoring and assessment processes to inform
both setting and progress of the harvest strategy objectives.
MSE is used to conduct evaluation of the entire management cycle in the de-
velopment of harvest strategies [51,65].
See description under ‘Co-management’
See description under ‘Co-management’
Policy guidance triggered by increased non-fishing pressures re-directed focus
from protection of selected individual reefs/fisheries to stewardship of the
larger-scale seascape. Subsequent re-zoning process focused on maintaining
ecosystem function and biodiversity [106,107].
Operational extension of ESD policy using a qualitative risk-based approach to
identify high priority ecological assets requiring direct management action
[78,108].
of the contribution of management approaches to adaptation for
marine fisheries beyond the recommended strategy of improving
fisheries management and governance more broadly to build re-
silience and enable adaptive capacity [8,12,22,26]. Extensive work
has been undertaken reviewing specific adaptation tools for nat-
ural resource management, and identifying criteria for selecting
those tools most likely to maximise adaptation in a given context
[70–73]. However, reliance on targeted management tools as
technical fixes to mitigate or adapt to specific impacts is a function
of “short planning horizons that focus on immediate problems”
[26,67]. Analysis of the suite of management tools available to
respond to climate driven range shifts in marine systems suggests
that, given the delays in implementing targeted tools, applying
management approaches which build resilience and adaptive ca-
pacity across a fishery social-ecological system may be a better
management response [15].
3. Methods
3.1. Review of theoretical properties of selected management
approaches
The theoretical properties of the five selected management
 E.M. Ogier et al. / Marine Policy 71 (2016) 82–93
Fig. 1. Conceptualisation of the role of management approaches within fisheries management. Dashed arrows and boxes represent potential inputs and feedbacks. For example,
objectives can help to select or develop the management approach being applied to a given fishery, just as the management approach informs the development of objectives.
approaches were reviewed to determine the extent to which they
possessed “critical capacities” of fisheries management and gov-
ernance that enable climate change adaptation and build resi-
lience (Table 2). Critical capacities are identified in the literature
on resilience [30,74–76], natural resource management and bio-
diversity conservation [25,77], fisheries management science
[65,68,78–80], and global environmental change and adaptation
[33,81,82]. These include:
1. Learning orientation.
2. Capacity to cope with complexity and uncertainty.
3. Long term focus.
4. Ecosystem focus.
5. Integration of multiple sectors and scales.
6. Monitoring and review capability, and
7. Enhanced stakeholder engagement and empowerment.
3.2. Survey design
A semi-quantitative survey-questionnaire of practitioners was
conducted to determine the extent to which adaptive attributes are
perceived to be present in each of the management approaches. To
identify “adaptive attributes” for assessment of the suitability of
each of the management approaches as platforms for climate
change adaptation, the study draws on previous evaluations of
fisheries governance [23], adaptation and fisheries management
[22,26,38], and marine biodiversity conservation governance in the
context of climate change [25]. The adaptive governance regime
requirements identified by Lockwood et al. [25] were initially de-
rived from resilience and other adaptive governance management
approaches and subsequently refined by a panel of international
marine scientists and marine biodiversity managers using an
iterative multi-stage process of expert elicitation (Delphi method).
Seventeen adaptive attributes (Table 3) were selected from the
36 identified by Lockwood et al. [25]. Adaptive attributes were
85
selected if they: contributed to one or more of the identified cri-
tical capacities (Section 3.1); and, were independent of institu-
tional settings (i.e., a fundamental adaptive attribute of the man-
agement approach) and, therefore, applicable across a broad range
of fishery contexts. Adaptive attributes with a sole focus on gov-
ernance quality itself, without any direct contribution to enhan-
cing resilience or building adaptive capacity, were omitted. The
selected attributes were then modified to meet the specifications
of the survey design and their application to marine fisheries at a
workshop of members of Australia's National Climate Change
Adaptation Research Network for Marine Biodiversity and Re-
sources in September 2012.
Survey participants were approached on the basis of their
professional expertise in the development and application of
fisheries management approaches in Australia. A list of practi-
tioners was drawn up from a review of previous research projects
and publicly available information (e.g., fisheries management
agency websites). Participants invited to take part in the survey
included: heads of fisheries or marine resource management
agencies from all states and territories; and heads of fisheries re-
search provider organisations across Australia. Eighteen partici-
pants – from a total of 26 invitees – completed the online survey
(response rate¼70%).
Participants were provided with a brief description of each of
the five management approaches in the context of fisheries
management. They were asked to consider the application or po-
tential application of each of the management approaches to
Australian fisheries with which they were familiar. Participants
were then asked to rate the extent to which each of the man-
agement approaches possessed each of the 17 critical adaptive
attributes. A five-level Likert-type scale [83] was used (0 ¼Unsure/
Not Assessable, 1¼ Strongly Disagree, 2 ¼Disagree, 3 ¼Neutral,
4 ¼Agree, 5 ¼Strongly Agree). Participants were also requested to
provide examples of fisheries where each of the management
approaches had been implemented, as well as general comments.
86
Table 2
Overview of selected fisheries management approaches and their potential contributions to climate change adaptation.
Description
Co-management
“[A]n arrangement where responsibility
for resource management is shared
between government and user groups”
[109]. Support for co-management de-
rives from the recognition of the limits
of government action. It differs from
community-based management in that
government is involved in decision-
making about fisheries management.
Adaptive management
Concerns the facilitation of learning from
management decisions and feedback of
those lessons in following rounds of
decision-making [120];
Emphasizes structured learning by do-
ing [121].
Active adaptive management
A more responsive form of adaptive
management [89], in which the re-
lationship between management and
learning is interactive and highly cou-
pled.
Management is an iterative process of
experimentation, re-experimentation,
and continuous hypothesis-generation
and testing which guide decision-mak-
ing.
Active adaptive management “involves
a process of active learning, planning,
evaluation and judgment about the
socio-economic-ecological environ-
ment and the effects of key decision
variables” [23].
Adaptive co-management
A matured state of co-management ar-
rangement [128], linking the iterative
learning aspects of adaptive manage-
ment with the shared management
responsibility of co-management [90]
and concerned with ecosystem dy-
namics [88];
At least five variables have been
E.M. Ogier et al. / Marine Policy 71 (2016) 82–93
Strengths
Improvements in the legitimacy and effi-
ciency of governance processes and
management functions [110], including
improved acceptance of climate change
adaptation strategies and reduced costs
for government;
Governance benefits include more ap-
propriate, efficient and equitable pro-
cesses through decentralization of re-
source management decisions, en-
couragement of stakeholder participation,
and fostering of conflict resolution [111];
Management functions of long-term
planning and inclusive decision-making
may be enhanced by co-management ap-
proaches [111];
Potential for systematic learning and in-
novation under conditions of uncertainty
[98];
Empowerment and responsibility shared
with industry;
Balancing of social and economic con-
siderations with those of ecological (ac-
cording to industry);
Encourages stakeholder participation and
facilitation of conflict resolution;
Learning is central to co-management's
value as an adaptive strategy [112].
Addresses the challenge of operating with
impartial knowledge and allows progress
in the absence of complete information
[120];
Involves continual review of management
outputs and outcomes and allows for ad-
justments in response to new informa-
tion;
In cases where there is cost-recovery, can
allow for new research to address new
questions (vs closure in the case of in-
complete information).
(See strengths as listed for Adaptive
Management)
Relationship between management and
learning is interactive and highly coupled
[89];
Incorporates features consistent with
maintaining the sustainability of fisheries
in the context of uncertainty, limitations
on knowledge and high levels of system
complexity:
 management activities are specifically
designed to test hypotheses through
ecosystem scale holistic experiments;
 complexity is embraced;
 mechanisms for multidisciplinary and
multi-stakeholder involvement are
provided; and
 there is strong emphasis on social
learning [89].
Empowerment for industry through co-
management;
Wider set of considerations than co-
management (that is, it is concerned with
ecosystem dynamics);
Has potential to develop adaptive capa-
city, social-ecological resilience, sustain-
able resource use, and enhanced
Limitations
Can exacerbate existing power im-
balances [98];
Over-representation of extractive in-
terests can overwhelm non-use values
[113];
Resource management agencies can
be captured by private interests [110];
Some resource user groups may lose
their customary access [114];
State power can be extended unin-
tentionally into communities suppo-
sedly being empowered by co-man-
agement [113];
Local and national priorities may con-
flict [115];
Expectations for participation and
empowerment may be unfulfilled
[112];
Weakened focus on ecological system
(target species issues dominate);
Without strong institutional forms, co-
management arrangements can fall
apart with large numbers and highly
diverse commercial operators [116].
Learning may become quickly out-da-
ted;
Passive adaptive management can
move a system to a threshold where
abrupt change occurs [122];
Monitoring may be focussed on com-
pliance and not learning [77];
Areas of application may be limited
[123];
Considerable implementation pro-
blems exist [124].
Application best limited to ecosystems
where human influence is evident but
not heavy and restoration of ecological
functions and processes has most po-
tential [123];
Can be less participatory if high level
analytical framework is used (e.g.
MSE);
Continuous hypothesis-generation
and testing which guide decision-
making can reduce security and sta-
bility of operating environment for
commercial operators;
Biophysical system remains central to
management with social dimensions
only included to the extent that they
serve fisheries management
objectives.
High level of engagement adaptive by
industry to participate;
Long time frame for reporting back on
new evidence (e.g. need better real-
time systems);
Effective adaptive co-management is
dependent on how well decision-
making institutions fit their social-
Potential contribution to climate
change adaptation
Provides a platform for conflict resolu-
tion and negotiation of trade-offs [117];
Involves systematic learning and in-
novation [98];
Builds capacity and empowers stake-
holders through shared responsibility
[118];
Collaborative engagement improves
acceptance of climate change adapta-
tion strategies [119];
Enhances long-term planning [111];
Provides flexibility to cope with com-
plexities imposed by increased change
and variability [26,112].
An iterative process that reduces un-
certainty in a goal-oriented and struc-
tured process [121];
Accounts for system complexity by in-
tegrating ecological, social and eco-
nomic drivers [94];
Better able to deal with change through
managing for both short-term and
long-term impacts [125];
Provides platform for review and ad-
justment of strategies;
Accounts for complexity by considering
multiple sectors and policies [126];
Embraces complexity, variability and
uncertainty [127].
Provides platform for active social
learning through experimentation, re-
experimentation, hypothesis genera-
tion and testing [89];
Encourages diverse inputs of knowl-
edge and experience through mechan-
isms for multi-stakeholder involvement
[23];
Embraces ecosystem scale and system
complexity [23].
Social networks set up for co-manage-
ment are helpful in dealing with cli-
mate hazards [82];
Embraces complex adaptive systems
thinking e.g., cross-scale interactions
and ecosystem dynamics [81];
Provides mechanisms to adjust to
change [88];
 E.M. Ogier et al. / Marine Policy 71 (2016) 82–93 87

Table 2 (continued )

Description Strengths Limitations Potential contribution to climate

change adaptation

identified as most characteristic of
adaptive co-management: learning,
knowledge, networks, shared power,
and organizational interactions [129];
As much concerned with the social,
institutional and ecological dimensions
of resource management as with the
resource itself.
Ecosystem based management (EBM)
Arising in response to recognition of a
crisis of biodiversity, EBM is an ap-
proach to resource management that
grounds management in the ecological
system [131]. EBM explicitly takes ac-
count of the main extrinsic forcers on
the dynamics of harvested fish stocks
as well as the full suite and magnitude
of impacts of harvesting on all ecosys-
tem components, including species,
human and non-human, and the en-
vironments in which they live
[80,91,132];
EBM has arisen in response to the re-
cognition that single species manage-
ment has caused complex, potentially
cascading effects on marine food webs,
including biomass reduction, trophic
cascades, fishing down food webs and
rapid evolution [133].
efficiency and effectiveness of manage-
ment [129];
Offers a way of studying and structuring
increasingly coupled social-ecological
systems [81].
Consideration of non-target species, in-
cluding habitats and ecological commu-
nities;
Recognizes other needs in the ecosystem
(e.g. ecosystem allocation to seabirds) and
aims to sustain a broader range of eco-
system services than single species;
Better alignment of fisheries with other
marine planning processes [134];
Recognizes the importance of changes in
the environment (e.g. productivity, cli-
mate variability and change);
Social, economic, and ecological view-
points are taken into account;
Decision-making that integrates across all
human activities impacting the same
ecosystem;
Allows for more efficient use of manage-
ment resources [134].
ecological conditions, effective com- Accounts for system complexity by op-
munication processes among key lea- erating across multiple levels [130];
ders, intergroup cooperation, and po- Encourages autonomous adjustment by
litical management skills [88]. fishers and their communities, values
different knowledge sets (tacit, tradi-
tional and scientific) and fosters colla-
borative decision-making across key
stakeholders [22].
Costly data requirements [135]; Embraces change, learning and adapt-
Complex and expensive implementa- ing policies [138];
tion [135]; Assists fisheries’ adaptation to climate
Weak governance arrangements, e.g., change by enhancing and protecting
instability, non-cooperation among natural ecosystems and the goods and
governance entities, large number of services they produce [139];
jurisdictions [135]; Better able to deal with change whe-
Integrating economic, ecological and ther gradual or abrupt through mana-
social issues can be very complex ging for the long-term [125];
[134]; Application of a precautionary ap-
Monitoring costs can be prohibitive proach and adaptive management
across all aspects of the ecosystem. helps to account for uncertainty of fu-
Need prioritization tool (e.g. Ecological ture climate impacts on fisheries and
Risk Assessment) [54]; marine ecosystems [140];
The large number of interest groups Accounts for complexity by considering
represented in decision making can multiple sectors and policies [126] and
lead to paralysis [80]; addressing cumulative impacts [134].
Different expectations of stakeholder
groups can raise transaction costs
[80];
Lack of scientific knowledge about
ecosystem dynamics [136] and an in-
ability to predict how natural systems
are likely to respond to human inter-
vention limits the ability to implement
complex range of EBM criteria;
Absence of a clear approach or toolkit
for EBM implementation;
Considerable gap in translation of EBM
principles proposed by scientists and
their incorporation in management
plans [132];
Existing gaps in social science knowl-
edge limit EBM application [125];
Existing institutional context can limit
EBM implementation [137].

The survey results were analysed by determining the fre-
quencies of the six responses for each management approach
against each attribute. A management approach was deemed to
possess an adaptive attribute when 50% or more of respondents
either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement. The total
number of adaptive attributes observed to be present in each
management approach was then examined to indicate the extent
to which each management approach possessed adaptive attri-
butes likely to engender resilience and adaptive capacity for a gi-
ven fisheries system.
Respondents' comments regarding the management ap-
proaches were examined using content analysis [84], based on
coding categories derived directly from the comments data.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Theoretical contributions of selected management approaches to
climate change adaptation
The selected management approaches are strongly differ-
entiated in the literature by the extent to which their normative
components constitute those properties required to enhance re-
silience and build adaptive capacity (Table 2). All of the selected
management approaches have an adaptive orientation and,
therefore, a measure of flexibility. As such they may be, in theory,
suitable for coping with complexity and uncertainty and hence
change to varying degrees. Distinctions between the theoretical
components of the selected management approaches are strongest
with regard to learning orientation; ecosystem focus; and, en-
hanced stakeholder engagement and empowerment.
Learning is a central requirement in adjusting to the dynamism,
complexity and uncertainty associated with climate-driven change
[31,85]. Monitoring and review are essential to processes of
learning and therefore climate change adaptation. Monitoring
provides the feedback loop on management experiments that
generate new knowledge. This new knowledge, in turn, becomes
the basis of further experimentation. It is also necessary for eval-
uating the effectiveness of management actions in relation to re-
source status objectives, and for facilitating improved manage-
ment [81,86]. Each of the fisheries management approaches with
an adaptive dimension has components that link monitoring to
iterative phases of decisions and evaluation of alternative strate-
gies, and result in learning used to improve decision-making in the
context of change.
 88
Table 3
Percentage of survey respondents who perceived that adaptive attributes for climate change adaptation were present in selected fisheries management approaches (presence of an attribute is indicated when 50% or more of
respondents either Agreed or Strongly Agreed that it was present).

Critical capacity Adaptive attributes Co-management Adaptive Active adaptive Adaptive co- Ecosystem-based
management management management management

1. Learning orientation 1.1 Systems and processes that enable continuous testing of as- 41 75 75 75 75
sumptions, management experiments, and adjustment of
interventions
2. Capacity to cope with complexity 2.1 Decision systems which take account of and respond to the 43 86 100 64 72
and uncertainty possibility of nonlinear or abrupt change and, where necessary, the

E.M. Ogier et al. / Marine Policy 71 (2016) 82–93

need for transformation
2.2 Stakeholders who understand and work with the structures, 84 53 54 84 77
functions and values of the relevant social-ecological system or
fishery
2.3 Levels of redundancy (that is, multiple actors with responsi- 50 17 17 33 17
bilities) in decision systems and processes
3. Long term focus 3.1 Precautionary approach 25 58 59 58 75
3.2 Processes that consider intra- and inter-generational distribu- 8 17 33 8 50
tions of costs and benefits
4. Ecosystem focus 4.1 Values biodiversity and ecosystem services 47 63 69 56 100
4.2 Ecosystem performance indicators 25 25 33 25 75
5. Integration of multiple sectors 5.1 Provisions to take account of management decisions made at 54 61 69 54 92
and scales other levels and resultant feedbacks
5.2 Presence of multi-level arrangements and mechanisms to facil- 25 25 25 25 58
itate interplay between institutions and jurisdictions
6. Monitoring and review capability 6.1 Decision systems which integrate and deploy quality spatial and 50 71 71 64 72
temporal information (for example, biophysical, social, economic,
legal, operational)
6.2 Monitoring, assessment and decision systems which are re- 66 91 100 92 75
sponsive to change signals in target species
6.3 Monitoring, assessment and decision systems which are re- 41 75 75 75 75
sponsive to change signals in ecosystems
6.4 Monitoring of negative externalities (that is, unintended im- 33 42 42 33 58
pacts) arising from adaptation responses by fishing fleets
6.5 Biological performance indicators 67 91 100 83 75
7. Enhanced stakeholder engage- 7.1 Diversity of knowledge forms (citizen science & fisher ecological 83 58 58 83 58
ment and empowerment knowledge) used in decision making
 E.M. Ogier et al. / Marine Policy 71 (2016) 82–93
One of the main distinctions between the selected manage-
ment approaches is the degree of reassessment of management
approaches undertaken. Given the significant implications of cli-
mate change for the marine environment and for fisheries, the
level of change required to adapt could necessitate significant
changes or “transformations” in governance [33,87]. Learning by
trial-and-error or simple adjustments to management objectives
(i.e., single-loop learning), such as modifying catch limits to con-
form to target harvest rates, is at some point in the future unlikely
to be sufficient under climate change conditions. Multiple learning
iterations or loops (also called double- and triple-looped learning)
[76,81], which involve a re-evaluation of assumptions, key re-
lationships and mental models, are more likely to support the
capacity for transformational change. Management changes re-
sulting from this level of learning could include revising the
models used to calculate total allowable catch [88] or a switch to
supporting alternative sectors, such as tourism.
The management approaches that explicitly incorporate mul-
tiple learning iterations are active adaptive management and
adaptive co-management [89]. Active adaptive management pro-
vides a platform for learning through experimentation, re-ex-
perimentation, hypothesis generation and testing. Adaptive co-
management has a medium to long time horizon with multiple
iterative cycles of learning and adaptation [90]. This management
approach also fosters the capacity for timely adjustment of man-
agement settings in response to changes in the state of the re-
source through its capability for rapid feedback of updated sci-
entific information.
Incorporation of ecosystem dynamics and services, including
stable fisheries, is a critical capacity of management approaches
conducive to climate change adaptation in fisheries [88]. Ecosys-
tem-based management explicitly takes account of the main ex-
trinsic forcers on the dynamics of harvested fish stocks, as well as
the full suite and magnitude of impacts of harvesting on all eco-
system components, including species, human and non-human,
and the environments in which they live [80,91]. Adaptive co-
management's concern with the linked social-ecological system,
and the requirement that management be focussed at the bior-
egional scale, also provide adjustment to change at the ecosystem
scale [92]. Active adaptive management is similarly equipped
through its processes of “active learning, planning, evaluation and
judgment about the socio-economic-ecological environment and
the effects of key decision variables” [23]. The co-management and
adaptive management approaches do not preclude an emphasis on
ecosystem scale and dynamics, but these approaches are com-
monly limited in their application to the management of target
species (Table 1).
Enhancing stakeholder engagement and empowerment is
likely to engender shared understanding through social learning
and provide mechanisms for addressing social barriers to adap-
tation - thereby enhancing the capacity to confront and address
complex decision contexts. Learning processes are optimised
where stakeholders are engaged as collaborators, and where there
is acceptance of the value and legitimacy of diverse forms and
sources of knowledge [25,93]. It has been shown that a diverse
range of disciplinary participants and of functional groups are
critical to generating a holistic understanding of resource dy-
namics, diverse solutions to resource issues, and social learning
[94].
Co-management offers a management approach for substantive
engagement and empowerment of stakeholders and, in so doing,
creates a platform for conflict resolution and negotiation of trade-
offs. Reduced conflict and resistance to climate change adaptation
strategies, as well as more efficient and equitable adaptation
processes, are likely to result from decentralized or polycentric
resource management arrangements [79, 95–97]. Adaptive co-
89
management links different organizational levels including the
community level with different levels of government and with
industry, thus fostering social learning processes crucial to the
adaptive capacity of social-ecological systems [98–100]. This
management approach uses collaborative processes of knowledge
co-production and problem-solving at multiple scales [88]. Active
adaptive management offers mechanisms for multi-stakeholder
involvement, a necessary but not a sufficient condition for social
learning, which helps stakeholders cope with informational and
normative uncertainty associated with social-ecological change
and facilitates building the consensus necessary for collective
adaptiveness [99]. Similarly, ecosystem-based management is
premised on the inclusion of the social system and is argued to
include co-management and participatory approaches in-principle
[24]. However, the extent to which enhancing stakeholder en-
gagement and empowerment is an explicit, normative component
of the management approach is contested; hence, the re-
commendation for development of social-ecological systems ap-
proaches [70,75].
4.2. Practitioner perceptions
In practice, all of the management approaches considered here
are equipped to address climate change challenges to an extent.
Analysis of the survey data indicated that respondents perceive
that four of the management approaches in the context of Aus-
tralian fisheries possess at least 70% of the key adaptive attributes
with the exception being co-management, which is perceived to
possess 47% of the attributes (Table 3, Fig. 2 – see Supplementary
data). The observed differences between the management ap-
proaches as identified by practitioners largely align with the the-
oretical differentiation described in the literature (Section 4.1,
Table 2).
Ecosystem-based management is identified by practitioners as
the optimal management approach for equipping fisheries man-
agement systems with the adaptive attributes necessary to en-
hance adaptive capacity and resilience. In accordance with the
theoretical account of this management approach (Section 4.1,
Table 2), the observed results indicate that ecosystem-based fish-
eries management possesses almost all of the adaptive attributes
(16 out of 17). The attribute observed to be missing by participants
is levels of redundancy arising from the participation of multiple
actors with responsibilities in decision systems and processes,
which reinforces the critique of this approach, that is, that it lacks
an explicit social-ecological system focus (Section 4.1). Attributes
which only the ecosystem-based management approach was
deemed by practitioners to possess include: processes that con-
sider intra- and inter-generational distributions of costs and ben-
efits; presence of multi-level arrangements and mechanisms to
facilitate interplay between institutions and jurisdictions; and,
monitoring of negative externalities (that is, unintended impacts)
arising from adaptation responses by fishing fleets.
The co-management approach was perceived to have 8 of the
17 adaptive attributes in the context of Australian fisheries (Ta-
ble 3, Fig. 2 – see Supplementary data). Adaptive attributes which
practitioners deemed to be absent in the co-management ap-
proach were attributes that contribute to the following critical
capacities: an explicit ecosystem-level, as well as long-term, focus;
and a learning orientation. The following critical capacities were
observed to be only partially present: capacity to cope with
complexity and uncertainty; integration of multiple sectors and
scales; and, monitoring and review capability (Table 3). These
observed gaps concur with the limitations in the scope of this
management approach identified in the theoretical assessment
(Section 4.1, Table 2). The particular strength of co-management
arrangements in contributing to adaptive capacity and resilience
90 E.M. Ogier et al. / Marine Policy 71 (2016) 82–93
arises from the decentralized and participatory governance ar-
rangements which are likely to engender reduced conflict and
greater levels of trust and acceptance of adaptation pathways. The
co-management approach is the only approach observed by
practitioners to enable levels of redundancy arising from the
participation of multiple actors with responsibilities in decision
systems and processes.
The adaptive management, active adaptive management and
adaptive co-management approaches were observed by practi-
tioners to possess the same 12 adaptive attributes (Table 3, Fig. 2 –
see Supplementary data). The five attributes deemed not to be
present include: levels of redundancy (that is, multiple actors with
responsibilities) in decision systems and processes; processes that
consider intra- and inter-generational distributions of costs and
benefits; ecosystem performance indicators; presence of multi-
level arrangements and mechanisms to facilitate interplay be-
tween institutions and jurisdictions; and, monitoring of negative
externalities (that is, unintended impacts) arising from adaptation
responses by fishing fleets. This result indicates that the following
critical capacities are only partially present: an ecosystem-level
focus; a long term focus; and integration of multiple sectors and
scales. Compared with co-management, these adaptive manage-
ment approaches were all observed to have greater capacity in
coping with complexity and uncertainty; in monitoring and re-
view; and in systems-based learning orientation (specifically,
systems and processes that enable continuous testing of assump-
tions, management experiments, and adjustment of interven-
tions). Compared with ecosystem-based management, practi-
tioners were more likely to strongly agree that these adaptive
approaches possessed attributes which enable monitoring and
review capability (Fig. 2 – see Supplementary data). Strengths of
these approaches include enabling a platform for active social
learning through experimentation, review and evaluation, re-ex-
perimentation, hypothesis generation and testing – all of which
enable identification, implementation and evaluation of adapta-
tion options.
These practitioner observations of adaptive, active adaptive and
adaptive co-management approaches are in broad agreement with
the theoretical assessment (Section 4.1, Table 2). However practi-
tioner observations diverge from the theoretical assessment in one
area: all three of these adaptive approaches were deemed by
practitioners to possess the attributes of diversity of knowledge
forms (for example, local fisher knowledge and citizen science)
used in decision making; and, inclusion of economic, social and
community performance indicators. In contrast, both the adaptive
and active adaptive management approaches have been critiqued
in the literature for their lack of explicit emphasis on enhanced
stakeholder engagement and empowerment (Section 4.1, Table 2).
This highlights the lack of differentiation by practitioners between
these three approaches, in contrast to the theoretical assessment
in which the three approaches are distinguished from each other
with regard to the level of explicit stakeholder engagement, use of
the social-ecological systems framework (that is, ecosystem-level
focus), and the number of levels of iterative learning and adapta-
tion (Section 4.1, Table 2).
Overall the observed results support the theoretical account of
the management approaches examined here. In a few instances,
practitioners were more likely to ascribe attributes to approaches
in contrast to the theoretical assessment. This may be accounted
for by use of multiple approaches in combination to manage
fisheries, which survey participants noted is a common occurrence
in Australian fisheries. It was observed that, in some cases, co-
management and adaptive management were applied as tools
within a broader ecosystem approach to fisheries that en-
compassed ecosystem-based management. Further comments
from participants concerned the challenge in comparing
approaches when they were impeded by any applied knowledge of
active adaptive and adaptive co-management, in particular, and
the importance of context (including institutional arrangements)
in determining the extent to which adaptive attributes were
present.
5. Implications for adaptive governance of fisheries
Practitioners perceived each of the management approaches as
equipped to an extent to enable adaptation to threats and oppor-
tunities arising due to climate-driven changes. Both the theoretical
assessment and observed results suggest that these management
approaches have a focus on building adaptive capacity, reducing
vulnerability and increasing social-ecological resilience while
promoting sustainable fisheries. Daw et al. [8] suggest that a good
strategy to support future adaptations – including those not cur-
rently foreseen – is investing in generic adaptive capacity and re-
silient fisheries systems. Increased adaptive capacity can be
achieved by locating fisheries management within a governance
regime containing flexible and equitable institutions, which re-
volves around the implementation of good fisheries governance.
Hence, by supporting improved governance, the management
approaches in question comprise important enablers of adaptation
to climate change. Our analysis distinguished specific strengths,
weakness and capacities of each of the management approaches.
Ecosystem-based management is highly-equipped for climate
change adaptation. It can help increase the adaptability and resi-
lience of fisheries resources, associated ecosystems, and depen-
dent communities and industries; consider multiple sectors and
policies; address cumulative impacts; consider scientific and
technical information; and embrace ecosystem services. This
analysis of both theoretical properties and practitioner perceptions
has highlighted the utility and performance of this management
approach, particularly given its breadth of scope which can en-
compass other management approaches, namely co-management
and adaptive management, as nested structures [24]. There ap-
pears to be no additional incentives for implementing either of the
resilience-based management approaches (active adaptive man-
agement and adaptive co-management), particularly given the
potentially high transaction costs to overcome their lack of oper-
ationalisation in Australia. Ecosystem approaches to fisheries are
being endorsed and their implementation supported both within
Australia [101,102] and internationally [47]. Features of co-man-
agement and adaptive management can be integrated into eco-
system-based approaches to ensure collaborative opportunities for
stakeholder involvement and strengthen iterative management.
The review of theoretical properties revealed that the selected
management approaches can differentiated theoretically in terms
of a number of critical capacities. By comparing this result with the
observations of fisheries management practitioners, our analysis
has highlighted the lower level of differentiation of management
approaches by practitioners. These findings may reflect the lack of
implementation and, therefore, familiarity with the two resilience-
based management approaches. Further potential reasons for the
discrepancy between theory and practice may include: practi-
tioners are not aware of the finer theoretical differences between
the management approaches; theoretical properties and distinc-
tions between management approaches are less relevant in a
practical management situation; management procedures are not
responsive enough to highlight and implement the differences; or,
institutional arrangements reinforce “business as usual” behaviour
regardless of the particular management approach.
These tensions between theory and practice potentially affect
the capacity of fisheries management systems to adapt to chan-
ging requirements of governance capability in the context of
 E.M. Ogier et al. / Marine Policy 71 (2016) 82–93
climate change. In particular, it is important that fisheries gov-
ernance regimes incorporate institutional arrangements that do
not exclude the potential for management approaches to integrate
additional adaptive requirements.
Acknowledgements
This paper was developed as part of activities conducted by
members of Australia's National Climate Change Adaptation Re-
search Network for Marine Biodiversity and Resources (2009–
2013). The Adaptation Research Network for Marine Biodiversity
and Resources acknowledges funding provided by the Australian
Government Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency
through the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility.
Gretta Pecl was supported by an ARC Future Fellowship
(FT140100596). The authors also wish to acknowledge the con-
tribution made by those reviewers who provided comment on an
earlier version of the paper.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in
the online version at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.05.
014.
References
[1] S.C. Doney, M. Ruckelshaus, J.E. Duffy, J.P. Barry, F. Chan, C.A. English, H.M. Galindo,
J.M. Grebmeier, A.B. Hollowed, N. Knowlton, J. Polovina, N.N. Rabalais, W.
J. Sydeman, L.D. Talley, Climate change impacts on marine ecosystems, Annu. Rev.
Mar. Sci. 4 (2012) 11–37.
[2] E.S. Poloczanska, R.C. Babcock, A. Butler, A.J. Hobday, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, T.J. Kunz,
R. Matear, D.A. Milton, T.A. Okey, A.J. Richardson, Climate change and Australian
marine life, Ocean. Mar. Biol.: Annu. Rev. 45 (2007) 407–478.
[3] M. Barange, R.I. Perry, Physical and ecological impacts of climate change relevant
to marine and inland capture fisheries and aquaculture, in: K. Cochrane, et al., (Ed.)
Climate cHange Implications for Fisheries and Aquaculture: Overview of Current
Scientific Knowledge. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 530, FAO:
Rome, 2009, pp. 7–106.
[4] K. Brander, Climate and current anthropogenic impacts on fisheries, Clim. Change
119 (1) (2012) 9–21, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584–012-0541–2.
[5] L.M. Robinson, D.C. Gledhill, N.A. Moltschaniwskyj, A.J. Hobday, S.D. Frusher,
N. Barrett, J.S. Stuart-Smith, G.P. Pecl, Rapid assessment of an ocean warming
hotspot reveals “high” confidence in potential species’ range extensions, Glob.
Environ. Change 31 (2015) 28–37.
[6] E.H. Allison, A.L. Perry, M.-C. Badjeck, W. Neil Adger, K. Brown, D. Conway, A.
S. Halls, G.M. Pilling, J.D. Reynolds, N.L. Andrew, N.K. Dulvy, Vulnerability of na-
tional economies to the impacts of climate change on fisheries, Fish Fish. 10 (2)
(2009) 173–196, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–2979.2008.00310.x.
[7] J.D. Bell, A. Ganachaud, P.C. Gehrke, S.P. Griffiths, A.J. Hobday, O. Hoegh-Guldberg,
J.E. Johnson, R. Le Borgne, P. Lehodey, J.M. Lough, R.J. Matear, T.D. Pickering, M.
S. Pratchett, A.S. Gupta, I. Senina, M. Waycott, Mixed responses of tropical Pacific
fisheries and aquaculture to climate change, Nat. Clim. Change 3 (6) (2013)
591–599, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1838.
[8] T. Daw W.N. Adger K. Brown M.-C. Badjeck, Climate change and capture fisheries:
potential impacts, adaptation and mitigation, in: K. Cochrane et al. (Eds.) Climate
Change Implications for Fisheries and Aquaculture: Overview of Current Scientific
Knowledge. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 530, FAO: Rome,
2009. pp. 107–150.
[9] S. Frusher, A. Hobday, S. Jennings, G. Pecl, M. Haward, M. Nursey-Bray,
N. Holbrook, I. van Putten, C. Creighton, D. D’Silva, History of adaptation research
in a marine climate change hotspot – from anecdote to action in south-east Aus-
tralia, Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 24 (2) (2014) 593–611, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s11160-013-9325-7.
[10] S.J. Metcalf, E.I. van Putten, S. Frusher, N.A. Marshall, M. Tull, N. Caputi, M. Haward,
A.J. Hobday, N.J. Holbrook, S.M. Jennings, G.T. Pecl, J. Shaw, Measuring the vul-
nerability of marine social-ecological systems: a prerequisite for the identification
of climate change adaptations, Ecol. Soc. 20 (2) (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/
es-07509-200235.
[11] U.R. Sumaila, W.W.L. Cheung, V.W.Y. Lam, D. Pauly, S. Herrick, Climate change
impacts on the biophysics and economics of world fisheries, Nat. Clim. Change
(2011), http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE1301.
[12] N.K. Dulvy, J.D. Reynolds, G.M. Pilling, J.K. Pinnegar, J.S. Philips, H.E. Allison, The
Economics of Adapting Fisheries to Climate Change, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2011.
[13] K. Cochrane, C. De Young, D. Soto, T. Bahri, Climate change implications for fish-
eries and aquaculture: overview of current scientific knowledge Fisheries and
Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 530, FAO, Rome, 2009.
91
[14] E. Ostrom, A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological
systems, Science 325 (5939) (2009) 419–422, http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/
science.1172133.
[15] E.M.P. Madin, N.C. Ban, Z.A. Doubleday, T.H. Holmes, G.T. Pecl, F. Smith, Socio-
economic and management implications of range-shifting species in marine sys-
tems, Glob. Environ. Change 22 (1) (2012) 137–146, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2011.10.008.
[16] E.E. Plaganyi, S.J. Weeks, T.D. Skewes, M.T. Gibbs, E.S. Poloczanska, A. Norman-
Lopez, L.K. Blamey, M. Soares, W.M.L. Robinson, Assessing the adequacy of current
fisheries management under changing climate: a southern synopsis, ICES J. Mar.
Sci. 68 (6) (2011) 1305–1317, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsr049.
[17] J.C. Rice, S.M. Garcia, Fisheries, food security, climate change, and biodiversity:
characteristics of the sector and perspectives on emerging issues, ICES J. Mar. Sci.
68 (6) (2011) 1343–1353, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsr041.
[18] M.P. Marzloff, J. Melbourne-Thomas, K.G. Hamon, E. Hoshino, S. Jennings, I.E. van
Putten, G.T. Pecl, Modelling marine community responses to climate-driven spe-
cies redistribution to guide monitoring and adaptive ecosystem-based manage-
ment, Glob. Change Biol. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13285.
[19] K. Miller, A. Charles, M. Barange, K. Brander, V.F. Gallucci, M.A. Gasalla, A. Khan,
G. Munro, R. Murtugudde, R.E. Ommer, Climate change uncertainty, and resilient
fisheries: Institutional responses through integrative science, Progress. Ocean. 87
(1–4) (2010) 338–346, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2010.09.014.
[20] J. Davidson, I.E. van Putten, P. Leith, M. Nursey-Bray, E. Madin, N.J. Holbrook, To-
wards operationalizing resilience concepts in Australian marine sectors coping
with climate change, Ecol. Soc. 18 (3) (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05607–
180304.
[21] N. Holbrook, J. Johnson, Climate change and adaptation of commercial marine
fisheries in Australia: a review of the science, Clim. Change (2014) 124, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1007/s10584–014-1110–7.
[22] Q.R. Grafton, Adaptation to climate change in marine capture fisheries, Mar. Policy
34 (3) (2010) 606–615, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2009.11.011.
[23] R.Q. Grafton, T. Kompas, R. McLoughlin, N. Rayns, Benchmarking for fisheries
governance, Mar. Policy 31 (4) (2007) 470–479, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpol.2006.12.007.
[24] A. Heenan, R. Pomeroy, J. Bell, P.L. Munday, W. Cheung, C. Logan, R. Brainard,
A. Yang Amri, P. Aliño, N. Armada, L. David, R. Rivera-Guieb, S. Green, J. Jompa,
T. Leonardo, S. Mamauag, B. Parker, J. Shackeroff, Z. Yasin, A climate-informed,
ecosystem approach to fisheries management, Mar. Policy 57 (2015) 182–192,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.03.018.
[25] M. Lockwood, J. Davidson, M. Harward, M. Hockings, L. Kriwoken, Marine biodi-
versity conservation governance and management: regime requirements for a
changing climate, Ocean Coast. Manag. 69 (160–172) (2012), DOI: http://dx.doi:
10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.07.015.
[26] A. McIlgorm, S. Hanna, G. Knapp, P. Le Floc’H, F. Millerd, M. Pan, How will climate
change alter fishery governance? Insights from seven international case studies,
Mar. Policy 34 (1) (2010) 170–177, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2009.06.004.
[27] C. Creighton, A.J. Hobday, M. Lockwood, G.T. Pecl, Adapting management of marine
environments to a changing climate: a checklist to guide reform and assess pro-
gress, Ecosystems (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10021–015-9925–2.
[28] S. Serrao-Neumann, J.L. Davidson, C.L. Baldwin, A. Dedekorkut-Howes, J.C. Ellison,
N.J. Holbrook, M. Howes, C. Jacobson, E.A. Morgan, Marine governance to avoid
tipping points: can we adapt the adaptability envelope? Mar. Policy 65 (2016)
56–67, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.12.007.
[29] S. Carpenter, B. Walker, J.M. Anderies, N. Abel, From metaphor to measurement:
resilience of what to what? Ecosystems 4 (2001) 765–781.
[30] D.R. Nelson, W.N. Adger, K. Brown, Adaptation to Environmental change: con-
tributions of a resilience framework, Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 32 (1) (2007)
395–419, http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.32.051807.090348.
[31] F. Berkes, J. Colding, C. Folke, Navigating Social-ecological Systems: Building Re-
silience for Complexity and Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2003,
p. 393.
[32] S. Gelcich, T.P. Hughes, P. Olsson, C. Folke, O. Defeo, M. Fernandez, S. Foale, L.H.
Gunderson, C. Rodriguez-Sickert, M. Scheffer, RS Steneck, J.C. Castilla. Navigating
transformations in governance of Chilean marine coastal resources, in: Proceed-
ings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 39. pp. 16794–16799, 2010. 〈http://
dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1012021107〉.
[33] P. Olsson, L.H. Gunderson, S.R. Carpenter, P. Ryan, L. Lebel, C. Folke, C.S. Holling,
Shooting the rapids: navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-eco-
logical systems, Ecol. Soc. 11 (1) (2006) 18.
[34] S.E. Park, N.A. Marshall, E. Jakku, A.M. Dowd, S.M. Howden, E. Mendham,
A. Fleming, Informing adaptation responses to climate change through theories of
transformation, Glob. Environ. Change 22 (1) (2012) 115–126, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.10.003.
[35] L. Schultz, C. Folke, H Österblom, P. Olsson, Adaptive governance, ecosystem
management, and natural capital: Fig. 1, in: Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences. 112(24), 2015, pp. 7369–7374. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1406493112.
[36] H. Eakin, M.C. Lemos, Adaptation and the state: latin America and the challenge of
capacity-building under globalization, Glob. Environ. Change 16 (1) (2006) 7–18,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.10.004.
[37] K. Halsnaes, S. Traerup, Development and climate change: a mainstreaming ap-
proach for assessing economic, social, and environmental impacts of adaptation
measures, Environ. Manag. 43 (5) (2009) 765–778, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s00267–009-9273–0.
[38] S. Jennings, S. Pascoe, S. Hall-Asplan, B. Lebouhellec, A. Norman-Lopez, A. Sullivan,
G. Pecl, Setting objectives for evaluating management adaptation actions to ad-
dress climate change impacts in south-eastern Australian fisheries, Fish. Ocean. 25
(suppl 1) (2015) 29–44.
[39] Md.F. Doria, E. Boyd, E.L. Tompkins, W.N. Adger, Using expert elicitation to define
successful adaptation to climate change, Environ. Sci. Policy 12 (7) (2009) 810–819,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2009.04.001.
[40] N. Marshall, P. Marshall, Conceptualizing and operationalizing social resilience
within commercial fisheries in Northern Australia, Ecol. Soc. 12 (1) (2007) 14.
[41] K. Urwin, A. Jordan, Does public policy support or undermine climate change
92 E.M. Ogier et al. / Marine Policy 71 (2016) 82–93
adaptation? Exploring policy interplay across different scales of governance, Glob.
Environ. Change 18 (1) (2008) 180–191, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2007.08.002.
[42] M.D. Morecroft, H.Q.P. Crick, S.J. Duffield, N.A. Macgregor, Resilience to climate
change: translating principles into practice, J. Appl. Ecol. 49 (3) (2012) 547–551,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365–2664.2012.02136.x.
[43] B. Lim, E. Spanger-Siegfried, I. Burton, E. Malone, S. Huq, Adaptation Policy Fra-
meworks for Climate Change: Developing Strategies Policies and Measures, in:
Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom, 2005.
[44] N.A. Marshall, Can policy perception influence social resilience to policy change?
Fish. Res. 86 (2–3) (2007) 216–227, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2007.06.008.
[45] T.P. Hughes, D.R. Bellwood, C. Folke, R.S. Steneck, J. Wilson, New paradigms for
supporting the resilience of marine ecosystems, Trends Ecol. Evol. 20 (7) (2005)
380–386, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.03.022.
[46] D.R. Nelson, Adaptation and resilience: responding to a changing climate, Wiley
Interdiscip. Rev.: Clim. Change 2 (1) (2011) 113–120, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
wcc.91.
[47] FAO, The ecosystem approach to fisheries, in FAO Technical Guidelines for Re-
sponsible Fisheries No. 4, Suppl. 2, FAO: Rome, 2003, p. 112.
[48] D. Staples, S. Funge-Smith, Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries and Aquaculture:
Implementing the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, in RAP Pub-
lication 2009/11. 2009, FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific: Bangkok,
Thailand. p. 48.
[49] N.L. Gutiérrez, R. Hilborn, O. Defeo, Leadership, social capital and incentives pro-
mote successful fisheries, Nature 470 (7334) (2011) 386–389, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1038/nature09689.
[50] T.J. Pitcher, D. Kalikoski, K. Short, D. Varkey, G. Pramod, An evaluation of progress
in implementing ecosystem-based management of fisheries in 33 countries, Mar.
Policy 33 (2009) 223–232.
[51] A.D.M. Smith, E.J. Fulton, A.J. Hobday, D.C. Smith, P. Shoulder, Scientific tools to
support the practical implementation of ecosystem-based fisheries management,
ICES J. Mar. Sci. 64 (2007) 633–639.
[52] E.K. Pikitch, C. Santora, E.A. Babcock, A. Bakun, R. Bonfil, D.O. Conover, P. Dayton,
P. Doukakis, D. Fluharty, B. Heneman, E.D. Houde, J. Link, P.A. Livingston,
M. Mangel, M.K. McAllister, J. Pope, K.J. Sainsbury, Ecosystem-based fishery
management, Science 305 (2004) 346–347.
[53] A.D.M. Smith, K.J. Sainsbury, R.A. Stevens, Implementing effective fisheries-man-
agement systems – management strategy evaluation and the Australian partner-
ship approach, ICES J. Mar. Sci. 56 (1999) 967–979.
[54] A.J. Hobday, A.D.M. Smith, I.C. Stobutzki, C. Bulman, R. Daley, J.M. Dambacher, R.
A. Deng, J. Dowdney, M. Fuller, D. Furlani, S.P. Griffiths, D. Johnson, R. Kenyon, I.
A. Knuckey, S.D. Ling, R. Pitcher, K.J. Sainsbury, M. Sporcic, T. Smith, C. Turnbull, T.
I. Walker, S.E. Wayte, H. Webb, A. Williams, B.S. Wise, S. Zhou, Ecological risk
assessment for the effects of fishing, Fish. Res. 108 (2–3) (2011) 372–384, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2011.01.013.
[55] A. Williams, J. Dowdney, A.D.M. Smith, A.J. Hobday, M. Fuller, Evaluating impacts
of fishing on benthic habitats: a risk assessment framework applied to Australian
fisheries, Fish. Res. 112 (2011) 154–167, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
fishres.2011.01.028.
[56] E.E. Plagányi, E.I. van Putten, T. Hutton, R.A. Deng, D. Dennis, S. Pascoe, T. Skewes,
R.A. Campbell. Integrating indigenous livelihood and lifestyle objectives in
managing a natural resource, in: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
2013. 〈http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1217822110〉 .
[57] S. Tracey, C. Buxton, C. Gardner, B. Green, K. Hartmann, M. Haward, J. Jabour,
J. Lyle, J. McDonald, "Super Trawler" scuppered in Australian fisheries manage-
ment reform, Fisheries 38 (8) (2013) 345–350.
[58] D.R. Rothwell, M. Haward, Federal and international perspectives on Australia's
maritime claims, Mar. Policy 20 (1996) 29–46.
[59] Australian Government, Fisheries Management Act 1991, Australia, 1991.
[60] W. Gullet, Fisheries Law in Australia, Lexisnexis Butterworths, Chatswood, 2008.
[61] T.J. Emery, B.S. Green, C. Gardner, J. Tisdell, Are input controls required in in-
dividual transferable quota fisheries to address ecosystem based fisheries man-
agement objectives? Mar. Policy 36 (1) (2012) 122–131, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpol.2011.04.005.
[62] Australian Government, AFMA Cost Recovery Impact Statement. Australian Fish-
eries Management Authority: Canberra, 2010.
[63] Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Co-management: Managing
Australia's fisheries through partnership and delegation, FRDC National Working
Group on the Fisheries Co-management Initiative: Canberra, 2009.
[64] Australian Government, Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management
of Fisheries. Department of Environment and Water Resources: Canberra, 2007.
[65] A.D.M. Smith, D.C. Smith, G.N. Tuck, N. Klaer, A. Punt, I. Knuckey, J. Prince,
A. Morison, R. Kloser, M. Haddon, S. Wayte, J. Day, G. Fay, E. Pribac, M. Fuller,
B. Taylor, L.R. Little, Experience in implementing harvest strategies in Australia's
south-eastern fisheries, Fish. Res. (2008), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
fishres.2008.06.006.
[66] J. Bailey, Adventures in cross-disciplinary studies: grand strategy and fisheries
management, Mar. Policy 63 (2016) 18–27, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpol.2015.09.013.
[67] P. Degnbol, H. Gislason, S. Hanna, S. Jentoft, J. Raakjær Nielsen, S. Sverdrup-Jensen,
D. Clyde Wilson, Painting the floor with a hammer: Technical fixes in fisheries
management, Mar. Policy 30 (5) (2006) 534–543, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpol.2005.07.002.
[68] C. De Young, A. Charles, A. Hort, Human dimensions of the ecosystem approach to
fisheries: an overview of context, concepts, tools and methods, in: FAO Fisheries
Technical Paper, FAO: Rome. No. 489. 2008, p. 152.
[69] S.M. Garcia, A.T. Charles, Fishery systems and linkages: implications for science
and governance, Ocean Coast. Manag. 51 (2008) 505–527.
[70] J.E. Cinner, C. Folke, T. Daw, C.C. Hicks, Responding to change: using scenarios to
understand how socioeconomic factors may influence amplifying or dampening
exploitation feedbacks among Tanzanian fishers, Glob. Environ. Change 21 (1)
(2011) 7–12, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.09.001.
[71] J. Maynard, P. Marshall, J. Johnson, S. Harman, Building resilience into practical
conservation: identifying local management responses to global climate change in
the southern Great Barrier Reef, Coral Reefs 29 (2) (2010) 381–391, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s00338–010-0603–8.
[72] C. Pahl-Wostl, A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-
level learning processes in resource governance regimes, Glob. Environ. Change 19
(3) (2009) 354–365, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.06.001.
[73] A. Randall T. Capon T. Sanderson D. Merrett G. Hertzler, Choosing a Decision-
making Framework to Manage Uncertainty in Climate Adaptation Decision-mak-
ing: A Practitioner's handbook, National Climate Change Adaptation Research
Facility, Ed. 2012, Griffith University.
[74] R. Biggs, M. Schluter, M.L. Schoom, . An introduction to the resilience approach and
principles to sustain ecosystem services in social–ecological systems, in: R. Biggs,
M. Schluter, M.L. Schoom, (Eds.) Principles for Building Resilience: Sustaining
Ecosystem Services in Social–Ecological Systems, Cambridge University Press:
United Kingdom, 2015, pp. 1–31.
[75] C. Resilience Folke, The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems
analyses, Glob. Environ. Change 16 (3) (2006) 253–267, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2006.04.002.
[76] R. Plummer, D. Armitage, A resilience-based framework for evaluating adaptive
co-management: linking ecology, economics and society in a complex world, Ecol.
Econ. 61 (1) (2007) 62–74, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.09.025.
[77] M. Lockwood, J. Davidson, E. Stratford, R. Griffith, Multi-Level environmental
governance: lessons from Australian natural resource management, Aust. Geogr.
40 (2) (2009) 169–186.
[78] W.J.R. Fletcher, Frameworks for managing marine resources in Australia through
ecosystem approaches: do they fit together and are they useful? Bull. Mar. Sci. 78
(3) (2006) 691–704.
[79] S. Jentoft, B.J. McCay, D.C. Wilson, Social theory and fisheries comanagement, Mar.
Policy 22 (1998) 423–436.
[80] J. Rice, Managing fisheries well: delivering the promises of an ecosystem ap-
proach, Fish Fish. 12 (2) (2011) 209–231, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–
2979.2011.00416.x.
[81] D. Armitage, M. Marschke, R. Plummer, Adaptive co-management and the paradox
of learning, Glob. Environ. Change 18 (1) (2008) 86–98, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2007.07.002.
[82] E.L. Tompkins, W.N. Adger, Does adaptive management of natural resources en-
hance resilience to climate change? Ecol. Soc. 9 (2) (2004) 10.
[83] R. Likert, A technique for the Measurement of Attitudes, Arch. Psychol. 140 (1932)
1–55.
[84] H.R. Bernard, G.W. Ryan, Analysing Qualitative Data: Systematic Approaches, Sage,
California, 2010.
[85] B.H. Walker, L.H. Gunderson, A.P. Kinzig, C. Folke, S.R. Carpenter, L.A. Schultz,
Handful of heuristics and some propositions for understanding resilience in so-
cial-ecological systems, Ecol. Soc. 11 (1) (2006) 13.
[86] J.A. Runge, A.I. Kovach, J.H. Churchill, L.A. Kerr, J.R. Morrison, R.C. Beardsley, D.
L. Berlinsky, C. Chen, S.X. Cadrin, C.S. Davis, K.H. Ford, J.H. Grabowski, W.H. Howell,
R. Ji, R.J. Jones, A.J. Pershing, N.R. Record, A.C. Thomas, G.D. Sherwood, S.M.
L. Tallack, D.W. Townsend, Understanding climate impacts on recruitment and
spatial dynamics of Atlantic cod in the Gulf of Maine: Integration of observations
and modeling, Prog. Oceanogr. 87 (1–4) (2010) 251–263, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.pocean.2010.09.016.
[87] R.W. Kates, W.R. Travis, T.J. Wilbanks, Transformational adaptation when incre-
mental adaptations to climate change are insufficient, in: Proceedings of the Na-
tional Academy of Sciences, 2012. 〈http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1115521109〉.
[88] G.P. Kofinas, Adaptive Co-management in Social-Ecological Governance, in: F.
S. Chapin III, G.P. Kofinas, C. Folke (Eds.), Principles of Ecosystem Stewardship:
Resilience-Based Natural Resource Management in a Changing World, Springer,
New York, 2009, pp. 77–101.
[89] C. Allan, A. Curtis, Nipped in the bud: why regional scale adaptive management is
not blooming, Environ. Manag. 36 (3) (2005) 414–425.
[90] P. Olsson, C. Folke, F. Berkes, Adaptive co-management for building resilience in
social-ecological systems, Environ. Manag. 34 (1) (2004) 75–90.
[91] S.A. Levin, J. Lubchenco, Resilience, robustness, and marine ecosystem-based
management, BioScience 58 (1) (2008) 27–32, http://dx.doi.org/10.1641/B580107.
[92] P. Olsson, C. Folke, V. Galaz, T. Hahn, L. Schultz, Enhancing the fit through adaptive
co-management: creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales
in the Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve, Sweden, Ecol. Soc. 12 (1) (2007)
28.
[93] P. Leith, E. Ogier, G. Pecl, E. Hoshino, J. Davidson, M. Haward, Towards a diagnostic
approach to climate adaptation for fisheries, Clim. Change 122 (1–2) (2014) 55–66,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584–013-0984–0.
[94] L. Gunderson, G. Peterson, C.S. Holling, Practicing adaptive management in com-
plex social-ecological systems, in: J. Norberg, G.S. Cumming (Eds.), Complexity
Theory for a Sustainable Future, Columbia University Press, New York, 2008,
pp. 223–245.
[95] E. Ostrom, How types of goods and property rights jointly affect collective action, J.
Theor. Polit. 15 (3) (2003) 239–270, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0951692803015003002.
[96] E. Ostrom, Analysing collective action, Agric. Econ. 41 (1) (2010) 155–166.
[97] E. Ostrom, Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global en-
vironmental change, Glob. Environ. Change 20 (4) (2010) 550–557, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.004.
[98] F. Berkes, Adaptive co-management and complexity: exploring the many faces of
co-management, in: D.R. Armitage, F. Berkes, N. Doubleday (Eds.), Adaptive Co-
management: Collaboration, Learning, and Multi-level Governance, UBC Press,
Vancouver,Toronto, 2007, pp. 19–37.
[99] L. Lebel, T. Grothmann, B. Siebenhuner, The role of social learning in adaptiveness:
insights from water management, Int. Environ. Agreem. Polit. Law Econ. 10 (4)
(2010) 333–353.
[100] J.R.A. Butler, W. Suadnya, Y. Yanuartati, S. Meharg, R.M. Wise, Y. Sutaryono,
K. Duggan, Priming adaptation pathways through adaptive co-management: de-
sign and evaluation for developing countries, Climate Risk Manag. (2016), http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2016.01.001.
 E.M. Ogier et al. / Marine Policy 71 (2016) 82–93
[101] E.J. Fulton, A.D.M. Smith, D.C. Smith, P.C. Johnson, An integrated approach is nee-
ded for ecosystem based fisheries management: insights from ecosystem-level
management strategy evaluation, PLoS One 9 (1) (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0084242.
[102] J.P. Scandol, M.G. Holloway, P.J. Gibbs, K.L. Astles, Ecosystem-based fisheries
management: an Australian perspective, Aquat. Living Resour. 18 (3) (2005)
261–273, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/alr:2005031.
[103] N. Mazur, Evaluating Fisheries Co-management Trials – a discussion paper, Bureau
of Rural Sciences Canberra, 2010, Australia.
[104] Australian Fisheries Management Authority. Southern and Eastern Scalefish and
Shark Fishery co-management trial, 27 June 2013, Available from: 〈http://www.
afma.gov.au/managing-our-fisheries/co-management/southern-and-eastern-scale
fish-and-shark-fishery-co-management-trial/〉.
[105] PIRSA, Management Plan for the South Australian Lakes and Coorong Fishery,
Primary Industries and Resources South Australia (Fisheries Division), Ed., Ade-
laide, 2005.
[106] L. Fernandes, J. Day, A. Lewis, S. Slegers, B. Kerrigan, D. Breen, D. Cameron, B. Jago,
J. Hall, D. Lowe, J. Innes, J. Tanzer, V. Chadwick, L. Thompson, K. Gorman,
M. Simmons, B. Barnett, K. Sampson, G. De'Ath, B. Mapstone, H. Marsh,
H. Possingham, I. Ball, T. Ward, K. Dobbs, J. Aumend, D. Slater, K. Stapleton, Es-
tablishing representative no-take areas in the Great Barrier Reef: large-scale im-
plementation of theory on marine protected areas, Conserv. Biol. 19 (6) (2005)
1733–1744.
[107] P. Olsson, C. Folke, T.P. Hughes, Ecosystem Services Special Feature: Navigating the
transition to ecosystem-based management of the Great Barrier Reef, in: Pro-
ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Australia, 2008, 105(28), pp. 9489–
9494. 〈http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0706905105〉.
[108] W. Fletcher, The application of qualitative risk assessment methodology to prior-
itize issues for fisheries management, ICES J. Mar. Sci. 62 (8) (2005) 1576–1587,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.icesjms.2005.06.005.
[109] S. Sen, J.R. Nielsen, Fisheries co-management: a comparative analysis, Mar. Policy
20 (1996) 405–418.
[110] S. Singleton, Co-operation or capture? The paradox of co-management and com-
munity participation in natural resource management and environmental policy-
making, Environ. Polit. 9 (2) (2000) 1–21, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
09644010008414522.
[111] E. Pinkerton (Ed.), Co-operative Management of Local Fisheries: New Directions for
Improved Management and Community Development, UBC Press, Vancouver,
1989.
[112] J.R. Nielsen, P. Degnbol, K.K. Viswanathan, M. Ahmed, M. Hara, N.M.R. Abdullah,
Fisheries co-management - an institutional innovation? Lessons from South East
Asia and Southern Africa, Mar. Policy 28 (2) (2004) 151–160.
[113] T.A. Okey, Membership of the eight Regional Fishery Management Councils in the
United States: are special interests over-represented? Mar. Policy 27 (3) (2003)
193–206.
[114] B. Agarwal, Environmental action, gender equity and women's participation, Dev.
Change 28 (1) (1997) 1–44, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467–7660.00033.
[115] P.J.S. Jones, J. Burgess, Building partnership capacity for the collaborative man-
agement of marine protected areas in the UK: a preliminary analysis, J. Environ.
Manag. 77 (3) (2005) 227–243.
[116] M. Haward, Outstanding issues with regimes for oceans governance, in: D. Wilson,
R. Sherwood (Eds.), Oceans Governance and Maritime Strategy, Allen & Unwin,
Sydney, 2000, pp. 121–128.
[117] L. Carlsson, F. Berkes, Co-management: concepts and methodological implications,
J. Environ. Manag. 75 (2005) 65–76.
[118] R. Pomeroy, J.E. Cinner, J.R. Nielsen, Conditions for successful co-management:
lessons learned in Asia, Africa, the Pacific and the wider Caribbean, in: R. Pomeroy,
N.L. Andrew (Eds.), Small Fisheries Management: Frameworks and Approaches for
the Developing World, CABI International, USA, 2011 115-131 pp..
[119] F. Berkes, J. Mathias, M. Kislalioglu, H. Fast, The Canadian Arctic and the Oceans Act:
the development of participatory environmental research and management, Ocean
93
Coast. Manag. 44 (2001) 451–469.
[120] H. Doremus, Adaptive management, the Endangered Species Act, and the in-
stitutional challenges of “New Age”, Environ. Prot. Washburn Leg. J. 41 (2002)
50–81.
[121] C.R. Allen, J.J. Fontaine, J. Pope, A.S. Garmestani, Adaptive management for a tur-
bulent future, J. Environ. Manag. 92 (1339–1345) (2011).
[122] J. McDonald, M.C. Styles, Legal strategies for adaptive management under climate
change, J. Environ. Law 26 (1) (2014) 25–53, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jel/equ003.
[123] E. Roe, Varieties of issue incompleteness and coordination: an example from
ecosystem management, Policy Sci. 34 (2001) 111–133.
[124] D.A. Keith, T.G. Martin, E. McDonald-Madden, C. Walters, Uncertainty and adaptive
management for biodiversity conservation, Biol. Conserv. 144 (4) (2011) 1175–1178.
[125] S.E. Lester, K. McLeod, H. Tallis, M. Ruckelshaus, B.S. Halpern, S.A. Levin, Science in
support of ecosystem-based management for the US West Coast and beyond, Biol.
Conserv. 143 (2010) 576–587.
[126] F. Berkes, Implementing ecosystem-based management: evolution or revolution?
Fish Fish. 13 (2012) 465–476.
[127] J. Arvai, G. Bridge, N. Dolsak, R. Franseze, T. Koontz, A. Luginbuhl, Adaptive man-
agement of the global climate problem: bridging the gap between climate research
and climate policy, Clim. Change 78 (2006) 217–225.
[128] F. Berkes, Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging
organizations and social learning, J. Environ. Manag. 90 (5) (2009) 1692–1702.
[129] M. Plummer, B. Crona, D.R. Armitage, P. Olsson, M. Tengo, O. Yudina, Adaptive co-
management: a systematic review and analysis, Ecol. Soc. 17 (2012) 11, http://dx.
doi.org/10.5751/ES-04952–170311.
[130] R. Pomeroy, Conditions for successful fisheries and coastal resources management:
Lessons learned in Asia, Africa, and the wider Caribbean, in: D.R. Armitage, F.
Berkes, N. Doubleday (Eds.), Adaptive co-management: Collaboration, learning and
multi-level governance, UBC Press: Vancouver, 2007, pp. 172–187.
[131] R.E. Grumbine, What is ecosystem management, Conserv. Biol. 8 (1) (1994) 27–38.
[132] K.K. Arkema, S.C. Abramson, B.M. Dewsbury, Marine ecosystem-based manage-
ment: from characterization to implementation, Front. Ecol. Environ. 4 (10) (2006)
525–532, http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/1540–9295(2006)4[525:memfct]2.0.co;2.
[133] L.B. Crowder, E.L. Hazen, N. Avissar, R. Bjorkland, C. Latanich, M.B. Ogburn, The
Impacts of fisheries on marine ecosystems and the transition to ecosystem-based
management, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 39 (2008) 259–278, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.39.110707.173406.
[134] W.J. Fletcher, J. Shaw, S.J. Metcalf, D.J. Gaughan, An ecosystem based fisheries
management framework: the efficient, regional-level planning tool for manage-
ment agencies, Mar. Policy 34 (6) (2010) 1226–1238, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpol.2010.04.007.
[135] H. Tallis, S.E. Lester, M. Ruckelshaus, M. Plummer, K. McLeod, A. Guerry,
S. Andelman, M.R. Caldwell, M. Conte, S. Copps, D. Fox, R. Fujita, S.D. Gaines,
G. Gelfenbaum, B. Gold, P. Kareiva, C.-K. Kim, K. Lee, M. Papenfus, S. Redman,
B. Silliman, L. Wainger, C. White, New metrics for managing and sustaining the
ocean’s bounty, Mar. Policy 36 (1) (2012) 303–306, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpol.2011.03.013.
[136] S.J. Hall, B. Mainprize, Towards ecosystem-based fisheries management, Fish Fish.
5 (1) (2004) 1–20, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–2960.2004.00133.x.
[137] M.T. Imperial, Institutional analysis and ecosystem-based management: the in-
stitutional analysis and development framework, Environ. Manag. 24 (1999)
449–465.
[138] UNEP, Taking Steps toward Marine and Coastal Ecosystem-Based Management -
An Introductory Guide, in UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies No. 189, UNPD:
Nairobi, 2011.
[139] World Bank, Convenient Solutions to an Inconvenient Truth: Ecosystem-based
Approaches to Climate Change, International Bank for Reconstruction and Devel-
opment and The World Bank: Washington, 2009.
[140] R. Curtin, R. Prellezo, Understanding marine ecosystem based management: a
literature review, Mar. Policy 34 (5) (2010) 821–830, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpol.2010.01.003.