at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management 128 (2013) 768e778

Contents lists available

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jenvman

Participatory research towards co-management: Lessons fromartisanal fisheries in coastal Uruguay

Micaela Trimble a,b,*, Fikret Berkes a

aNatural Resources Institute, 303-70 Dysart Road, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, R3T 2N2 Manitoba, CanadabUnidad de Ciencia y Desarrollo, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de la República, Montevideo, Uruguay

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 3 September 2012Received in revised form17 June 2013Accepted 24 June 2013Available online 13 July 2013

Keywords:Participatory researchCo-managementGovernanceArtisanal fisheriesSmall-scale fisheriesUruguay

* Corresponding author. Natural Resources Institute70 Dysart Road, Winnipeg, R3T 2N2 Manitoba, Canad

E-mail addresses: mica.trimble@gmail.com (Mad.umanitoba.ca (F. Berkes).

0301-4797/$ e see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Ltd.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.06.032

a b s t r a c t

Participatory research has become increasingly common in natural resources management. Even thoughparticipatory research is considered a strategy to facilitate co-management, there is little empiricalevidence supporting this. The objective of the present paper is to analyze the contributions of partici-patory research to help encourage the emergence of co-management, based on a case study in Piriápolisartisanal fishery in coastal Uruguay (where management has been topedown). We argue that partici-patory research involving artisanal fishers, government, and other stakeholders (university scientists andNGOs) can be a key stimulus towards co-management. We build this argument by considering “sevenfaces” by which co-management can be analyzed: (1) as power sharing; (2) as institution building; (3) astrust building; (4) as process; (5) as learning and knowledge co-production; (6) as problem solving; and(7) as governance. Our findings show that participatory research had an impact on these various faces:(1) power was shared when making research decisions; (2) a multi-stakeholder group (POPA), with acommon vision and goals, was created; (3) trust among participants increased; (4) the process of groupformation was valued by participants; (5) stakeholders learned skills for participation; (6) two problem-solving exercises were conducted; and (7) a diversity of stakeholders of the initial problem identified byfishers (sea lions’ impact on long-line fishery) participated in the process. The case shows that partici-patory research functions as a platform which enhances learning and knowledge co-production amongstakeholders, paving the way towards future co-management.

� 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Fisheries management approaches based on centralized gov-ernment intervention have proven inadequate to deal with a rangeof issues including resource depletion and user-group conflict. As asolution, decentralized management has become more common,with increased rights and responsibilities to resource users throughdelegation of management authority e generally known as co-management. The term has been defined “as the collaborativeand participatory process of regulatory decision-making amongrepresentatives of user-groups, government agencies and researchinstitutions” (Jentoft et al., 1998: 423) or more generally, as aresource management partnership in which local users and other

, University of Manitoba, 303-a.. Trimble), Fikret.Berkes@

All rights reserved.

stakeholders share power and responsibility with governmentagencies (Berkes, 2009).

Involving users in resource management is partly based on theidea of self-interest: users must have a stake in the conservation ofresources so that they can protect their time and capital in-vestments and recoup their costs. The theoretical basis of co-management is in the area of commons, and in particular,Ostrom’s (1990) design principles for collective action, tested andupdated by Cox et al. (2010). Since the 1980s, co-management hasbeen extensively used in fisheries around the world (Evans et al.,2011; Jentoft, 1989). It can be understood as a problem solvingprocess (Carlsson and Berkes, 2005), and as a type of propertyrights regime in the continuum between common property andstate property, in which there is a power-sharing arrangementbetween the state and a community of resource users (Pomeroyand Berkes, 1997).

The practice of co-management has been evolving over time toencompass multiple stakeholders and networks (Wilson et al.,2006), and the processes of transition from topedown manage-ment to co-management have been receiving increasing attention

M. Trimble, F. Berkes / Journal of Environmental Management 128 (2013) 768e778 769

(Cinner et al., 2012). Recent reviews of the co-management expe-rience have improved our understanding of factors leading tosuccessful management (Evans et al., 2011). A key factor for co-management and its evolution is an enabling policy environment(Armitage et al., 2007). Governments must be willing to sharemanagement power, a condition that does not occur frequently.Such policy change may be triggered in a number of ways, such asan indigenous land claims agreement (Armitage et al., 2007) or amajor governmental regime shift, such as the fall of the Pinochetregime in Chile which created a “window-of-opportunity” forinitiating a coastal marine resource co-management arrangement(Gelcich et al., 2010).

In Uruguay, where fisheries management has traditionally beengovernment-led and without user participation, there may be sucha window-of-opportunity, with the fisheries agency (DINARA e theNational Directorate of Aquatic Resources) indicating intentions forartisanal fisheries co-management through a proposed fisherieslaw before the Parliament (approved by the Chamber of Deputies inApril 2012, and under revision by the Senators since then). In fact,fisheries zonal councils (with the participation of representatives ofartisanal fishers, DINARA, Coast Guard and local governments)started to be implemented in pilot areas of the country in 2012. Ourcase study concerns the Piriápolis artisanal fishery in coastalUruguay, which is not one of the pilot areas. In Biggs’ (1989) ter-minology, the case study attempted a “collegiate participatoryresearch”, with professional and community researchers workingtogether as colleagues with different skills to offer, in a process ofmutual learning, generating knowledge on an issue of mutualimportance.

Participatory research is a knowledge co-production approach(defined as “the collaborative process of bringing a plurality ofknowledge sources and types together to address a defined prob-lem and build an integrated or systems-understanding of thatproblem,” Armitage et al., 2011: 996) with an action-orientedcomponent based on local interests and concerns, in which localpeople participate in the entire research process, and whose finalaim is community empowerment (Chambers, 1994; Cornwall andJewkes, 1995). The origin of participatory research (some authorsprefer participatory action research) goes back to the 1970s, when aresearch methodology that combines theory, action and partici-pation committed to further the interests of exploited groups andclasses was developed and used in many Latin American and othercountries (Fals Borda, 1987). Freire (1970) provides guidelines forredressing power imbalances through learning approaches thatinclude a learning environment. The assumption is that those whoare most affected by decisions should have a say in those decisions;they should be empowered to participate in the direction ofresearch and application of results (Wiber et al., 2009).

Given that participatory research aims at involving stakeholdersin finding solutions to local problems, thus contributing toempowerment, the origin of a participatory research project has tobe necessarily based on local interest to address a certain problemor improve a specific situation. The origin of the process may vary.The topic can be either identified by local stakeholders, who thencontact additional stakeholders (e.g. academics, government,NGOs) to be part of participatory research, or by external stake-holders who recognize a problem and then assess local stake-holders’ perceptions about it and their interest to participate.Regardless of who selects the topic, all stakeholders shouldparticipate in defining the specific problems or research questionsto be addressed. Participatory research requires that the wholeprocess is developed collectively by participants as co-researchers,including: (i) definition of objectives or hypotheses; (ii) method-ology design or planning of activities; (iii) data collection ordevelopment of activities; (iv) analysis; (v) evaluation; and (vi)

dissemination. These characteristics sharply differentiate betweenparticipatory research and conventional expert-based research(including research projects in which objectives are defined byscientists, and the community is asked to assist in data collection).

Participatory research has become increasingly common in thecontext of natural resources management (e.g. Shirk et al., 2012;Wilmsen et al., 2008), including fisheries (e.g. Conway andPomeroy, 2006; Hartley and Robertson, 2006; Wiber et al., 2009).Numerous positive impacts have been attributed to participatoryresearch, such as increased trust in the research process (Arnoldand Fernandez-Gimenez, 2007), two-way knowledge flow(Johnson, 2010), mutual learning and understanding among par-ticipants (Cornwall and Jewkes, 1995), trust/confidence building(Opondo et al., 2006), improved interactions among participants(Opondo et al., 2006), conflict resolution (Johnson, 2010), capacitybuilding (Chuenpagdee et al., 2004), and empowerment of thecommunity (Arnold and Fernandez-Gimenez, 2007). These poten-tial positive impacts of participatory research have actually beenidentified as conditions or variables affecting the co-managementprocess, as well as outputs of that process (Armitage et al., 2009;Pinkerton, 2003). However, the relationships between the twoconcepts (participatory research and co-management) havereceived little attention. Some authors have referred to participa-tory research as a strategy to facilitate or improve co-management(e.g. Berkes, 2009; McConney et al., 2007), but there is littleempirical evidence as to how participatory research may functionin this regard. Participatory protocols that devolve real decision-making to communities in terms of the choice of projects are rare(Wiber et al., 2009); empowering or collegiate participatoryresearch are difficult to achieve (Arnold and Fernandez-Gimenez,2007; Cornwall and Jewkes, 1995).

The present paper is about laying the groundwork andimproving the conditions for artisanal fisheries co-management inPiriápolis through participatory research. This study is timelybecause fisher participation in management is under considerationin Uruguay. The objective of the paper is to analyze the contribu-tions of participatory research to help encourage the emergence ofco-management. We hypothesize that participatory researchinvolving artisanal fishers, government and other stakeholders, canbe a key stimulus towards the emergence of a co-managementprocess. We build this argument by considering seven character-istics of co-management, or seven “faces” by which co-management can be analyzed: (1) as power sharing, (2) as insti-tution building, (3) as trust building, (4) as process, (5) as learningand knowledge co-production, (6) as problem solving, and (7) asgovernance (Berkes, 2007). Following some area background and adescription of the participatory research process as well as the datacollection procedures, we analyze the Piriápolis case with respectto the seven faces of co-management. This is followed by a sectionon obstacles to co-management and conclusions.

2. Methods

2.1. Case study description: participatory research in Piriápolisartisanal fishery (Uruguay)

This research (March 2011 to June 2012) is based on a case study(Yin, 1994) in the artisanal fishery in Piriápolis, a tourist city on theRío de la Plata coast (Fig. 1). Ten thousand people live in Piriápolisthroughout the year, but the number increases to 40,000 during theaustral summer. The fishery represents an important economicactivity of the city. There are approximately 50 small-scale fishingboats in the Piriápolis area (some only used seasonally), and nolarge-scale ones. The fishing gear most commonly employed con-sists of bottom-set long-lines and gillnets of varied mesh sizes.

Fig. 1. Location of the case study area, Piriápolis (Uruguay), on the coast of the Río de la Plata. Montevideo, the capital city, is where six stakeholders (DINARA manager andUniversity scientists) were based during the participatory research process.

M. Trimble, F. Berkes / Journal of Environmental Management 128 (2013) 768e778770

Artisanal fishers view fishing as a way of life, rather than just a job(Trimble and Johnson, 2013). Most of the catch is sold mainly viamiddlemen and thus the primary significance of the fishery hasbeen as a source of income rather than a source of food. The ma-jority of artisanal fishers in Piriápolis (as in the rest of the Río de laPlata localities) are mobile, moving along the coast in response towhitemouth croaker (Micropogonias furnieri) movements. Thenumber of fishers therefore varies greatly with the seasons, from 30to 150 fishers (Trimble and Johnson, 2013). Fishers are not orga-nized (i.e. there is no local fisher association). Some fishers aremembers of the National Union of Seamen (SUNTMA), which hasbeen historically dedicated to industrial fisheries but has recentlyincluded the artisanal sector.

In March 2011, M.T. initiated as part of her doctoral thesis, aparticipatory research process that would address fishers’ localconcerns, with the underlying purpose of studying the contribu-tions of this process to the emergence of conditions for fisheriesco-management (e.g. capacity building, social capital amongstakeholders, learning). After an initial stage in which fishers fromPiriápolis decided that the participatory research initiative shouldaddress the problem of sea lions (which feed from their nets andlong-lines, damaging them), in April 2011 the researcher invitedother stakeholders relevant to the issue to participate in the pro-cess: DINARA (in charge of fisheries and marine mammal man-agement; within the Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture andFisheries e MGAP); National University (UDELAR) biologists doingresearch about sea lions and the interaction with the fishery; andtwo local NGOs, SOS, dedicated to marine animal rescue andrehabilitation, and Ecópolis, a multisectoral, umbrella group ofPiriápolis citizens and local organizations that promote sustainabledevelopment. One social scientist in communication and culturestudies joined the participatory research in June 2011.

Fifteen participants from four stakeholder groups werecommitted to the participatory research process in Piriápolis:fishers (n ¼ 7; 4e10 participated in different stages), artisanalfisheries manager (DINARA, n¼ 1), university scientists (n¼ 5), andlocal NGO representatives (n ¼ 2). For all of them, this was the firstinvolvement in a participatory research initiative. Even though acontinuous effort was made throughout the process to invitefishers at landing sites, only ten of them participated in workshops,and seven became part of the participatory research group, “POPAe Por la Pesca Artesanal en Piriápolis” (For Artisanal Fisheries inPiriápolis). Out of the seven committed fishers with the

participatory research initiative (six men and one woman, fromthree of the four landing sites in the Piriápolis area), three were intheir 30s, three in their 40s, and one in his 60s, with most having20e30 years of experience in the fishery. Fishers’ low participationwas identified by them and the three other stakeholder groups as achallenge. Nevertheless, in several group activities participatingfishers stated to be representing the rest. After each workshop,some of them would share with non-participating fishers theprogress which was being done, complementing the task of theorganization team. Even though Piriápolis fishers are not formallyorganized, two of the participating fishers have been informallyelected as representatives of one of the landing sites (e.g. tonegotiate with local government authorities). As well, they areaffiliated to the national union (SUNTMA). The views of fishers whodid not attend the workshops were monitored through individualinterviews and meetings at landing sites. They participated indeciding which topic should be addressed at the beginning of theparticipatory research, by contributing their knowledge about sealion impact, and giving support for the First Artisanal FisheriesFestival (see below).

Since May 2011, stakeholders have been meeting regularly inPiriápolis, generally in a monthly basis, to develop participatoryresearch addressing local concerns of the fishery. These workshopsand the whole participatory research process have been facilitatedby a research group of the Science and Development Unit (UDE-LAR), of which M.T is part. Throughout the process, this group wasin charge of: (i) making sure that all stakeholder groups and/or allparticipants were involved in every stage of the process; (ii)inviting andmotivating other fishers at the different landing sites inthe Piriápolis area to join the process, keeping them informedabout the progress; (iii) planning and facilitating workshops, basedon “rules for good dialogue” (e.g. all opinions, knowledge and dataare welcome; be open-minded when listening to others’ opinionswhich might differ from yours), fostering a nice environment forparticipants’ interactions and learning. Facilitating workshops alsomeant being in charge of moderating or guiding the deliberation ofthe arguments or topics being discussed, making sure thateveryone was participating, in a balanced way (with no hierarchiesor dominant stakeholders), as well as facilitating collectivedecision-making through consensus building. Stakeholders vol-unteered their time to participate; the DINARA representative waspresent as part of his job but also volunteered in weekend meet-ings. Workshop costs from May to December 2011, including travel

M. Trimble, F. Berkes / Journal of Environmental Management 128 (2013) 768e778 771

and food, were funded by M.T.’s research budget from the Centrefor Community-Based Resource Management (Natural ResourcesInstitute, University of Manitoba). In 2012 the group got its ownfunding from Global Greengrants Fund.

During the first workshop in Piriápolis (May 2011), stakeholdersexchanged ideas and knowledge regarding the interaction betweenfishers and sea lions, such as sea lions’ population status andfeeding habits. The next step consisted of defining a researchquestion of interest to all participants. Due to the high impact of sealions on long-lines (which is a costly gear) and the lack of scientificdata about that in Piriápolis since 2002 (Szteren and Lezama, 2006),participants decided to investigate the current interaction betweensea lions and long-lines. The secondworkshopwas dedicated to thediscussion of study methods, which ended in a protocol for jointdata collection during fishing trips. This protocol was generatedwith input from all participants, based on a previous protocoldeveloped by scientists. This was the first time in Uruguay thatfishers participated in defining the methodology to study sea lions’impact. The data collection phase could not start, however, becauseat that time (JuneeJuly 2011) the croaker season (i.e. gillnet season)started in other localities of the Río de la Plata, and fishers migratedoff Piriápolis. Concomitantly with the progress of the planningstage of the study on sea lions’ impact, the group started to discussa second local concern that was initially brought up by fishersduring the first workshop and caught the attention of the otherstakeholders. This was the market competition of imported Pan-gasianodon hypophthalmus (locally known as pangasius, farmedcatfish from Vietnam), which is sold at a cheaper price than localfish. In fact, restaurants that used to buy local fish in Piriápolis werenow serving pangasius, often cheating consumers about the iden-tity and origin of the fish species (i.e. the menu says Braziliancodling e brótola or flatfish e lenguado, which are local fish of highvalue). Once participants discussed this problem and possible ac-tions, the group agreed to work on communication strategies topromote local fish. As part of that effort, the First Artisanal FisheriesFestival (Primera Feria de la Pesca Artesanal en Piriápolis) wasorganized, with the main purpose of achieving informed con-sumption and a higher appraisal of local fish and the artisanalfishery. Requiring intensive group work, the Festival took placeduring a weekend in February 2012 and was considered as the firstsignificant accomplishment of POPA.

2.2. Data collection procedures

An evaluation of the participatory research initiative in Piriáp-olis was conducted throughout the process by means of individualface-to-face semi-structured interviews (Dunn, 2008) with partic-ipants, participant observation (Bernard, 2006) during workshops,group/subgroup meetings, the Festival, and informal conversationswith stakeholders. Using multiple sources of evidence helpedensure the validity of the findings of this case study by triangula-tion (Bernard, 2006). The interview questions analyzed in this pa-per (Appendix) were part of the questions asked in the finalinterviews conducted with all participants (n ¼ 15) betweenFebruary and April 2012 (following the Festival). Questionsbelonged to the three main sections of the interviews: evaluation ofparticipatory research process and outcomes (Questions 1e7);changes in relationships (Questions 8e14); and learning (Questions15e16). A thorough evaluation of the Piriápolis case based on theapplication of process and outcomes criteria was conducted byTrimble and Lázaro (in review).

Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, coded andanalyzed qualitatively using Atlas.ti software. The Results sectionmakes reference to question numbers. Question 7A was the onlyone making explicit reference to the contributions of participatory

research to the emergence of conditions for co-management. Theresponses to this and the other questions were analyzed from theangle of the seven faces of co-management for the purposes ofqualitative data analysis. Interviewees’ names were kept confi-dential. The collective results were shared and validated at a POPAmeeting in June 2012, after which participants suggested distrib-uting them to the Direction of DINARA and to general publicthrough the media.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Participatory research and co-management as power sharing

It is generally agreed that mere consultation is not co-management (Pinkerton, 2003) and therefore co-management re-quires some degree of power and responsibility sharing betweengovernment agencies and resource users. In the early concept of co-management, power sharing was regarded as the starting point ofthe process and a target. However, power sharing should perhapsbest be seen as an outcome rather than a starting point (Carlssonand Berkes, 2005). As Borrini-Feyerabend et al. (2004: 175)argued, “‘participatory management needs participatory roots’,i.e. some measure of effective dialogue, discussion of issues andparticipatory democracy.” Participatory research could be part ofthe participatory roots needed for co-management, given that itinvolves power sharing for making decisions among expert andnon-expert participants, from defining the research question todeciding on the dissemination of findings. Thus, the exercise ofsharing power amongst stakeholders during participatory researchis likely important for future power sharing in management.

To evaluate power sharing in research-related (but not inmanagement) decision making, participants were asked whetherthe opinion of every member of the group had been taking intoaccount during the participatory research initiative, and all of themreplied affirmatively, giving a variety of examples (Q5A). Forinstance, the DINARA manager commented, “I think all the processis an example [of considering everyone’s opinion]. We could talkabout that change of objective [we did] when we realized that thelong-line fishing season, and the interaction with sea lions whichinterests fishers the most, had passed. Changing our view to otheractivities [is an example]; there were people who proposed activ-ities that were taken into account, there were people who didn’tbut supported them.” Moreover, all participants replied affirma-tively when asked if it was important to consider everyone’sopinions and interests equally within the group (Q5C). As one fisherexplained, “It is the way things are done in a group, everyone has toparticipate. And opinions are respected equally. I didn’t see any[participant] more [important] than any other, despite one beingfrom DINARA for example.We’d discuss, but everyonewould givehis opinion, and then we’d get to an agreement.”

The case study also shows that one of the reasons why partici-pants of the four stakeholder groups considered that participatoryresearch contributed to the eventual emergence of co-managementis that the study about sea lions’ impacts on the fishery will servefor future decision making (Q7A). One scientist remarked, “Whenwe do it, whenwe finish it [the study on sea lions], it will contribute[to co-management]. By definition, if co-management is aboutstakeholders or locals participating with the government togenerate a regulation or something like that, this [participatoryresearch] is a clear example where we’ve been working for a while.It will be two years [from the beginning of the participatoryresearch initiative] when the study is finished, more or less, whereDINARA is working next to fishers, and fishers are being part of that.So, I think it will [contribute] as long as DINARA considers[participatory research] relevant and incorporates it when the time

M. Trimble, F. Berkes / Journal of Environmental Management 128 (2013) 768e778772

of making decisions comes. DINARA can put it in a drawer and itwon’t be relevant then.” Thus, in terms of power sharing, partici-patory research could be thought of as a preparatory stage in theprocess towards co-management, but as the scientist notes, there isa perceived risk of the government making decisions in a topedown manner regardless the participatory nature of the researchprocess that preceded it.

3.2. Participatory research and co-management as institutionbuilding

Many definitions of co-management specify users and thegovernment as necessary parties in partnership. Thus, preparationfor co-management often involves capacity and institution building(institutions as rules-in-use in the sense of Ostrom, 1990) at bothlocal and government levels. Initially, institution building in the co-management literature focused on “educating” for community ca-pacity, with the argument that local institutions were unpreparedfor the responsibility of joint management with government.However, it appears that often government agencies are also notready to work with local users if there is no prior practice of shareddecision making. The “two to tango” metaphor (Pomeroy andBerkes, 1997) emphasizes the capacity- and institution-buildingneeds of all parties towards co-management. Participatoryresearch is significant in this regard because it can enhance thecapacity of all stakeholders, for instance with respect to participa-tion/interaction skills, and collective decision-making towards acommon goal, but not necessarily in rule-making (Ostrom, 1990).

Some aspects of institution building in Piriápolis were accom-plished specifically by the creation of a multi-stakeholder body(POPA) inwhich fishers, scientists, a government manager and NGOrepresentatives share a common vision and goals for the groupafter months of working collaboratively. Except for four partici-pants who thought that one of the NGO representatives was therejust for his own benefit, the rest perceived that everyone’s objec-tives became integrated into the group interests (Q3). As one fisherexplained, “When we meet [at workshops], I see [the other par-ticipants] with a real interest in moving towards what the groupwants. There’s no one willing to profit individually [from theparticipatory research]. There’s no selfishness, nothing. Everyonewho knows something, he comes to say it because he learned soand wants to share it with the group.”

Moreover, in terms of capacity building, when participants wereasked about the contributions of participatory research to theeventual emergence of co-management, one fisher and one scien-tist argued that it did contribute by enhancing fishers’ organization.Two scientists stated that it did this by building fishers’ capacity forco-management (Q7A). Given that the lack of unity among fishers isa common topic in Piriápolis, participants were askedwhether theyconsidered that participatory research had helped increase unity(Q14). All participants replied affirmatively, except for two fisherswho thought participating fishers were already united. One fisherexpanded on the former as follows, “Yes, [it increased unity]because I think that we got to know each other andwe sharedmanyhours. To me, trust was reaffirmed, and the ability to deliberatefreely too, [so as] not to be always afraid of what others will say if Isay something wrong.” This is an example of participation/inter-action skills that were built during participatory research, and it isalso related to trust building (see next section). Eight participantsadded that unity not only increased among participating fishers butalso among fishers in general, from Piriápolis and other localities,referring to the support received during the Festival, and the in-terest of other fishers to join the group. The DINARA managerstated: “I think that although more fishers have to participate, .there were many people behind [the Festival] apart from the four,

five or six who attended the meetings. There were people thathadn’t attended meetings but cared about the fish [referring to fishtasting at the Festival].”

3.3. Participatory research and co-management as trust building

Co-management is also a matter of building trust between theparties as a prelude to developing a working relationship(Singleton, 1998). Trust is an essential part of the social capital thatneeds to develop among a group of people trying to solve a prob-lem, and trust lubricates collaboration (Pretty and Ward, 2001).Trust and respect make effective partnerships possible, in partbecause they are important for communication among the parties.In fact, trust appears to be a determinant of success inmany cases ofco-management (Armitage et al., 2007). Participatory research canbe the required groundwork for building trust among stakeholdersneeded for the process of co-management, through facilitatingrespectful communication in moving towards a common goal.

Our participatory research case showed three findings related torelationships, trust and respect. First, most relationships betweenand within stakeholder groups improved (including relationshipsformed during the process) and none became worse (Q8). Second,trust among participants increased in most relationships: itincreased especially among participants who established a newrelationship and/or shared more time or group work; it did notchange in relationships that were already close, and it decreasedonly in two relationships of one scientist (Q9). Third, according tofour participants, respect towards other group members increased;the rest responded that they always respected everyone equallyanyway (Q10). Moreover, three fishers, one scientist and one NGOrepresentative explained that participatory research contributed tobuilding conditions for co-management by bringing togetherfishers and DINARA, facilitating their dialogue, and enabling a moredirect relationship (Q7A). As one fisher stated: “I think [it contrib-uted to eventual co-management] because DINARA was in meet-ings with fishers. I think this brought them closer, at least inPiriápolis. And I guess that they [DINARA] soaked up a little of theproblems in Piriápolis [fishery].” Furthermore, all participantsstated that they wished to maintain the relationships they estab-lished in the group (Q13). For example, the DINARA managerpointed out: “Yes, I’m interested in [maintaining relationship withall], first because [the group] showed that it’s possible to dosomething good, productive, and successful [referring to theFestival]. And also, at this time I feel that it would be a shame not totake advantage of the base that has been built, to continue with thesea lions topic which is the trigger [of participatory research], andother topics that will come up.”

Communication and knowledge exchange, getting to know eachother and their points of view, as well as horizontal and respectfuldialogue, were mentioned by participants among the factors thatfacilitated the above changes in relationships (Q11). However,when they were asked if the participation experience had influ-enced their opinion about the other organizations, most partici-pants replied negatively, arguing that they cannot judgeorganizations based on one person (Q12). The opinion of fourparticipants about DINARA did change in a positive way.

3.4. Participatory research and co-management as process

Co-management should be regarded as a process, often long andcontinuous, rather than an endpoint. It is frequently the result ofextensive deliberation, rather than a fixed state, in which partiesconstantly negotiate their positions and change their activities(Carlsson and Berkes, 2005; Evans et al., 2011). Similarly, partici-patory research should also be understood as a deliberative process

M. Trimble, F. Berkes / Journal of Environmental Management 128 (2013) 768e778 773

in making decisions among stakeholders. The success of partici-patory research often depends on the progress of the process toenable the development of skills, capacities and knowledge, as wellas empowerment, rather than on the information gathered as aresult of the research (Kemmis and McTaggart, 2005). Thus, asopposed to conventional expert-based research, in participatoryresearch the process itself is important, not just the results(Cornwall and Jewkes, 1995). Therefore, the process as well as thefindings of participatory research is important in moving towardsco-management.

When participants were asked to evaluate the success of theparticipatory research initiative in Piriápolis, the degree to whichthe objectives of the group had been achieved, and the strengths/weaknesses (Q4), all except three of them highlighted the processof group formation, increased cohesion and trust among members,even though the sea lion study was not taken to completion. As onescientist stated, “At the process level, I think it was a very richprocess in which we got to know each other. Maybe it was evennecessary. Maybe it was better that we didn’t do long-line fishingtrips. [to collect data]. It seems to me that somehow trust wasgained, maybe not with the entire group but with some mem-bers.” Moreover, for participants of the four stakeholder groups,the group itself was one of the motivators to continue participating.Deliberation throughout participatory research, enhanced by thefacilitators, was valued by participants. All interviewees except forone could not remember any situation in which someone’s opinionhad not been considered (Q5B). To explain this, a scientist referredto the role of the facilitator: “It seems to me that all opinions werelistened to and debated with sufficient time, and the role of thefacilitator was important in letting everyone express themselves. Ithink nobody can complain about that because you were able [totalk].”

The DINARA manager stated that participatory research waspart of co-management (Q7A): “I consider the participatoryresearch as part of the process leading to participatory manage-ment or co-management. I prefer [the term] ‘participatory man-agement’, not ‘co-management’ because that’s not true. We are notgoing to co-manage things; DINARAwill manage things. The idea is[to do that] with strong participation of them [fishers]. But in short,all the process of administrating a fishery ends in a resolution bythe General Direction [of DINARA], or in a resolution by the Min-istry [MGAP], or in a ministerial or presidential decree, and none ofthose take the signature of fishers, despite their intervention in theprocess and so on.”

3.5. Participatory research and co-management as learning andknowledge co-production

Co-management and adaptive management (learning-by-do-ing) have been evolving towards a common ground, adaptive co-management (Armitage et al., 2007; Olsson et al., 2004). Learningat the level of social groups and organizations is particularlyimportant with respect to uncertainty in complex and constantlychanging environments, such as coastal ecosystems. Managementprocesses can be improved by making them adaptable and flexiblethrough the use of multiple kinds of knowledge and diverse per-spectives. Bridging and knowledge co-production seem to be twoimportant characteristics of successful co-management (Armitageet al., 2011; Berkes, 2009). Participatory research is of key impor-tance as a learning platform in which stakeholders learn from eachother, partly by enhancing participants’ openness to other points ofview. Throughout participatory research, stakeholders learn toparticipate and to integrate different sources of knowledge, leadingin many cases to co-production of new knowledge.

Participatory research in Piriápolis contributed to laying thegroundwork for co-management, as one fisher pointed out, becausethere was mutual learning between them and DINARA (Q7A). Infact, all participants learned information and skills throughout theparticipatory research process (Q15). For instance, the DINARAmanager stated: “The main learning is to participate. Many timesone is not used to meetings. with people DINARA sees as theopponents [the fishers]. Participation is something that is to belearned and practiced. As you practice it, it gets easier, and you feelmore comfortable, which in turn creates more participation.” Par-ticipants improved their communication skills (14 out of 15 in-terviewees); their ability to reflect on their own opinions afterlistening to other views (12 out of 15); and their skills in relating topeople who are in different professions and/or organizations (8 outof 15) (Q16).

Six participants learned about the need to integrate differentsources of knowledge (Q6A); others emphasized that participatoryresearch actually put it into practice. Participants gave several ex-amples of situations in which local and scientific knowledge wereintegrated, such as when the group produced collectively a posterabout sea lions for the Festival (Q6B). Furthermore, all participantsrecognized that co-production of knowledge took place (Q6C). Theygave examples of new approaches or strategies generated by thegroup, such as the process of collective generation of the datacollection protocol in the sea lion study; and participatory researchas an approach to address a problem, working in a team with acommon goal, respecting others’ opinions, and learning from eachother.

The multi-stakeholder group which was created in Piriápolis,POPA, could be thought of as a bridging organization linking fishers,universities, government agencies and NGOs. Bridging organiza-tions, linking actors across multiple sectors (Brown, 1991) canstimulate co-management through providing an arena for knowl-edge co-production, trust building, sense making, learning, verticaland horizontal collaboration, and conflict resolution (Folke et al.,2005). The diversity of stakeholders in the group motivatedfishers who realized that they were not alone in their concerns. Asone fisher put it in response to the question about the contributionof participatory research to help future co-management (Q7A),“DINARA, as far as I know, never came to the coast or never calledon artisanal fishers. And they even passed a law to forbid [arti-sanal] fishing [within 300 m of the coast] without consultingfishers. I think this [participatory research contributing to co-management] is because we have a strong group [POPA] whichcan help us get to DINARA. The group has biologists, one DINARAofficer, one officer of the Municipal government [referring toEcópolis representative who works at the government], and whatwe [fishers] want is to integrate ourselves to DINARA.”

3.6. Participatory research and co-management as problem solving

Management decision making implies making choices betweendifferent alternatives, while problem solving has to do with theprocess of generating these alternatives. Co-management evolvesover time and is very much a result of deliberate problem-solving(Carlsson and Berkes, 2005). Participatory research is an iterativeprocess of finding solutions to local problems in a collectivemanner, by planning, acting, observing and reflecting (Kemmis andMcTaggart, 2005). If the problem being addressed is related toresource management, then participatory research can contributedirectly to co-management by generating those alternatives. If it isnot, given that the ability to solve problems collectively evolvesover time (Olsson et al., 2004), participatory research cancontribute indirectly to co-management because the exercise of

M. Trimble, F. Berkes / Journal of Environmental Management 128 (2013) 768e778774

doing iterative problem-solving may be important for strength-ening stakeholders’ capacities as well as for motivating them.

In Piriápolis, the first problem-solving exercise consisted ofaddressing the conflict of sea lions’ impact on the long-line fishery,and only the first phase of the participatory research cycle (i.e.planning) was conducted. On the one hand, the complexity of thisproblem meant that solutions would not be easy to find (severalparticipants considered that there was no solution at all). On theother hand, starting off by addressing this controversial topicmeant that participants would need time together to exchangeknowledge and thoughts. While this first cycle was taking place, asecond problem-solving exercise began to address the marketcompetition from imported pangasius. This soon led the group tothe action phase of participatory research by organizing the FirstArtisanal Fisheries Festival in Piriápolis. The Festival was consid-ered so successful by participants (e.g. nearly 3000 people atten-ded, most of them tourists, but also DINARA’s director and MGAP’sundersecretary) that it motivated them to continue workingtogether as a group and to resume the study about sea lions. Inparticular, scientists valued doing research applied to local prob-lems (Q2): “[An advantage of] participatory research is that youstart from a problem as expressed by the people affected by it; inother type of research [i.e. conventional] you formulate a problembased only on your perception.”

In summary, the group started addressing one problem and thenturned to another one, which exemplifies the importance ofadaptability for problem-solving approaches. However, the twoproblems were linked. As one scientist stated when asked aboutnew strategies generated by the group (Q6C), “To me, one of themost visible ones was that when we started with the main topic[sea lions], which still is the main one, the major approach was thata cull was needed. Then, over the course of the workshops, theapproach to it changed. Instead of attacking the problem directly,we started to look at other problems that were also influencing[fishers], such as the impediments for selling fish, competitionwithpangasius, and the price of landed fish [low price from mid-dlemen]”. Participants who thought that the two problems werelinked, perceived the Festival as an action that was also oriented tothe sea lion problem, arguing that it would help fishers sell morefish and thus get a better income, counteracting economic lossesdue to sea lions.

3.7. Participatory research and co-management as governance

Governance has become a common concept since the 1990s,emphasizing shared responsibility and partnerships of diverseplayers including non-state actors (Kooiman et al., 2005). Co-management is a kind of governance in which there is a di-versity of parties, including public and private actors, linked to oneanother through a variety of relationships. Good governance re-quires effective user participation, and for some, problem solvingat the level of organization closest to the people affected e thesubsidiarity principle (Follesdal, 1998). Participatory research iscompatible with the subsidiarity principle because it is aboutaddressing local problems by local people. In participatoryresearch, as conceived in this paper, a diversity of actors fromdifferent levels (i.e. all stakeholders in the problem to beaddressed) must participate, whereas the original conception ofparticipatory research only involved the community (or powerlesspeople) and the social scientists/activists working with it (FalsBorda, 1987). The inclusion of other relevant stakeholders isimportant for contributing to the eventual emergence of co-management as governance.

Non-fisher participants were invited to the participatoryresearch initiative in Piriápolis because they were stakeholders in

the research topic that fishers had initially chosen (sea lions).Stakeholder diversity was the most frequently mentioned elementwhen participants were asked to define “participatory research”(Q1). One fisher explained, “[Participatory research] is somethingthat takes into account all the interested parties, about a specifictopic. If we’re going to investigate the sea lions topic, you say,‘whose concern is that topic?’ Fishers, biologists, DINARA, MGAP.All the interested people have to participate, without excludinganyone. Everyone who has something to do with the topic has toparticipate. That is participatory and democratic.”

One scientist pointed out the importance of stakeholder inclu-sion in research as part of her learning during the participatoryresearch process (Q15): “[I learned] how to get fishers to takeownership of the results [of the study], and not just ‘you do that[the study] and I take you fishing’ [i.e. what a fisher would say toher in conventional research]. It seems that the scale or scope of theresults is different. [Participatory research] takes time, . but it’svery important to include the fishers, mainly in this specific prob-lem [sea lions], and other actors in society.” Another scientistmentioned that her opinion about the need to integrate differentsources of knowledge changed throughout the participatoryresearch process by noticing the contributions from all parties inthis more inclusive concept of governance (Q6A). Furthermore, onefisher and one scientist stated that the participatory researchinitiative contributed to the potential co-management by promot-ing, through the Festival, increased attention to fishers by society atlarge, broadening the concept of governance (Q7A). As the scientistexplained, “If fishers are accepted and valued, [and seen as people]from whom you learn . then [they become] an accepted group insociety [and] won’t be a [stigmatized] minority group when itcomes to sitting at the negotiation table.” The main attractions ofthe Festival were a photo exhibition entitled “A day in the life ofartisanal fishers”; an exhibition of fishing gear, of which fisherswere in charge; art inspired by artisanal fisheries; talks of healtheducation focused on the nutritional properties of local fish; localfish tasting; and live music. The group received support from over30 organizations and people from different sectors (public, private,academics, civil society) at different levels (local, national and in-ternational) (POPA, 2012). The Festival was featured on TV andradio programs, local and national newspapers, websites, and othermedia.

Table 1 presents a summary of the contributions of participatoryresearch to the different aspects or faces of co-management, as wellas evidence from the Piriápolis case. As discussed in the next sec-tion, however, several changes are needed before fisheries co-management can emerge in the area.

3.8. What is lacking to achieve fisheries co-management inPiriápolis?

The response to the question of what was lacking to achieve co-management (Q7B) varied among stakeholder groups. All fishersmade reference to DINARA: more communication and participationof fishers were needed, and DINARA’s willingness for co-management was lacking. One fisher suggested that there shouldbe a DINARA office in Piriápolis, whereas another fisher called foran increased dialogue between DINARA and artisanal fishers (notwith the national union). Mistrust in DINARAwas also identified asa barrier to co-management; as one fisher explained: “[Achievingco-management] is very complicated because not all [fishers] arebelievers [in DINARA]. DINARA is a nuisance to fishers because ithas the power to regulate things but it doesn’t. It has other in-terests, such as approving pangasius imports, allowing trawlingwhere there should be closed areas. So, bad management di-minishes fishers’ trust towards this agency.”

Table 1Proposed contributions of participatory research (PR) to the seven faces of co-management (Berkes, 2007), and evidence from the Piriápolis case.

Faces of co-management Evidence from participatory research in Piriápolis

1. Co-management as power sharing:PR could be part of the participatoryroots needed for co-management(power sharing during research).

- The opinion of all participants was considered throughout the process,and it was important for them to consider everyone’s opinions and interests equally.

- Participants of the four stakeholder groups considered that the study about sea lions’impact on the long-line fishery will serve for future decision making.

2. Co-management as institution building:PR can enhance the capacity of differentstakeholders, and collective decision-making.

- A multi-stakeholder body (POPA e Por la Pesca Artesanal en Piriápolis),with a common vision and goals, was created.

- Participants considered that participatory research enhanced fishers’ organization,increased unity among them, and built fishers’ capacity for co-management.

3. Co-management as trust building:PR can be the required groundwork forbuilding trust among stakeholders, throughfacilitating respectful communication.

- Most relationships among participants improved, and trust among them increased.- Participants considered that participatory research contributed to the eventual emergenceof co-management by bringing together fishers and DINARA.

4. Co-management as process:PR should be understood as a deliberativeprocess in making decisions among stakeholders.

- Participants appreciated the group formation, and its increased cohesion and trust, despite not havingcompleted the study on sea lions’ impact.

- Deliberation, enhanced by the facilitators, was also valued.- Participatory research was seen as part of the co-management process by the DINARA manager.

5. Co-management as learning and knowledgeco-production:

PR is a learning platform in which stakeholderslearn from each other, and co-producenew knowledge.

Stakeholders learned skills needed for participation.- Local and scientific knowledge were integrated, and new knowledge was co-produced.- One fisher considered that the participatory research contributed to the eventual emergence ofco-management because of mutual learning between fishers and DINARA.

6. Co-management as problem solving:PR is an iterative process of finding solutions tolocal problems in a collective manner.

- Two problem-solving exercises were conducted: (i) about sea lions’ impact on the long-line fishery,which was not concluded, and (ii) about market competition from imported Pangasianodon, leadingto a successful action (First Artisanal Fisheries Festival) which motivated the group to resume (i) andfuture problem-solving exercises.

7. Co-management as governance:In PR a diversity of actors from different levelsmust participate.

- A variety of stakeholders of the local problem identified by fishers (sea lions’ impact) were invited to theparticipatory research initiative.

- Stakeholder diversity was the most frequently mentioned element when participants defined“participatory research”.

- One fisher and one scientist stated that participatory research contributed to the eventual emergence ofco-management by promoting, through the Festival, increased attention to fishers by differentsegments of society.

M. Trimble, F. Berkes / Journal of Environmental Management 128 (2013) 768e778 775

On his part, the DINARA manager identified co-managementneeds both at the fishers’ level (i.e. their lack of organization) andin DINARA: “Much is lacking for co-management. First, fishers’organization. [with] elected representatives in front of DINARA.DINARA can’t go ask to each of the 300 people [the approximatenumber of fishing licenses in DINARA Zone E where Piriápolis is]what they think about something, how they see the sea lionproblem. And the agency [DINARA] should seek the way to makethat happen [fishers’ organization]. Another thing needed [for co-management] is a change in DINARA’s mindset to understand thatnow, when it comes to take a measure, [DINARA] will have to askthose who will suffer the measure, what they think.” Scientistsmentioned that fishers’ organization (i.e. representatives, cohesionand common interests) was lacking. Regarding DINARA, animproved interactionwith fishers as well as willingness to promoteco-management was needed, scientists stated. Finally, the one NGOrepresentative who replied to this question identified fishers’mobility along the coast (i.e. seasonal migration) as a barrier to co-management.

4. Conclusions

Participatory research in which fishers hold decision makingpower is rare (Wiber et al., 2009) and little is known about whatactually transpires in a participatory research process. Our case issignificant in that we were able to analyze the actual details ofinteractions. Although each case is no doubt different, the Pir-iápolis case offers some general findings for international appli-cations, contributing also to the understanding of using

participatory research to help encourage the conditions for theemergence of co-management. Co-management thinking is topicalin Uruguay but not as well developed as, for example, in Chile(Gelcich et al., 2010) and perhaps in Brazil (Lopes et al., 2011;Seixas et al., 2009).

Our case in Piriápolis has shown that participatory research canhave an impact on the various faces of co-management. Of course,many of these faces are inter-related and have cross-cutting ele-ments. For example, learning is a cross-cutting component of thedifferent faces of co-management: (1) learning is needed if theexercise of sharing power during research-related decision-makingis to be important for future power sharing in management; (2)participation/interaction skills, which are part of capacity building,are learned during participatory research; (3) one of the factors thatfacilitated relationship improvement and trust building amongparticipants was communication and knowledge exchange; (4)learning in the form of development of skills, capacities andknowledge is one of the elements of success when participatoryresearch is conceived as a process; (5) learning is part of theproblem-solving iterative cycle which characterizes participatoryresearch (i.e. planning, acting, observing and reflecting); and lastly,(6) to achieve co-management as governance, the importance ofstakeholder inclusion should be learned.

Our findings emphasize that participatory research is of keyimportance as a learning platform. Stakeholders learn from eachother, learn to participate and to integrate different sources ofknowledge, and appreciate fishery management as a “peopleproblem” and a commons dilemma, and not merely as an issueof bureaucratic regulation (Jacobsen et al., 2012). Given that

M. Trimble, F. Berkes / Journal of Environmental Management 128 (2013) 768e778776

learning-by-doing, integration of different kinds of knowledge, andappreciating multiple perspectives are key features of adaptive co-management (Armitage et al., 2007; Olsson et al., 2004), the caseshows that participatory research can pave the way towardsadaptive co-management by injecting a dynamic learning charac-teristic in the early stages of the collaborative process. We thereforeanticipate that the learning outcomes of the participatory researchin Piriápolis will be useful for the future emergence of co-management in coastal Uruguay. For example, the skills that theDINARA manager learned through the problem-solving exercisesduring this participatory research can be applied to other situations(Olsson et al., 2004).

However, the fact that there was only one DINARA managerand few fishers in the participatory research initiative is a prob-lem. One cannot count on individual capacity building necessarilytranslating into institutional capacity building (Wiber et al., 2009).Only participating fishers improved their relationship with theDINARA manager throughout the process, and in fact, mistrusttowards DINARA was identified as a barrier to eventual co-management in Piriápolis. Hence, fishers’ lack of organizationand DINARA’s lack of willingness (as identified by participants) arenot the only challenges for the emergence of artisanal fisheries co-management. The inherent power imbalances in fisheremanagerrelationship (“DINARA will manage things”, as quoted in Section3.4) can be addressed by participatory research but not necessarilysolved by it.

POPA started with one problem but in fact ended up working onanother, both variations of the commons dilemma involving arti-sanal fishers’ struggle for a share of resources (with the sea lions)and market. The second problem (markets and market competitionfrom imported cheap fish) was the problem that was turned into apublic issue using the Artisanal Fisheries Festival as a flashpoint,consistent with efforts elsewhere with community-supportedfishery programs (Brinson et al., 2011). The organization of thisFestival brought cohesion to the recently formed group (POPA),which acted as a bridging organization linking fishers with severalorganizations, while at the same time had an impact on the broadersociety. We could speculate that the Festival influenced DINARAindirectly by showing that there was in fact great public interest inartisanal fisheries. To achieve POPA’s goals, the organization of asecond communication strategy and the continuation of the studyof sea lions are in the plans. In this regard, in December 2012, aftertwo months of intense group work in Piriápolis and Montevideo,POPA applied for DINARA-ANII (National Agency for Research andInnovation) funding with a project proposal entitled “Mitigation ofthe impact from the interactions between sea lions and artisanalfisheries: participatory research to evaluate fish traps as alternativefishing gear”. Two observations are worth highlighting. First, this isone of the rare occasions in Uruguay in which fishers workcollaboratively with researchers (and other stakeholders) ondefining the entire research proposal, of which they are teammembers. Second, applying for DINARA-ANII funding shows thatPOPA has the capacity for fund-raising, and the motivation to keepworking as a group, supporting its long-term viability and potentialprogress towards co-management.

An important consideration for future participatory researchis government participation, a challenge (Hartley and Robertson,2006). Participatory research is a reflection and a microcosm ofthe process of co-management in that regard: governmentparticipation is an essential part of it. Further research is neededto investigate how to facilitate government agencies and uni-versities to support and initiate multi-stakeholder participatoryresearch. It is the job of each participant to share with his/herorganization the experience of participatory research and thelearning process to promote its continuation and replication.

Emerging co-management in Uruguay or elsewhere would needfacilitation, suitable policy environment, better organization offishers, as well as rebalanced government priorities. Participatoryresearch and capacity building through a learning environmentin the spirit of Freire (1970) is an important element of thisprocess.

Acknowledgements

This paper is part of Trimble’s PhD research supported by theUniversity of Manitoba Graduate Fellowship, Manitoba GraduateScholarship, and the International Development Research Centrethrough the IDRC/CRC International Research Chairs Initiative.Berkes’ work has been supported by the Canada Research Chairsprogram (http://www.chairs.gc.ca). We particularly thank themembers of POPA (Por la Pesca Artesanal en Piriápolis) for theirunconditional support and interest in this participatory researchinitiative. Special thanks to Patricia Iribarne for her assistance in thefield, including workshop facilitation. Ignacio Berro kindly madethe map of the study area. We recognize intellectual support fromDr. Marila Lázaro throughout the research and constructive com-ments on the paper. Three anonymous reviewers made valuablecontributions for improving this paper.

Appendix Questions from the final interviews withparticipants

1. Considering that POPA was formed in the context of partici-patory research: How would you explain what participatoryresearch is?

2. Comparing conventional research (conducted by scientistsalone) to participatory research conducted among fishers, sci-entists, governmental and non-governmental stakeholders:What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?

3. Did you believe (at the beginning) that the individual objec-tives of each participant could be integrated into the groupinterests? In what way do you see your objectives integrated?And those of other participants?

4. (A) Do you think that the participatory research initiativeconducted by POPA has been successful? Why? (B) Do youthink that in this participatory research the group and indi-vidual objectives were achieved?Which ones? (C)What do youthink were the strengths and weaknesses of the participatoryresearch process?

5. (A) Do you think that the opinion of every member of thegroup, including yours, was considered throughout theparticipatory research process? Which situations would yougive as examples? (B) Do you remember any situation in whichyour opinion, or that of other group member, was not consid-ered? (C) Do you think it is important that everyone’s opinionsand interests are considered equally in the group? Why?

6. (A) Has your opinion about the need to combine or integratedifferent knowledge, experiences and views changed byparticipating in this participatory research initiative? (B) Doyou think that there were situations throughout the partici-patory research process in which scientific knowledge andfishers’ knowledge were integrated? Which situations? (C) Doyou think that new approaches, strategies and/or knowledgehave been generated by the group? Which and How?

7. Considering that co-management is a type of decision-makingin which fishers participate jointly with DINARA in the elabo-ration of measures for a better use of fishing resources: (A) Doyou think this participatory research has contributed to the(future) emergence of co-management? In which way? (B)

M. Trimble, F. Berkes / Journal of Environmental Management 128 (2013) 768e778 777

What do you think is lacking to achieve fisheries co-management in Piriápolis?

8. Reflecting on how your relationships with other group mem-bers have been evolving throughout the participatory researchprocess: With whom have your relationships improved/wors-ened/or not changed?

9. Throughout this participatory research: Inwhomhas your trustincreased/declined/not changed?

10. By participating in this participatory research process: Has therespect you felt towards group members changed? Towardswhom? In which way?

11. Which factors, situations or characteristics of the participatoryresearch process have facilitated the changes in relationshipsthat you mentioned?

12. Inwhich way has the change in your relationships with or trustin people of the group influenced your opinion about the or-ganization they belong to (DINARA, Ecópolis, SOS, University)?Why?

13. Do you have interest in maintaining the relationships you haveformed with other members of the group? Which and why?

14. Do you think that the participatory research initiative con-ducted by POPA contributed in any way to increase unityamong fishers? Why?

15. Do you think that you have learned during this participatoryresearch process? Could you give us examples of the learningyou have had?

16. In this series of questions we will ask you to reflect on thepersonal changes you have noticed during the participatoryresearch process, and we will give you four options (Nothing,Little, Moderate, Much) referring to the degree you considerappropriate in each case: (A) To what degree have you noticedimprovements in your communication skills during theparticipatory research process? (B) To what degree have younoticed improvements in your skills in relating to people whoare in different professions and/or organizations? (C) To whatdegree have you noticed improvements in your ability to reflecton your own opinions and conceptions after knowing others’views?

References

Armitage, D., Berkes, F., Dale, A., Kocho-Schellenberg, E., Patton, E., 2011. Co-man-agement and the co-production of knowledge: learning to adapt in Canada’sArctic. Global Environmental Change 21, 995e1004.

Armitage, D., Berkes, F., Doubleday, N., 2007. Adaptive Co-management: Collabo-ration, Learning and Multi-level Governance. University of British ColumbiaPress, Vancouver.

Armitage, D.R., Plummer, R., Berkes, F., Arthur, R.I., Charles, A.T., Davidson-Hunt, I.J.,Diduck, A.P., Doubleday, N.C., Johnson, D.S., Marschke, M., McConney, P.,Pinkerton, E.W., Wollenberg, E.K., 2009. Adaptive co-management for social-ecological complexity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7, 95e102.

Arnold, J.S., Fernandez-Gimenez, M., 2007. Building social capital through partici-patory research: an analysis of collaboration on Tohono O’odham Tribal Ran-gelands in Arizona. Society and Natural Resources 20, 481e495.

Berkes, F., 2007. Adaptive co-management and complexity: exploring the manyfaces of co-management. In: Armitage, D., Berkes, F., Doubleday, N. (Eds.),Adaptive Co-management. Collaboration, Learning, and Multi-level Gover-nance. UBC Press, Vancouver, pp. 19e37.

Berkes, F., 2009. Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation,bridging organization and social learning. Journal of Environmental Manage-ment 90, 1692e1702.

Bernard, H.R., 2006. Research Methods in Anthropology. Qualitative and Quanti-tative Approaches, fourth ed. Altamira Press, Lanham.

Biggs, S., 1989. Resource-poor Farmer Participation in Research: a Synthesis of Ex-periences from Nine National Agricultural Research Systems. OFCOR Compar-ative Study Paper 3. International Service for National Agricultural Research,The Hague.

Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Pimbert, M., Farvar, M.T., Kothari, A., Renard, Y., 2004.Sharing Power. Learning-by-doing in Co-management of Natural Resourcesthroughout the World. IIED and IUCN/CEESP/CMWG, Cenesta, Tehran.

Brinson, A., Lee, M., Rountree, B., 2011. Direct marketing strategies: the rise ofcommunity supported fishery programs. Marine Policy 35, 542e548.

Brown, L.D., 1991. Bridging organizations and sustainable development. HumanRelations 44 (8), 807e831.

Carlsson, L., Berkes, F., 2005. Co-management: concepts and methodological im-plications. Journal of Environmental Management 75, 65e76.

Chambers, R., 1994. The origin and practice of participatory rural appraisal. WorldDevelopment 22, 953e969.

Chuenpagdee, R., Fraga, J., Euán-Avila, J.I., 2004. Progressing toward comanagementthrough participatory research. Society and Natural Resources 17 (2), 147e161.

Cinner, J.E., Daw, T.M.,McClanahan, T.R.,Muthiga,N., Abunge, C.,Hamed, S.,Mwaka, B.,Rabearisoa, A.,Wamukota, A., Fisher, E., Jiddawi, N., 2012. Transitions towards co-management: the process of marine resource management devolution in threeAfrican countries. Global Environmental Change 22, 651e658.

Conway, F.D.L., Pomeroy, C., 2006. Evaluating the human e as well as the biologicale objectives of cooperative fisheries research. Fisheries 31 (9), 447e454.

Cornwall, A., Jewkes, R., 1995. What is participatory research? Social Science andMedicine 41 (12), 1667e1676.

Cox, M., Arnold, G., Villamayor, T.S., 2010. A review of design principles forcommunity-based natural resource management. Ecology and Society 15 (4),38. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art38/.

Dunn, K., 2008. Interviewing. In: Hay, I. (Ed.), Qualitative Research Methods inHuman Geography. Oxford University Press, Melbourne, pp. 79e105.

Evans, L., Cherrett, N., Pemsl, D., 2011. Assessing the impact of fisheries co-management interventions in developing countries: a meta-analysis. Journalof Environmental Management 92, 1938e1949.

Fals Borda, O., 1987. The application of participatory action-research in LatinAmerica. International Sociology 2 (4), 329e347.

Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., Norberg, J., 2005. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30, 441e473.

Follesdal, A., 1998. Survey article: subsidiarity. Journal of Political Philosophy 6 (2),190e218.

Freire, P.,1970. Pedagogyof theOppressed. ContinuumPublishingCompany,NewYork.Gelcich, S., Hughes, T.P., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Defeo, O., Fernandez, M., Foale, S.,

Gunderson, L.H., Rodríguez-Sickert, C., Scheffer, M., Steneck, R.S., Castilla, J.C.,2010. Navigating transformations in governance of Chilean marine coastal re-sources. PNAS 107 (39), 16794e16799.

Hartley, T.W., Robertson, R.A., 2006. Stakeholder engagement, cooperative fisheriesresearch and democratic science: the case of the Northeast Consortium. HumanEcology Review 13 (2), 161e171.

Jacobsen, R.B., Wilson, D.C.K., Ramirez-Monsalve, P., 2012. Empowerment and regula-tione dilemmas in participatory fisheries science. Fish and Fisheries 13, 291e302.

Jentoft, S., 1989. Fisheries co-management. Delegating government responsibility tofishermen’s organizations. Marine Policy 13, 137e154.

Jentoft, S., McCay, B.J., Wilson, D.C., 1998. Social theory and fisheries co-manage-ment. Marine Policy 22, 423e436.

Johnson, T.R., 2010. Cooperative research and knowledge flow in the marine com-mons: lessons from the Northeast United States. International Journal of theCommons 4 (1), 251e272.

Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., 2005. Participatory action research: communicative ac-tion and the public sphere. In: Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.), The SageHandbook of Qualitative Research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, Califor-nia, pp. 559e603.

Kooiman, J., Bavinck, M., Jentoft, S., Pullin, R., 2005. Fish for Life: InteractiveGovernance for Fisheries. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.

Lopes, P.F.M., Silvano, R.A.M., Begossi, A., 2011. Extractive and sustainable devel-opment reserves in Brazil: resilient alternatives to fisheries? Journal of Envi-ronmental Planning and Management 54, 421e443.

McConney, P., Mahon, R., Pomeroy, R., 2007. Challenges facing coastal resource co-management in the Caribbean. In: Armitage, D., Berkes, F., Doubleday, N. (Eds.),Adaptive Co-management. Collaboration, Learning, and Multi-level Gover-nance. UBC Press, Vancouver, pp. 105e124.

Olsson, P., Folke, C., Berkes, F., 2004. Adaptive comanagement for building resiliencein socialeecological systems. Environmental Management 34 (1), 75e90.

Opondo, C., Sanginga, P., Strouda, A., 2006. Monitoring the Outcomes of Participa-tory Research in Natural Resources Management Experiences of the AfricanHighlands Initiative. African Highlands Initiative. Working Papers N� 2.

Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Pinkerton, E., 2003. Toward specificity in complexity: understanding co-

management from a social science perspective. In: Wilson, D.C., Nielsen, J.R.,Degnbol, P. (Eds.), The Fisheries Co-management Experience. Accomplishments,Challenges and Prospects. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 61e77.

Pomeroy, R.S., Berkes, F., 1997. Two to tango: the role of government in fisheries co-management. Marine Policy 21 (5), 465e480.

POPA e Por la Pesca Artesanal, 2012. Informe de la Primera Feria de la PescaArtesanal en Piriápolis. Grupo Por la Pesca Artesanal, Piriápolis.

Pretty, J., Ward, H., 2001. Social capital and the environment. World Development29 (2), 209e227.

Seixas, C.S., Minte-Vera, C.V., Ferreira, R.G., Moura, R.L., Curado, I.B., Pezutti, J.,Thé, A.P.G., Francini, B., Filho, R., 2009. Co-managing commons: advancingaquatic resources management in Brazil. In: Lopez, P., Begossi, A. (Eds.), CurrentTrends in Human Ecology. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle uponTyne, pp. 153e179.

Shirk, J.L., Ballard,H.L.,Wilderman, C.C., Phillips, T.,Wiggins, A., Jordan, R.,McCallie, E.,Minarchek, M., Lewenstein, B.V., Krasny, M.E., Bonney, R., 2012. Public partici-pation in scientific research: a framework for deliberate design. Ecology andSociety 17 (2), 29. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol17/iss2/art29/.

M. Trimble, F. Berkes / Journal of Environmental Management 128 (2013) 768e778778

Singleton, S., 1998. Constructing Cooperation: the Evolution of Institutions ofComanagement. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Szteren, D., Lezama, C., 2006. Southern sea lions and artisanal fisheries inUruguay: interactions throughout three years. In: Trites, A.W.,Atkinson, S.K., DeMaster, D.P., Fritz, L.W., Gelatt, T.S., Rea, L.D., Wynne, K.M.(Eds.), Sea Lions of the World. Alaska Sea Grant College Program, Fairbanks,Alaska, pp. 591e604.

Trimble, M., Johnson, D., 2013. Artisanal fishing as an undesirable way of life? theimplications for governance of fishers’ wellbeing aspirations in coastal Uruguayand southeastern Brazil. Marine Policy 37, 37e44.

Wiber, M., Charles, A., Kearney, J., Berkes, F., 2009. Enhancing community empow-erment through participatory fisheries research. Marine Policy 33 (1), 172e179.

Wilmsen, C., Elmendorf, W., Fisher, L., Ross, J., Sararthy, B., Wells, G., 2008. Part-nerships for Empowerment: Participatory Research for Community-basedNatural Resource Management. Earthscan, London.

Wilson, D.C., Mahfuzuddin, A., Siar, S.V., Kanagaratnam, U., 2006. Cross-scale link-ages and adaptive management: fisheries co-management in Asia. MarinePolicy 30, 523e533.

Yin, R.K., 1994. Case Study Research. Design and Methods. Sage Publications Inc.,Thousand Oaks.