Search

In this paper we examine and critique adaptive management (AM) practices for protected areas (PAs), in pursuit of practices that can account for more-than-human relations. Engaging with empirical research from Australian PAs, we reflect on the formation of PAs as "exceptional places" where Nature is implicitly/explicitly to be controlled. We find that AM practices harness the spatial and temporal characteristics of the PAs to deliberatively construct a static and timeless scene, creating a particular vision of Nature. This metaphoric vision is captured "like a postcard." It reinforces and justifies static protectionism as Nature conservation, arraigning a series of material objects that are meant to assist with maintaining that image: that "reality." Using sentipensar as an exemplar, we explore and highlight relational and everchanging human-nonhuman engagements to contest the ontological dimensions of a static Nature and ideas of control and power associated with the binaries of Nature and culture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Adaptation, as a strategy to respond to climate change, has limits: there are conditions under which adaptation strategies fail to alleviate impacts from climate change. Research has primarily focused on identifying absolute bio-physical limits. This paper contributes empirical insight to an emerging literature on the social limits to adaptation. Such limits arise from the ways in which societies perceive, experience and respond to climate change. Using qualitative data from multi-stakeholder workshops and key-informant interviews with representatives of the fisheries and tourism sectors of the Great Barrier Reef region, we identify psycho-social and structural limits associated with key adaptation strategies, and examine how these are perceived as more or less absolute across levels of organisation. We find that actors experience social limits to adaptation when: i) the effort of pursuing a strategy exceeds the benefits of desired adaptation outcomes; ii) the particular strategy does not address the actual source of vulnerability, and; iii) the benefits derived from adaptation are undermined by external factors. We also find that social limits are not necessarily more absolute at higher levels of organisation: respondents perceived considerable opportunities to address some psycho-social limits at the national-international interface, while they considered some social limits at the local and regional levels to be effectively absolute. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]