Legitimacy of Different Knowledge Types in Natural Resource Governance and Their Functions in Inter-Institutional Gaps

Abstract

This study expands the Inter-Institutional Gaps (IIGs) framework to conceptualize the legitimacy associated with different types of ecological knowledge (e.g., scientific, traditional and local) used in natural resource governance. We draw on primary qualitative data, and document analysis to examine a case of inland fisheries management in the north-eastern floodplain of Bangladesh. We posit that the pragmatic, moral, cognitive, and regulative legitimacy for different types of ecological knowledge are repeatedly reevaluated by rule-makers and resource users in the process of rule-devising. Results show that inter-institutional gaps may be perpetuated when formal rules do not sufficiently consider traditional and local ecological knowledge. While it is widely proposed that systematically incorporating different knowledge types can better address local-national policy problems, this study underscores that the source of legitimacies for different knowledge types often differs across formal and informal institutional actors. Recognizing the differences is critical to fishers’ resource management.

Keywords:

• Bridging agents
• constitutional
• non-constitutional
• resource science
• rules
• traditional ecological knowledge

Notes

1 In some studies, this type of knowledge is described as eco-managerialism or managerial ecological knowledge (Luke, 1999; Arts, Behagel, Turnhout, et al., 2014).

Additional information

Funding

We gratefully acknowledge the funding support received from the William Dawson Scholar Award, McGill University, the Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation, the IPCC, South Asian Network for Development and Environmental Economics (SANDEE) and Asian Center for Development (ACD) for this research. The comments of the paper are solely the responsibility of the authors and under no circumstances may be considered a reflection of the position of the Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation, the IPCC, SANDEE and/or ACD.