\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter \IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}% {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}% {\RequirePackage{color}} \usepackage{colortbl} \usepackage{wrapfig} \usepackage{ifxetex} \ifxetex \usepackage{fontspec} \usepackage{xunicode} \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash} \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{} \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}} \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}} \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}} \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}} \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono} \else \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}% {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc} \PrerenderUnicode{–} }% {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}} \usepackage[english]{babel} \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} \usepackage{float} \usepackage[]{ucs} \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash } \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{} \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}} \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}} \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,} \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ } \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>} \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}} \def\textJapanese{} \def\textChinese{} \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{} \fi \def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small} \DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25} \usepackage{relsize} \RequirePackage{array} \def\@testpach{\@chclass \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@ \else \z@ \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}% \@chnum \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else \z@ \@chclass \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else \if \@nextchar !6 \else \if \@nextchar @7 \else \if \@nextchar (8 \else \if \@nextchar )9 \else 10 \@chnum \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else \if \@nextchar p4 \else \if \@nextchar b5 \else \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi} \gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr} \def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}} \def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}} \def\abbr{} \def\corr{} \def\expan{} \def\gap{} \def\orig{} \def\reg{} \def\ref{} \def\sic{} \def\persName{}\def\name{} \def\placeName{} \def\orgName{} \def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}} \def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}} \def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}} \def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}} \def\textquoted#1{‘#1’} \def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}} \def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}} \def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}} \def\titlem{\itshape} \newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{bibl}{}{} \newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par } \newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par } \newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par} \newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par} \newenvironment{rubric}{}{} \newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par } \newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}} \newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}} \newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}} \newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}} \newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}} \newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}} \definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75} \def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}} \DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@} \def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}} \begingroup \catcode`\_=\active \gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}} \endgroup \mathcode`\_=\string"8000 \catcode`\_=12\relax \usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry} \usepackage{framed} \definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95} \usepackage{longtable} \usepackage[normalem]{ulem} \usepackage{fancyvrb} \usepackage{fancyhdr} \usepackage{graphicx} \usepackage{marginnote} \renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1} \renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize} \def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif} \pagestyle{fancy} \usepackage[pdftitle={Ain't Gonna Study War No More: Teaching and Learning Cooperation in a Graduate Course in Resource and Environmental Management}, pdfauthor={}]{hyperref} \hyperbaseurl{} \paperwidth210mm \paperheight297mm \def\@pnumwidth{1.55em} \def\@tocrmarg {2.55em} \def\@dotsep{4.5} \setcounter{tocdepth}{3} \clubpenalty=8000 \emergencystretch 3em \hbadness=4000 \hyphenpenalty=400 \pretolerance=750 \tolerance=2000 \vbadness=4000 \widowpenalty=10000 \renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}% {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}% {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}% {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}} \renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}% {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}% {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}% {\reset@font\Large}} \renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}% {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}% {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}% {\reset@font\large}} \renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}% {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}% {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}% {\reset@font\normalsize}} \renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}% {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}% {-1em}% {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}} \def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt} \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par \endgroup} \def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}} \def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}} \def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}} \def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}} \@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{} \@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{} \newif\if@mainmatter \@mainmattertrue \def\chaptername{Chapter} \def\frontmatter{% \pagenumbering{roman} \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter} \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}} \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section} \def\theHsection{\roman{section}} \def\@chapapp{}% } \def\mainmatter{% \cleardoublepage \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter} \setcounter{chapter}{0} \setcounter{section}{0} \pagenumbering{arabic} \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6} \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}% \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}} \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section} \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}} } \def\backmatter{% \cleardoublepage \setcounter{chapter}{0} \setcounter{section}{0} \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2} \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}% \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter} \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}} \appendix } \newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{% \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}% {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}% \leftmargin\labelwidth \advance\leftmargin\labelsep \@openbib@code \usecounter{enumiv}% \let\p@enumiv\@empty \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}% }% \sloppy \clubpenalty4000 \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty \widowpenalty4000% \sfcode`\.\@m}% {\def\@noitemerr {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}% \endlist} \def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}} \parskip0pt \parindent1em \def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}} \newenvironment{reflist}{% \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{} {% \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}% \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}% \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}% \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}% \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}% \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}% \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}% } {\end{list}\end{raggedright}} \newenvironment{sansreflist}{% \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{} {% \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}% \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}% \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}% \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}% \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}% \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}% \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}% } {\end{list}\end{raggedright}} \newenvironment{specHead}[2]% {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}% \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}% \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}% \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}% }{} \def\TheFullDate{2014-01-15 (revised: 15 January 2014)} \def\TheID{\makeatother } \def\TheDate{2014-01-15} \title{Ain't Gonna Study War No More: Teaching and Learning Cooperation in a Graduate Course in Resource and Environmental Management} \author{}\makeatletter \makeatletter \newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{% \clearpage \if@twoside \ifodd\c@page \hbox{}\newpage \if@twocolumn \hbox{}\newpage \fi \fi \fi } \makeatother \makeatletter \thispagestyle{empty} \markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author} \renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@ \belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip \abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@ \belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@ \def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@ \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@ \itemsep 1pt} } \makeatother \fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm} \fancyhf{} \setlength{\headheight}{14pt} \fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} \fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} \fancyfoot[RO]{} \fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage} \fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID} \fancyfoot[LE]{} \fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage} \fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID} \hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true} \fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}} \date{} \usepackage{authblk} \providecommand{\keywords}[1] { \footnotesize \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1 } \usepackage{graphicx,xcolor} \definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81} \definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9} \definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70} \definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} \renewenvironment{abstract}{% \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}} \vskip16pt \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space} }{% \vskip8pt \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}} \vskip16pt } \usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos} \makeatother \usepackage{lineno} \linenumbers \begin{document} \author[1]{John R. Welch} \affil[1]{ Simon Fraser University} \renewcommand\Authands{ and } \date{\small \em Received: 16 December 2013 Accepted: 2 January 2014 Published: 15 January 2014} \maketitle \begin{abstract} Research into factors and theories of cooperation and into managing relations between human communities and ecosystems has blossomed in recent decades, yet few published works examine how these advances may be conveyed to students of resource and environmental management. We question whether ongoing changes in sociocultural and biophysical environments will lead to self-perpetuating crises or to precedent-setting types and scales of cooperation? Will higher education and university curricula continue to be part of our ?environmental problem? or emerge as essential parts of responses to the failure of resource management institutions? Are graduate students in environmental fields being prepared to meet the challenges they will likely face as resource management researchers and decision makers? We examine these questions through the lens of a course we have taught to over 300 graduate students in Simon Fraser University?s School of Resource and Environmental Management. The course emphasizes the acquisition and application of conceptual and practical knowledge and skills centered on cooperation among individuals and groups with diverse values and interests. \end{abstract} \keywords{collaborative learning; collective problem solving; education for sustainable development; experiential education; graduate studies in environmenta} \begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) \textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark} \end{textblock*} \begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) \textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}} \end{textblock*} \let\tabcellsep& \section[{Introduction}]{Introduction}\par t is not the similarity or dissimilarity of individuals that constitutes a group, but interdependence of fate.' Kurt Z. \hyperref[b28]{Lewin, 1939} It has been a half century since the publication of Cooperation in Change {\ref (1963)}, Ward Good enough's landmark book on applications of social science in regional and international development. During the same period, and especially since 1990, there has been a proliferation, across North American and internationally, of programs in environmental science, studies, and management for undergraduate, graduate and post-graduate learners \hyperref[b12]{(Clark et al., 2011a;}\hyperref[b32]{McGowan, 2004;} {\ref Zurayk et al., 2010)}. Perhaps because of the breath of the field of resource and environmental management and the diversity of the contributing academic specializations, there is little consensus or convergence on preferred curricular orientations or trajectories {\ref (White and Mayo, 2005:33)}. Some faculty Author: Simon Fraser University. e-mail: welch@sfu.ca have advocated for course and program emphases on negotiation and dialogue \hyperref[b36]{(Ness and Williams 2008;} {\ref Suskind, 2000)}, on human dignity and environmental justice \hyperref[b13]{(Clark et al., 2011b;}\hyperref[b68]{Washington and Strong, 1997)}, on sustainability \hyperref[b76]{(White, 2002)}, on environmental ethics \hyperref[b30]{(Martin and Beatley, 1993)}, on experiential learning \hyperref[b66]{(Wagner et al., 2012)}, on applied knowledge and action research \hyperref[b75]{(White and Mayo 2005)}, or on interand trans-disciplinary approaches (Focht and Henderson, 2009; Maniates and Whisse, 2000; {\ref Moslemi et al., 2009;}\hyperref[b80]{Winner and Champion, 2012)}.\par These are all important topics and compelling pedagogical and curricular orientations, of course, though a fundamental question remains: are we, and other faculty members working at the interfaces of environmental and resource management training, research, and outreach, part of the solution or contributors to the 'institutional failure in resource management' invoked by \hyperref[b1]{Acheson (2006})? Our answer is that it depends less on what we (or others) consider to be true today than on what our students learn and, more importantly, what they do with their learning after departing our classrooms and programs.\par As academic processes unfold, relentless change at global and lesser scales seems to be outstripping efforts to create resilient human ecosystems. Losses in biodiversity and ecosystem service capacities show that humans are making our planet more toxic, more climatically variable, and generally riskier and less hospitable to human and nonhuman communities (UNEP, 2012a). Even as we lament the likelihood that future generations will have to make up for our apparent failure to establish effective institutions and sustainable societies, we are committed to doing what we can right now. We offer our thoughts and practices as part of a still-emerging dialogue on the topic of teaching resource management at the graduate level. The next sections of this article review the apparent failure of resource management to address environmental problems and our efforts to train those pursuing careers in resource management and related fields. We examine social science literature on cooperative institutional arrangements that illustrate principles for sustainable resource management. We then discuss training that seeks to convey these principles where we teach, at Simon Fraser University, British Columbia, Canada. The last two sections of the article describe the 'Social Science of Resource Management' course we have offered since 1996 and offer recommendations regarding graduate student teaching and curriculum development in environmental education. \section[{II.}]{II.} \section[{Institutional Failure in Resource Management}]{Institutional Failure in Resource Management}\par Despite Good enough's still-valid principles and practices for deriving public benefits from developmentrelated environmental alterations, barrages of demographic, technological, economic, and political dynamics often limit goods flowing from even careful, creative, and concerted resource management initiatives. It is difficult to dispute {\ref Acheson's (2006:118)} assertion that 'The world is facing a resource management crisis. Large numbers of marine fisheries have been seriously depleted. Forests are being harvested at unsustainable levels; acid rain and smog are problems in widespread parts of the industrialized world; soil erosion threatens vast areas; parts of Africa and the Middle East are returning to desert; industrial waste dumps make life hazardous for large numbers of humans and other animals; many rivers and estuaries are polluted; and virtually every large lake in the world is in a precarious state.' Indeed, the Global Environmental Outlook 5 compiled by the United Nation's Environmental Programme (UNEP, 2012b:6) broadens and underscores Acheson's dire observations: 'As human pressures on the Earth System accelerate, several critical global, regional and local thresholds loom or have been exceeded. Once these have been passed, abrupt and possibly irreversible changes to the lifesupport functions of the planet are likely to occur, with significant adverse implications for human well-being.' Lertzman's (2009:344) conclusion is that if 'avoiding population declines, species loss, erosion of ecosystem services, and degradation of environmental quality in general are the criteria for a successful management system, then modern resource management systems cannot be considered successful. {\ref '} Because the causes of environmental problems are diverse, so must be the solutions. Acheson and UNEP agree that developments in systems of collective values, rules and regulations have failed to keep up with the proliferation and intensification of many risk factors. {\ref Acheson (2006:128)} writes, 'Few generalizations can be made about the reasons humans are unable to manage natural resources, save for the fact that failure is traceable to a lack of willingness or ability to solve collective-action dilemmas to produce effective rules.' The probability of finding ideologically or technologically driven or 'one size fits all' solutions to environmental problems is low and diminishing. The scale and complexity of many management issues, coupled with widespread perceptions that all modifications to institutions for environmental and resource management result in lost jobs (Canada, 2011), is leading in many jurisdictions to centralized, state-and market-based decision making. {\ref Acheson (2006:126}) finds reasons to be concerned about this trend, observing that, by 'making it impossible for local governments to experiment in solving problems, top-down management policies stifle learning and curtail adaptive responses to problem solving.' \section[{III. When and how Cooperation Happens in Resource Management}]{III. When and how Cooperation Happens in Resource Management}\par More encouraging news comes from resource management efforts grounded in closely linked social and ecological systems. Our knowledge continues to grow concerning the social, economic, political, and ecological conditions that permit cooperation and other altruistic behavior and institutions to flourish. Dominant Western views of human nature as inevitably competitive and egotistical have been effectively challenged \hyperref[b26]{(Keltner, 2009)}. Counter examples and antidotes to the tragedy of the commons are now well documented \hyperref[b37]{(Netting, 1993;}\hyperref[b38]{Ostrom, 1990;}\hyperref[b50]{Poteete et al., 2010)}.\par Because common pool resources are problematic to manage in a top-down manner due to excludability and sub tractability issues, social science literature regarding those institutional arrangements that permit cooperation in resource management usually address fish, forests, water, wildlife, rangelands, etc. \hyperref[b17]{(Feeney et al., 1990)}.Cooperating parties usually include the government agency with an official mandate to manage the resource and a local community with historical dependence on an adjacent resource. More complex arrangements involve multiple government agencies and multiple parties claiming rights to access and use the common pool resources.\par Since the mid-1980s, findings from anthropology and ecology on the self-regulating capacities of rural communities \hyperref[b0]{(Acheson, 1975} \hyperref[b61]{Swezey and Heizer, 1977)} have stimulated integrative research by anthropologists, political scientists, economists, ecologists, and planners on the benefits of co-operative power-sharing between selfregulating communities and government agencies \hyperref[b2]{(Agrawal, 2002;}\hyperref[b3]{Armitage et al., 2007;}\hyperref[b7]{Berkes, 1999;} {\ref Dyer and Mc Good win, 1994;}\hyperref[b18]{Feit, 2005;}\hyperref[b41]{Pinkerton, 1989;}\hyperref[b40]{Plummer, 2009;}\hyperref[b55]{Schlager and Ostrom, 1993;}\hyperref[b78]{Wilson et al. 1994;}\hyperref[b48]{Pinkerton and Weinstein, 1995;} {\ref ;}\hyperref[b77]{Wilson et al., 2003)}.This ever-expanding literature is generating insightful hypotheses about the conditions under which such cooperation is likely to emerge successfully and to promote sustainability in the use of common pool resources.\par Coming to terms with appropriate management strategies involves far more than understanding conditions supporting the creation of cooperative institutions; the nature of both the resource and the community must also be considered. For example, to make investments in cooperative institution-building feasible, the resource must be sufficiently abundant, culturally or economically important, adjacent to the community, or possess other value-enhancing attributes. Similarly, to make cooperation within the community and with government agencies and other parties a likely option, the community must be sufficiently dependent on the resource, have clear membership, strong leadership, sufficient trust, conflict resolution capacity, legitimacy, and shared norms and values about the need for sustainable management.Leaders in successfully cooperating communities can usually articulate a broad, holistic vision regarding sustainability and galvanize the political will of the community to work consistently toward the vision \hyperref[b2]{(Agrawal, 2002;}\hyperref[b22]{Jentoft, 2000;}\hyperref[b44]{Pinkerton, 2009;}\hyperref[b47]{Pinkerton and John, 2008;}\hyperref[b74]{Welch et al. 2011a)}.\par If these permitting resource and community conditions are sufficiently met, cooperative powersharing institutional arrangements can often be built.In examining what conditions support the resulting cooperation between parties, scholars have emphasized distinct and important roles played byde jureand de factorights asserted by the community on at least two levels: \hyperref[b0]{(1)} The community must have strong access rights, as well as sufficient local livelihoods tied to these rights such that it is not tempted to develop livelihoods that would pollute or degrade local the resources. \hyperref[b1]{(2)} The community has, or is willing to assert, higher-level management rights, such that it can cooperate with government in making decisions not only about collecting data on resource status, interpreting the data, formulating a local harvesting plan based on the data, monitoring and enforcing the plan, monitoring and enforcing habitat protection, but also decisions about allocating rights to particular users within the community, and making higher level policy about what vision guides the lower-level decisions (Above needs literature citations).\par In addition to management studies of resourcedependent communities, the literature from the sociology of bureaucracies and the behaviour of organizations is helpful in identifying the characteristics of government agencies which make for effective and cooperative behavior \hyperref[b8]{(Bolman and Deal, 1997;}\hyperref[b11]{Clarke and McCool, 1996;}\hyperref[b27]{Lane and Stephenson, 2000;}\hyperref[b43]{Pinkerton, 2007;}\hyperref[b57]{Scott, 1998;}\hyperref[b59]{Senge, 1990;}\hyperref[b79]{Wilson, 1989)}. The capacity of these agencies to act cooperatively is highly variable. Because many graduate students in resource management end up working in government agencies and other bureaucracies, research on effective task groups (of 5-7 people) provides an important theoretical and practical locus for understanding cooperation and for first hand experiences via in-class exercises and the group work discussed below. In sum, we now have hundreds of case studies of successful and less successful cooperation in resource management, and such cooperation has been shown to produce resource Management outcomes superior to those resulting from competitive, market-driven and top-down institutional arrangements. Taken together, these casessuggest hypotheses about what conditions favour the emergence of cooperative, shared resource management decision-making and governance. \section[{IV. Translating what we Know about Cooperation into Pedagogy}]{IV. Translating what we Know about Cooperation into Pedagogy}\par Given their emphases on regional and global scale governance, it is not surprising that neither UNEP nor Acheson explicitly address academic training for resource managers. Nonetheless, the need for adaptive learning (and managing) is pervasive. Acheson writes, 'To manage resources effectively, we will have to be quite imaginative. We will need to combine various elements of privatization, government control, local control, and managerial techniques. In ways we have not imagined could be done' {\ref (Acheson, 2006:129)}. Similarly, UNEP (2012b:16) emphasizes that, because 'there is no universal solution to environmental degradation, a range of tailored responses is required to reflect the diversity of regional needs. In areas of common global concern, however, coordination, participation and cooperation are critical for jointly meeting internationally agreed goals and targets, while also addressing the capacity deficits.' The UNEP (2012b:16) report provides a more specific recommendation on the need to 'align environmental policy and programmes with sustainable development goals by strengthening education for and raising awareness of sustainability issues.' From Acheson's and UNEP's dire conclusions and the literature reviewed above, we derivefour general recommendations regarding university training in resource management. Higher education should train professionals who are able to (1) engage, learn from, and collaborate with resource users on multiple social and spatial scales; (2) work with resource-dependent communities and governments to craft institutions harmonized to match specific resource-user-situation configurations and meet dynamic management needs;\par (3) assess the values and costs of their interventions (and non-interventions) in local and regional resource and environmental management and boost local and regional capacities accordingly; and (4) identify and encourage factors affecting successes defined by scale-appropriate groups of resource stakeholders. We think this list provides a broad curricular template for graduate studies in resource management for the twenty first century, and possibly longer.\par But more is needed to integrate and drive such training and to encourage its applications. To this fourpart template we suggest a fifth element not addressed by Acheson or UNEP: (5) harness personal, valuesbased commitments to the protection of environmental integrity. We recognize that resource management is, in the purest sense, a value-neutral suite of related professions, not a preference or system of values. We understand the field of resource management includes managing resource destruction, extraction and mitigation, as well as protection and conservation (Lertzman, 2009). We agree that universities exist to create and mobilize knowledge and skill, not to indoctrinate or promote specific schemes or broad social movements. On the other hand, we agree with most scientists on the need to 'combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future' (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2013). Our approach is further grounded in the truth that university programs dedicated to environmental training attract students with pre-established personal interests in resource health and sustainability \hyperref[b4]{(Arnocky and Stroink, 2011)}.\par In other words, students in environmental management degree programs, especially at graduate levels, have already made a decision to intervene on behalf of the sustainability and resilience of linked social and ecological systems-to manage and thus to lead at macro and micro levels. Given that the success of management intervention depends in part on the attitude or internal state of the intervener {\ref (Goodenough, 1963:377;}\hyperref[b53]{Scharmer, 2007)}, our teaching recognizes and advances the truth that leadership success in resource management is determined in part by personal commitments, collective visions, and abilities to mobilize toward those visions \hyperref[b42]{(Pinkerton, 1998;}\hyperref[b74]{Welch et al., 2011a)}. More fundamentally, the powers of personal conviction, undeniable though often unmeasurable, provide a rationale for faculty initiatives to empower students' knowledge and application of this fifth element in their thinking, doing, and learning. The next section examines the academic context in which we are implementing these five recommendations.\par V. \section[{Sfu and rem}]{Sfu and rem}\par Simon Fraser University (SFU) is a public university with about 1,000 faculty offering more than 100 undergraduate, graduate and non-degree programs to approximately 32,000 students on campuses in Vancouver, Burnaby and Surrey, Canada. Founded by the province of British Columbia (BC) in 1965 to accommodate growing regional populations and interests in higher education, SFU soon emerged as a hub for progressive research, training and outreach \hyperref[b24]{(Johnston, 2005)}. In a recent consolidation of this reputation, SFU has adopted a motto of 'engaging the world' and a vision of becoming 'B.C.'s public square for enlightenment and dialogue on key public issues ? the institution to which the community looks for education, discussion and solutions,' including environmental concerns \hyperref[b39]{(Petter and Taylor, 2012)} The MRM program is cohort-based and features two years of requirements. First-year students are introduced to the program, to critical issues in resource management, and to one another and REM group work through an intensive, week-long field trip through southern British Columbia. Classes commence the following week, and most first-year students take at least two of the six required 'core' courses as well as at least one of their six electives in their first term. Students are typically resident for two fall terms and two spring terms of coursework-a total of four trimesters. Most students dedicate summer terms to fieldwork, internships relating to their capstone research projects, or other professional activities connected to career plans. \section[{VI. Appreciative Instruction in Resource}]{VI. Appreciative Instruction in Resource}\par Management: Course Goals and Processes Social Science of Natural Resources Management, listed as REM 601 in the SFU course calendar, is required for all MRM candidates. Subtitled 'Theories of Cooperation,' REM 601 is taught each fall as a 13-week course (four hours of class meetings per week). The course is designed and implemented to build MRM students' conceptual vocabularies and practical skills for understanding the social dimensions of resource management and the individual and group factors that often determine management success. The official description of the course states that the course is, 'An introduction to the relevance of social science perspectives, data and analytical tools in resource management, especially as these complement, supplement or critique perspectives from natural science or economics.' Because of its pivotal roles in extending the esprit du corps fostered during the end-of-summer field trip for the incoming student cohort and in counterbalancing biophysical and economic approaches to resource management that emerge as central in most student's research projects, REM 601 is the only required course for which MRM students are not generally granted waivers based on prior course work. In other words, in terms of both our MRM program and individual student preparation, our faculty sees REM 601 as a unique and essential course for our MRM and MRM (Planning) students.\par We have each taught the course at least seven times since 1996. In the later 1990s, Pinkerton redirected REM 601's focus from a history of thinking on environmental issues to insights gained through research on fisheries and forest co-management in Western Canada (especially see \hyperref[b42]{Pinkerton, 1998}\hyperref[b43]{Pinkerton, , 2007}\hyperref[b44]{Pinkerton, , 2009;;} {\ref 2011b}). Although most forms of both conflict and collaboration entail cooperation and can foster solidarity, conflict is defined by differences-of opinions, preferences, values, etc.-while cooperation is defined by common ground. Behind every conflict is a contest over whether and how much to change. Conflict carries and often incubates seeds for fractionating social and political capital. In this sense, conflict sets high or neutral discount rates on amorphous and uncertain futures. In contrast, cooperation founded in shared interests and pursued through good faith, even if focused on small goals, tends to expand commonalities, reward virtuous behavior, multiply social learning and social capital, and assign low discount rates to mutually desired futures \hyperref[b67]{(Wals, 2007)}. The main point, however naïve it may seem, is that the proactive pursuit of consensus goals using constructive, context-sensitive inquiries and applications are more likely to be satisfying and successful than reactive and divisive quests. It is easier to build coalitions in campaigns 'for' than 'against.' Even in computer simulations of decision making in contentious arenas, 'yes' is more potent than 'no' \hyperref[b5]{(Axelrod, 1984)}.\par Contrary to prevailing beliefs in Western culture that selfishness and aggression are innate and harsh conflict inevitable, there is evidence that altruism is at least as instinctual as egotism \hyperref[b26]{(Keltner 2009)} and that human 'nature' and human values, behavior, culture and institutions are highly malleable \hyperref[b19]{(Flores et al., 2012)}. There are viable alternatives to violence and many options for conflict resolution \hyperref[b9]{(Burton 1998}).Conflict types, levels and meanings vary by cultural and social setting, with some societies expressing few inclinations toward domination or violence. It is no coincidence that many less authoritarian institutional forms are landlinked and that many social groups defined by cohabitation with human and non-human neighbors have been extinguished or 'radicalized' through colonial encounters \hyperref[b58]{(Scott 1990}\hyperref[b57]{(Scott , 1998}\hyperref[b56]{(Scott , 2012))} {\ref 2011a, b}). Pinkerton`s work centers on how cooperation offers a low-cost, egalitarian, and benefit-sharing way of solving common pool resource management problems, in contrast to the high-cost, privatized, individual rationality with few beneficiaries offered by neoliberallism \hyperref[b46]{(Pinkerton and Edwards, 2009;}\hyperref[b45]{Pinkerton, 2013)}. (Last two sentences, or even entire Para., would probably not be missed)\par The realities that personality, culture, land, technology, and social context shape how people perceive, evaluate and choose how to deal with conflict occupies center stage when people come together from different ethnic, religious, racial, economic, disciplinary or organizational backgrounds. All or most suprahousehold cooperation involving resource and environmental management involves more than one set of values, norms, and preferences. Studying how and under what conditions people cooperate in diverse interpersonal, cultural and institutional settings helps to relieve students of ego-and ethno-centric convictions, expand their repertoires of alternative responses to conflict, and guide them through collective learning and, perhaps, toward appreciation for cooperation. \section[{b) Modelling cooperation through course process}]{b) Modelling cooperation through course process}\par The primary complement to the REM 601 keystone principle that cooperation is the single most indispensable ingredient in successful resource management is the oft-repeated dictum (attributed to Einstein) that 'Example isn't another way to teach, it is the only way to teach.' We embed this pedagogic precept in both course processes and assignments. As is true for many social science courses, students are called upon to learn a suite of subject matter concepts central to each of the three main REM 601 course modules (Table \hyperref[tab_4]{2}). We employ many of the course concepts in this paper to illustrate both the transdisciplinary importance of the concepts and the merits of teaching by example.\par In lieu of examinations or standard research papers, we ask students to demonstrate mastery of course concepts through creative written explorations of situations in which suites of concepts are embedded and unleashed. Student papers use diverse literary forms (e.g., creative fiction and non-fiction, poetry, screenplays, etc.) and narrative contexts (e.g., travelogues, monologues, dialogues, parodies of popular songs, meeting transcripts, etc.) to bring the concepts to life in compelling situations. Many successful papers build upon specific characteristics of a common pool resource (e.g., a particular fishery, game species, forest, variety of native plant) and explore challenges stemming from the (over)use, degradation, and industrial management of these resources in distinctive contexts. Papers are graded on the basis of both breadth in the number of concepts engaged and depth in concept interplay and integration, as reflected in the details of the narrative scenarios. Some successful papers have used doggerel and parodies of popular song lyrics to describe actual solutions to realworld resource management problems. Others have devised emphatically fictional worlds in which unique forms of resource conflicts give rise to novel forms of cooperation and management.\par Volume XIV Issue V Version I 34 ( G ) In much the same way that the three paper assignments oblige students to find or fabricate examples of course concepts, the persistent work groups engage students in the real-time, real-people collaborations (and conflicts) in pursuit of course objectives (Table \hyperref[tab_5]{3}). As our colleague David Schaepe quipped, 'Resource management is social science; we do it in groups.' Course assignments oblige students to work together to manage course processes and products as well as interpersonal dynamics. The longstanding design principles for these cooperative learning groups closely resemble the 'keys to successful group processes' identified on the basis of recent empirical studies designed to optimize the effectiveness of cooperative learning (Shimazoe and Aldrich, 2010:53). The REM 601 principles include unimpeded access to information, transparent rule systems, practical training in process skills, compositional balance within and among peer groups, use of peer feedback, and instructor responsiveness to individual and group needs and interests.\par Implementation of these principles begins on the first day of class and continues through the term. We divide student participants into four-five work groups, each with five-seven students. If random assignment of students to work groups fails to balance representation of genders and Keirsey Temperament Sorter \hyperref[b25]{(Keirsey, 1998)} characteristics less common among REM students-i.e., preferences for introversion (over extroversion), sensing (over conceptualizing), and feeling (over thinking) in information processing-then group membership is rearranged. MRM cohorts are generally dominated by three of the four clusters of Keirsey types: Guardians, Idealists, and Rationals (only a few Artisans through the years). Thus balanced, the groups are promptly assigned five sets of tasks designed to be more effectively completed in cooperation with other group members (Table \hyperref[tab_5]{3}). When coupled with peer feedback, intensive group work obliges members to determine how small groups can deploy member knowledge and temperaments to their collective advantage. Each group is self-regulating and each is encouraged, through various course structures and exercises, to develop and deploy capacities for collective learning and acting in pursuit of shared goals. As is true for all interpersonal process, good communication is essential. To this end, the second week of the course features a 'blind construction game' in which two students are given identical sets of wooden building blocks and asked to take turns playing roles of dictator-engineer and listenerbuilder. Screened from one another, with the listenerbuilder unable to ask questions or take visual clues, the first round of the game tends to instruct participants and observers in the importance of precise and empathetic communication. With the roles reversed, the second round tends to feature lessons in how team members quickly learn from situations and one another to perform at higher levels. This experience creates capacities to recognize that the prisoner's dilemma and tragedy of the commons (in which actors cannot or do not communicate with each other and therefore act only in their individual self-interest)-although all too common in resource management situations and literature-can be overcome by appropriate communication.\par The following week includes an exercise intended to help students identify deeply personal values and preferences, some of which correlate strongly with Keirsey Temperaments. Inspired by Mary Douglas' (1986) book HowInstitutions Think, the cannibal-cave dilemma workshop empanels 601 students as an appeals court jury to decide the fate of a group of spelunkers Who, cut off from the outside world, decided by throwing dice which one would surrender his flesh so the others would live. In addition to the profound existential questions relating to individual and collective welfare, the jury deliberations tend to differentiate students from one another depending on whether their judgment of the surviving cannibals centers on (a) formal law; (b) contract they forged prior Volume XIV Issue V Version I \section[{( G )}]{( G )}\par to throwing dice, or (c) collective welfare, including those above the ground. The workshop highlights the roles of these respective valuejudgments as origins and drivers in forming and reforming State, Market, and Communal institutional formations. The exercise obliges students to situate themselves as sources of and actors in the inherently social process of making and enforcing rules, including environmental regulations on various scales.\par We discuss two more course exercises to illustrate our commitments to building collective capacities for cooperative learning and acting, explicitly including substantive and consequential feedback. In weeks four or five, we ask the groups to devise, within basic parameters of active listening principles (i.e., physical orientation to hearing, paraphrasing, reflecting, clarifying, encouraging), processes and topics for an experiment in deepening their knowledge of group members and how to listen to one another. We encourage group members to take turns sharing, listening, observing the qualities of attention paid, and in the first of many feedback exercises, offering constructive suggestions on what would enhance and expand communications for both speakers and listeners. By week six we expect that the exercises, the group responses to questions on the readings, or some combination will have fostered interests and capacities for group management. At this point, as the middle of the term nears, we ask the groups to describe formal and informal rules that are emerging for conducting group discussions, assuring all group member views are heard and considered, reaching decisions, and providing feedback to optimize group participation and effectiveness. This assignment is delivered via an invitation to create a name, flag, credo, and system of rules-constitutional, collective choice, and operational-for a new 'nation' made up of the group members. We further suggest that the rules be tailored to support group members in managing ministerial portfolios to assure excellence in national selfsufficiency, self-governance, and reciprocal external relations. The results typically feature a combination of creative, comic, and customized arrangements that reveal developing insight into the complexities of selfdirected team-building. As the groups accumulate direct experience with many course concepts, they emerge as microcosms for many common situations in actual resource and environmental management processes and organizations.\par In-class workshops and group exercises notwithstanding, the demands and benefits of the group work are often elusive to students prior to their engagement with the Group Report. The intense collaboration required to plan and implement a research-based, teaching-focused analysis of an important topic in real-world resource and environmental management can be both exhilarating and vexing.\par Latent conflicts-even minor differences in preferences concerning the timing, location, and formality of meetings and task assignments-often bubble to the surface in the creative crucible of report preparation. These conflicts, many of which seem trivial yet have implications for group effectiveness are ideal proving grounds for group engagement with peer feedback.\par The Group Process Reports, presented at least one full week after the completion of the Group Reports, provide members with an incentive to reflect in some detail on how their group formed, functioned, identified and addressed conflict, and performed under pressures defined by end-of-term workloads and audience anticipation. The purpose of the Group Process Reports is not to evaluate the 'hand' that each group was dealt in the REM 601 game, but how the hand was played-how the group applied course concepts and deployed its diverse members and other 'resources' to maximum advantage. The class at large and the instructors evaluate Group Process Reports based on the quality and candidness of the group's self-analyses. The provision in REM 601 for each member of each group to anonymously offer constructive written feedback as well as quantitative assessments of their peers helps to ensure students' careful attention to course process in general and group work in particular.\par The cohort structure of the MRM program makes it inevitable that students will be future classmates, and often members of the same small work or task groups. This means REM students tend to assign low discount rates to future peer interactions and to take seriously their obligations to one another. We have found that REM 601 in general, and the 601 work groups in particular, provide exceptional contexts for bonding at group and cohort levels. Most students enter 601 with knowledge of one another based only on REM 698, the week-long, field-based introduction to resource and environmental management delivered immediately before the start of the fall teaching term. Upon exiting 601, most students commence closer associations with their respective, faculty-led research groups and their thesis-like research projects. The personal relationships fostered and professional capacities cultivated in REM 601 cut across and, importantly, precede barriers that naturally take shape as students' MRM programs and post-REM careers unfold. Anecdotes abound regarding the power and persistence of the bonding experience that is one of 601's most important, yet difficult-tospecify learning outcomes. One 2011 small group comes together to share a meal at least once a year. A 2009 team persists as a Face book? group. As one former student said, '601 catalyzed our awareness of how lucky we were to be working together.' (Here and elsewhere, need to extract evidence from course feedback forms and other sources).\par VII. Discussion: Appreciative, Experiential, and Collaborative-Transformational Learning\par It would be useful to learn whether a similar emphasis on cooperation was effective in a non-cohort graduate program, but it has been useful in the REM MRM. Students routinely rate the course in the 'A' range and reports regularly reach us concerning the beneficial effects on student comprehension of resource and environmental management as an emphatically sociocultural process, albeit one that addresses issues and elements in the biophysical world.\par We have designed and delivered REM 601 to help dismantle outmoded divisions between teaching and research, teaching and learning, and classroom and experiential education \hyperref[b21]{(Hutchings et al., 2011)}. REM 601 is, in part, an experiment in on-campus emulation of experiential education and student-centered learning \hyperref[b52]{(Rogers et al., 2013;}\hyperref[b62]{Till et al., 2011)}. If experiential education is defined as the co-creation, with students, of opportunities to learn through exposure to, engagement with and reflection on activities designed to require applications of theories and concepts to practical matters, REM 601 qualifies. This definition allows for the inclusion of classroom-based learning as long as activities are systematically embedded in learning opportunities. More specifically, REM 601 qualifies as experiential because students are obliged to reflect on and integrate course content into their lived experiences. This integration occurs though role playing, group work, small group and plenary dialogues, the three creative papers, the Group Process Report, the peer and course feedback, and, after the term, in their varied careers. These processes situate individual students and student groups within course contexts and contents, thereby prompting student questions about relationships among these elements.\par REM 601 encourages students to develop analytic skills and other social science tools for application to diverse issues in resource management. REM 601 students know when and how to apply the course concepts, when to ask additional questions, and where to find additional tools. Our course provides participants with opportunities to engage ideas and practices for harmonizing diverse and divergent interests in resource and environmental management contexts. In REM 601, students learn to recognize key differences in market, state, and community institutional frameworks for resource management and to assess situations in which each framework may be useful and other circumstances in which hybrids may lead to reciprocally beneficial outcomes. They are able to see and describe how cultural factors influence behavior, including economic behavior, and the limits of rational choice theory. They can apply elements of effective organizational leadership and model the characteristics of organizations capable of learning and changing what it does in response to what it has learned. Finally, REM 601 students are able to apply institutional design and decision-making principles that take social, cultural, economic, and political factors into account, and promote sustainable outcomes. They understand, on the basis of first-hand experience, how cooperation can develop, thrive and be harnessed in creative and satisfying initiatives that improve the conservation of common pool resources-including time-in the context of a 13-week course. \section[{VIII.}]{VIII.} \section[{Conclusions}]{Conclusions}\par Environmental problems, including the institutional failure of resource management, are not likely to be solved by the replication of disciplinary focus and independent individual learning and acting {\ref (Moslemi et al. 2009;}\hyperref[b66]{Wagner et al. 2012;} {\ref Zurayk et al. 2010)}.The escalating values of 'stakes' in environmental decision making are boosting potentials for both conflict and its generally more constructive flip side, cooperation. Contrary to prevailing beliefs in Western culture-i.e., that aggressively asserted self-interest is innate and conflict inevitable-there are viable alternatives to violence and many routes to altruism. Research into factors and theories of cooperation and into managing relations between human communities and ecosystems has blossomed in recent decades, yet few published works delve into the important topic of how these research advances may be conveyed to students and resource management practitioners. Graduate students in particular need and deserve exposure to resource management crucibles involving the disparate ingredients of multiple participants, the pressure of short time frames, and the heat of divergent interests. We seek to prepare participants to enter such crucibles equipped not only with scholarly, second-hand familiarity with the factors that enable cooperation in resource management, but with at least a modicum of conscious first-hand experience in the effective management of conflict to achieve collectively desired futures. 601 students have the opportunity to examine both specific contextualized cases to understand their workings, and also develop a general grasp of how to judge whether any particular situation offers favourable conditions for the development of cooperative management.As future managers, they acquire tools to know the difference between a good bet and a poor prospect.\par Finally, we think the privileges that accompany professorship-especially freedom of association, learning and expression-come with responsibilities to think and act beyond self-interest {\ref (Moore, 2005:326)} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-2.png} \caption{\label{fig_0}}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{1} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.85\textwidth}} .\end{longtable} \par {\small\itshape [Note: anthropology]} \caption{\label{tab_1}Table 1 :}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.7838053097345132\textwidth}P{0.01504424778761062\textwidth}P{0.0030088495575221236\textwidth}P{0.03309734513274336\textwidth}P{0.004513274336283186\textwidth}P{0.010530973451327433\textwidth}} \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{.Welch's experience}\\ \multicolumn{6}{l}{provided a complementary basis for expanding the}\\ \multicolumn{6}{l}{course emphases to include cultural resource issues}\\ \multicolumn{6}{l}{and collaborations with indigenous communities (see}\\ \multicolumn{6}{l}{Welch, 2000, Welch et al., 2009). Continuous}\\ \multicolumn{6}{l}{coordinated teaching of REM 601 has allowed us to}\\ \multicolumn{6}{l}{refine course process and learning objectives in}\\ \multicolumn{6}{l}{response to student feedback and our own and others'}\\ \multicolumn{6}{l}{evolving research and teaching experiences. A}\\ webpage\tabcellsep maintained\tabcellsep by\tabcellsep the\tabcellsep SFU\tabcellsep library\\ \multicolumn{6}{l}{listspublications, websites, and other materials relating}\\ \multicolumn{5}{l}{to REM 601 themes (Welch and Tripp, 2011).}\tabcellsep \\ \multicolumn{2}{l}{a) Cooperation vs. conflict}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_2}}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{2} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.26358173076923075\textwidth}P{0.26971153846153845\textwidth}P{0.3167067307692308\textwidth}} PAPER 1\tabcellsep PAPER 2\tabcellsep PAPER 3\\ Common pool resources (CPRs) are\tabcellsep TEK/ LK vs. science\tabcellsep Characteristics of effective\\ subtractable\tabcellsep \tabcellsep management leadership\\ CPRs are rivalrous and difficult to\tabcellsep Pattern thought\tabcellsep Communal vs. private tenure\\ exclude (ab)users\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ Tragedy of Commons\tabcellsep Individual vs. group welfare\tabcellsep Elements of human-land connectivity\\ Game theory\tabcellsep Realism vs. constructivism\tabcellsep Harmonized resource and\\ \tabcellsep \tabcellsep management scales\\ Prisoner's Dilemma\tabcellsep Process vs. outcomes\tabcellsep Cadastralization\\ Tit-for-tat strategy\tabcellsep Dialogue\tabcellsep Bureaucratic vs. ecosystem\\ \tabcellsep \tabcellsep rationalities\\ Repeat/continued interaction (fosters\tabcellsep How children learn\tabcellsep Science vs. 'non-science' emphasis in\\ cooperation)\tabcellsep \tabcellsep management culture\\ Egotists\tabcellsep Solidarity\tabcellsep Multi-disciplinary vs. interdisciplinary\\ Cultural factors influence economic\tabcellsep Ideologically driven rule making or\tabcellsep Organizational legitimacy\\ behaviour\tabcellsep enforcement\tabcellsep \\ Limits of rational choice theory\tabcellsep Middle-range theory vs. grand theory vs.\tabcellsep Top-down vs. bottom-up management\\ \tabcellsep case studies\tabcellsep \\ Institution vs. Organization\tabcellsep Property rights ? more property rights?\tabcellsep Countervailing and triadic power\\ \tabcellsep better CPR management\tabcellsep \\ Transaction costs\tabcellsep Tiered management rights\tabcellsep Captured agency\\ Social capital\tabcellsep Individual vs. group rights\tabcellsep Characteristics of effective\\ \tabcellsep \tabcellsep organizations\\ Human capital\tabcellsep Trust?social capital?civil society\tabcellsep Single-vs. double-loop learning\\ Physical capital\tabcellsep Nested enterprises\tabcellsep Structural, human resource, political,\\ \tabcellsep \tabcellsep and symbolic management frames\\ Values driving market vs. state vs.\tabcellsep Ideology influences economy\tabcellsep Behavioural biases of bureaucracies\\ community institutions\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ De jure vs. de facto rules\tabcellsep 80/20 Rule\tabcellsep Micro-level leadership\\ Free-riding\tabcellsep Neo-classical CPR management\tabcellsep Citizen science\\ Efficient vs. effective\tabcellsep Institutional CPR management\tabcellsep Community-based management\\ Discount rate\tabcellsep Cultural ecology CPR management\tabcellsep Adaptive management\\ Perverse incentive\tabcellsep Features of successful community\tabcellsep Servant leadership\\ \tabcellsep management\tabcellsep \\ Constitutional, operational, and\tabcellsep Features of sustainably managed,\tabcellsep Managing in. up, out, through\\ collective choice rules\tabcellsep community-based fisheries\tabcellsep \\ Path dependence\tabcellsep Accountability mechanisms\tabcellsep Reframing: structural, political, human\\ Scale-appropriate adaptive\tabcellsep \tabcellsep resources, symbolic\\ governance\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_4}Table 2 :}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{3} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.10649202733485194\textwidth}P{0.010455580865603643\textwidth}P{0.005421412300683371\textwidth}P{0.006583143507972664\textwidth}P{0.3632346241457859\textwidth}P{0.03059225512528474\textwidth}P{0.28733485193621866\textwidth}P{0.008906605922551252\textwidth}P{0.010068337129840546\textwidth}P{0.01471526195899772\textwidth}P{0.005034168564920273\textwidth}P{0.0011617312072892939\textwidth}} \multicolumn{3}{l}{Group Tasks}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Recommended Process Elements\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Intended Learning}\\ \multicolumn{2}{l}{Questions}\tabcellsep on\tabcellsep ?\tabcellsep Pre-class reading by all students\tabcellsep ?\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Reading focused on specific questions and}\\ \multicolumn{3}{l}{assigned readings}\tabcellsep ?\tabcellsep In-class group deliberating\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{group interests}\\ (18\tabcellsep sets\tabcellsep of\tabcellsep ?\tabcellsep In-class responding\tabcellsep ?\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Listening to group peers}\\ \multicolumn{2}{l}{questions)}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep ?\tabcellsep After-class posting of written response to course\tabcellsep ?\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Speaking to class peers}\\ \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Dropbox ?\tabcellsep ?\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Negotiating workloads}\\ \multicolumn{2}{l}{Cooperative}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep ?\tabcellsep Direct experience of selected course concepts\tabcellsep ?\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Knowing personal temperaments and}\\ \multicolumn{3}{l}{learning exercises}\tabcellsep ?\tabcellsep Visual-auditory-kinesthetic involvement in teaching\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{preferences for dealing with conflicts}\\ (4-6\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{training}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep and learning\tabcellsep ?\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Communicating across social boundaries}\\ \multicolumn{2}{l}{opportunities}\tabcellsep in\tabcellsep ?\tabcellsep Participation in and observation of group process\tabcellsep ?\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Listening actively}\\ \multicolumn{3}{l}{the initial two-}\tabcellsep ?\tabcellsep Discussion and feedback on exercise design and\tabcellsep ?\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Discovering}\tabcellsep and\tabcellsep harnessing\tabcellsep group\\ \multicolumn{3}{l}{thirds of course)}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep implementation\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{preferences, identity}\\ \multicolumn{3}{l}{Group Report (35}\tabcellsep ?\tabcellsep Identifying and analyzing operation of course\tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{Peer and instructor feedback criteria:}\\ minute\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep concepts in real world\tabcellsep ?\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Course concept presentation}\\ \multicolumn{2}{l}{presentation}\tabcellsep in\tabcellsep ?\tabcellsep Producing and delivering multi-media presentation\tabcellsep ?\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Concept linking, integrating, assimilating,}\\ \multicolumn{2}{l}{week 10)}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{extending}\\ \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep ?\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Deployment of member attributes}\\ \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep ?\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Presentation}\tabcellsep originality,\tabcellsep creativity,\\ \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{effectiveness}\\ \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep ?\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Audience engagement}\\ Group\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Process}\tabcellsep ?\tabcellsep Considering individual temperaments and conflict\tabcellsep ?\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Identify group challenges and opportunities}\\ \multicolumn{3}{l}{Report (20-minute}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep management styles\tabcellsep ?\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Portray dynamics affecting collective and}\\ \multicolumn{2}{l}{presentation}\tabcellsep in\tabcellsep ?\tabcellsep Reviewing passive and active management of\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{individual learning and team building}\\ \multicolumn{2}{l}{week 12)}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep group process\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep ?\tabcellsep Analyzing effects of key modes and episodes in\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep group process\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ Peer\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Feedback}\tabcellsep ?\tabcellsep Assessing role(s) played by each team member in\tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{Peer feedback criteria:}\\ \multicolumn{2}{l}{(ongoing,}\tabcellsep then\tabcellsep \tabcellsep relation to others\tabcellsep ?\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Logistics-}\tabcellsep attendance,\tabcellsep punctuality,\\ \multicolumn{3}{l}{formalized in week}\tabcellsep ?\tabcellsep Specifying links among role(s) played and group\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{participation}\\ \multicolumn{3}{l}{11 for inclusion in}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep effectiveness\tabcellsep ?\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Substance-preparedness, contributions to}\\ \multicolumn{2}{l}{course mark)}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep ?\tabcellsep Assuring justice and parity in provision of\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{course material synthesis, analysis, and}\\ \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep quantitative and qualitative feedback\tabcellsep \tabcellsep group\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{report}\tabcellsep form,\tabcellsep content,\tabcellsep and\\ \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep ?\tabcellsep Balancing compassionate thoughtfulness and\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{presentation}\\ \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep critical rigor\tabcellsep ?\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Process-enthusiasm, facilitation, feedback,}\\ \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{promotion of learning}\end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_5}Table 3 :}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.85\textwidth}} 38\\ G )\\ (\end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_6}}\end{figure} \footnote{Ain't Gonna Study War No More: Teaching and Learning Cooperation in a Graduate Course in Resource and Environmental Management} \footnote{© 2014 Global Journals Inc. (US)} \backmatter \begin{bibitemlist}{1} \bibitem[ American Indian Culture and Research Journal]{b73}\label{b73} \textit{}, \textit{American Indian Culture and Research Journal} 33 (4) p. . \bibitem[Moslemi et al. (April M)]{b34}\label{b34} \textit{}, Jennifer M Moslemi , A Krista , Mark S Capps , Jude Johnson , Peter B Maul , Mcintyre . April M. \bibitem[Pinkerton (ed.) ()]{b41}\label{b41} \textit{(ed.) Co-operative management of local fisheries: New directions in improved management and community development}, E W Pinkerton . E. Pinkerton, (ed.) 1989. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. 3 p. 33. (Attaining better fisheries management through co management: Prospects, problems, and propositions) \bibitem[Washington and Strong ()]{b68}\label{b68} ‘A model for teaching environmental justice in a planning curriculum’. R O Washington , D Strong . \textit{Journal of Planning Education and Research} 1997. 16 (4) p. . \bibitem[About us Union of Concerned Scientists (2013)]{b63}\label{b63} ‘About us’. \url{http://www.ucsusa.org/about/} Union of Concerned Scientists 2013. accessed October 28, 2013. \bibitem[Armitage and Berkes (ed.) ()]{b3}\label{b3} \textit{Adaptive co-management: Collaborative learning and multi-level governance}, D Armitage , F Berkes . Doubleday, N. (ed.) 2007. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press. \bibitem[Pinkerton ()]{b45}\label{b45} ‘Alternatives to ITQs in equityefficiency-effectiveness trade-offs: How the lay-up system spread effort in the BC halibut fishery’. E Pinkerton . \textit{Marine Policy} 2013. 42 p. . \bibitem[Reed (2006)]{b51}\label{b51} \textit{Appreciative inquiry: Research for change}, Reed . Jan (2006. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. \bibitem[Welch et al. ()]{b71}\label{b71} ‘Assessing Collaboration with the Sliammon First Nation in a Community-Based Heritage Research and Stewardship Program’. John R Welch , Dana Lepofsky , Michelle Washington . \textit{Archaeological Review from Cambridge} 2011b. 26 (2) p. . \bibitem[Keltner ()]{b26}\label{b26} \textit{Born to be Good}, Dacher Keltner . 2009. New York; Norton. \bibitem[Wilson ()]{b79}\label{b79} \textit{Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it}, James Q Wilson . 1989. New York: Basic Books. \bibitem[Mcgowan ()]{b32}\label{b32} ‘Challenges for environmental studies’. Alan H Mcgowan . \textit{Environment} 2004. 46 (2) p. . \bibitem[Wilson et al. ()]{b78}\label{b78} ‘Chaos, complexity, and community management of fisheries’. James Wilson , James Acheson , Mark Metcalfe , Peter Kleban . \textit{Marine Policy} 1994. 18 (4) p. . \bibitem[Clark et al. ()]{b12}\label{b12} ‘College and university environmental programs as a policy problem (Part 1): Integrating knowledge’. Susan G Clark , B Murray , Matthew R Rutherford , David N Auer , Richard L Cherney , David J Wallace , Douglas A Mattson , Lee Clark , Naomi Foote , Peter Krogman , Toddi Wilshusen , Steelman . \textit{Environmental Management} 2011a. 47 (5) p. . \bibitem[Clark et al. ()]{b13}\label{b13} ‘College and university environmental programs as a policy problem (Part 2): Strategies for improvement’. Susan G Clark , B Murray , Matthew R Rutherford , David N Auer , Richard L Cherney , David J Wallace , Douglas A Mattson , Lee Clark , Naomi Foote , Peter Krogman , Toddi Wilshusen , Steelman . \textit{Environmental Management} 2011b. 47 (5) p. . \bibitem[Agrawal ()]{b2}\label{b2} ‘Common resources and institutional sustainability’. A Agrawal . \textit{The drama of the commons}, Ine, T Ostrom, N Dietz, P C Dolsak, S Stern, \&e U Stonich, Weber (ed.) (Washington, DC) 2002. National Research Council. p. . \bibitem[Burton (1998)]{b9}\label{b9} ‘Conflict resolution: The human dimension’. John Burton . \url{http://www.gmu.edu/programs/icar/ijps/vol3\textunderscore 1/burton.htm} \textit{The International Journal of Peace Studies} 1998. October 26. 2013. 3 (1) . \bibitem[Goodenough ()]{b20}\label{b20} \textit{Cooperation in change}, Ward H Goodenough . 1963. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. \bibitem[Welch and Tripp (2011)]{b70}\label{b70} \textit{Cooperation in Land and Resource Management -Guide to Research Materials}, John R Welch , Lindsay Tripp . \url{http://www.lib.sfu.ca/help/subject-guides/rem/cooperation-in-rem} 2011. October 26. 2013. \bibitem[Pinkerton and John ()]{b47}\label{b47} ‘Creating local management legitimacy: Building a local system of clam management in a’. E Pinkerton , L John . \textit{Northwest Coast community. Marine Policy} 2008. 32 (4) p. . \bibitem[White ()]{b76}\label{b76} ‘Definitions and frameworks for environmental sustainability in higher education’. T S A White . \textit{Higher Education Policy} 2002. 15 p. . \bibitem[Wagner et al. ()]{b66}\label{b66} ‘Developing an interdisciplinary, distributed graduate course for twenty-first century scientists’. Helene Wagner , Melanie Murphy , Rolf Holderegger , Lisette Waits . \textit{Bio Science} 2012. 62 (2) p. . \bibitem[Ness et al. ()]{b36}\label{b36} ‘Dialogue management factors: A 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics and Paralympic Games case’. J Ness , W Peter , Williams . \textit{Journal of Travel and Tourism Education} 2008. 8 (2\&3) p. . \bibitem[Welch et al. ()]{b72}\label{b72} \textit{Discretionary desecration: American Indian sacred sites, Dzil Nchaa Si an}, John R Welch , Ramon Riley , Michael V Nixon . 2009. Mount Graham, Arizona. (and federal agency decision making) \bibitem[Scott ()]{b58}\label{b58} \textit{Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts}, James C Scott . 1990. New Haven: Yale University Press. \bibitem[Till et al. (2011)]{b62}\label{b62} \textit{Engaging students in Real World problems}, Becky Till , Michelle Vandermoor , Jill Bruneau . \url{http://axiomnews.ca/blogs/2551} 2011. October 8, 2012. \bibitem[Winner and Champion ()]{b80}\label{b80} \textit{Environmental academic programs: Advancing}, William E Winner , Erin Champion . 2012. \bibitem[White et al. ()]{b75}\label{b75} ‘Environmental Education in Graduate Professional Degrees: The Case of Urban Planning’. Stacey White , James M Swearingen , Mayo . \textit{The Journal of Environmental Education} 2005. 36 (3) p. . \bibitem[Susskind (ed.) ()]{b60}\label{b60} \textit{Environmental planning: The changing demands of effective practice}, L Susskind . L. Rodwin and B. Sanyal (ed.) 2000. 1950-2000. New Brunswick, NJ. p. . Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University (The profession of city planning: Changes, images and challenges) \bibitem[Maniates and Whisse ()]{b29}\label{b29} ‘Environmental studies: The sky is not falling’. Michael F Maniates , John C Whisse . \textit{BioScience} 2000. 50 (6) p. . \bibitem[Cooperrider et al. ()]{b14}\label{b14} \textit{Essentials of appreciative inquiry}, David L Cooperrider , Diana Whitney , Jacqueline M Stavros . 2008. Brunswick, OH: Crown Custom Publishing. \bibitem[Pinkerton et al. ()]{b49}\label{b49} ‘Finding 'space' for comanagement of forests within the Neo-liberal paradigm: Rights, strategies, tools for asserting a local agenda’. Evelyn Pinkerton , Robyn Heaslip , Kira Furman , Jennifer Silver . \textit{Human Ecology} 2008. 36 (3) p. . \bibitem[Pinkerton and Weinstein ()]{b48}\label{b48} \textit{Fisheries that work. Sustainability through community-based management}, E Pinkerton , Martin Weinstein . 1995. Vancouver, BC: David Suzuki Foundation. \bibitem[Dyer and Mcgoodwin ()]{b16}\label{b16} \textit{Folk management in the world's fisheries: Lessons for modern fisheries management}, Christopher L Dyer , James R Mcgoodwin . 1994. Niwot: University Press of Colorado. \bibitem[Global Environment Outlook 5 United Nations Environment Programme (2012)]{b64}\label{b64} ‘Global Environment Outlook 5’. \url{http://www.unep.org/geo/geo5.asp} \textit{United Nations Environment Programme} 2012a. October 2012. Progress Press Ltd. p. 7. \bibitem[Global Environment Outlook 5; Summary for Policy Makers United Nations Environment Programme (2012)]{b65}\label{b65} ‘Global Environment Outlook 5; Summary for Policy Makers’. \url{http://www.unep.org/geo/pdfs/GEO5\textunderscore SPM\textunderscore English.pdf} \textit{United Nations Environment Programme} 2012b. October 2012. Progress Press Ltd. p. 7. \bibitem[Ostrom ()]{b38}\label{b38} \textit{Governing the Commons}, Elinor Ostrom . 1990. New York: Cambridge University Press. \bibitem[Douglas ()]{b15}\label{b15} \textit{How institutions think}, Mary Douglas . 1986. \bibitem[Lane and Stephenson ()]{b27}\label{b27} ‘Institutional arrangements for fisheries: Alternate structures and impediments to change’. Dan Lane , R Stephenson . \textit{Journal of Ethnobiology} G ) 29. Lertzman, K.P. (ed.) 2000. 2009. 24 (2) p. . (Marine Policy) \bibitem[Acheson ()]{b1}\label{b1} ‘Institutional failure in resource management’. James M Acheson . \textit{Annual Review of Anthropology} 2006. 35 p. . \bibitem[Pinkerton ()]{b42}\label{b42} ‘Integrated management of a temperate montane forest ecosystem through wholistic forestry: A British Columbia example’. Evelyn Pinkerton . \textit{Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience}, Fikret Berkes, Carl Folke (ed.) (New York) 1998. Cambridge University Press. p. . \bibitem[Pinkerton (ed.) ()]{b43}\label{b43} \textit{Integrating holism and segmentalism: Overcoming barriers to adaptive comanagement between management agencies and multi-sector bodies}, E Pinkerton . Armitage, D., Berkes, F., Doubleday, N. (ed.) 2007. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press. p. . (Adaptive co-management: Collaborative learning and multi-level Governance) \bibitem[Jentoft ()]{b22}\label{b22} ‘Legitimacy and disappointment in fisheries management’. Svein Jentoft . \textit{Marine Policy} 2000. 24 p. . \bibitem[Flores et al. ()]{b19}\label{b19} ‘Networks and collective action’. Ramón Flores , Maurice Koster , Ines Lindner , Elisenda Molina . \textit{Social Networks} 2012. 34 (4) p. . \bibitem[Rogers et al. ()]{b52}\label{b52} \textit{On becoming an effective teacher: Personcentered teaching, psychology, philosophy, and dialogues with Carl R}, Carl R Rogers , Harold C Lyon , Reinhard Tausch , Harold Rogers , Lyon . 2013. London: Routledge. \bibitem[Petter and Taylor (2012)]{b39}\label{b39} \textit{Opening a public square: SFU closes gap in 'disconnected}, Andrew Petter , Carole Taylor . \url{http://www.vancouversun.com/Opening+public+square+closes+disconnected/6796888/story.html\#ixzz2AcqiNqAw} 2012. June 17, 2012. October 28, 2012. (Vancouver Sun) \bibitem[Martin and Beatley ()]{b30}\label{b30} ‘Our relationship with the earth: Environmental ethics in planning education’. E Martin , T Beatley . \textit{Journal ofPlanning Education and Research} 1993. 12 (2) p. . \bibitem[Paying the price: The economic impacts of climate change for Canada National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (2011)]{b10}\label{b10} ‘Paying the price: The economic impacts of climate change for Canada’. \url{http://nrtee-trnee.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/paying-the-price.pdf} \textit{National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy}, 2011. October 14, 2012. Canada. National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy \bibitem[Keirsey ()]{b25}\label{b25} \textit{please understand me II: Temperament character intelligence}, David Keirsey . 1998. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis Book Company. \bibitem[Pinkerton (ed.) ()]{b44}\label{b44} \textit{Principles of Ecosystem Stewardship: Resilience-Based Natural Resource Management in a Changing World}, Evelyn Pinkerton . Chapin, F. S., III, G. P. Kofinas, and C. Folke (ed.) 2009. New York: Springer-Verlag. p. . (Coastal marine systems: Conserving fish and sustaining community livelihoods) \bibitem[Johnston ()]{b24}\label{b24} \textit{Radical Campus: Making Simon Fraser University}, Hugh Johnston . 2005. Vancouver: Douglas and McIntyre. \bibitem[Feit ()]{b18}\label{b18} ‘Re-cognizing co-management as co-governance: Visions and histories of conservation at James Bay’. Harvey Feit . \textit{Anthropologica} 2005. 47 (2) p. . \bibitem[Bolman and Deal ()]{b8}\label{b8} \textit{Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership}, L G Bolman , T E Deal . 1997. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. \bibitem[Swezey and Heizer ()]{b61}\label{b61} ‘Ritual Management of Salmonid Fish Resources in California’. Sean Swezey , Robert Heizer . \textit{Journal of California Anthropology} 1977. 4 (1) p. . \bibitem[Berkes ()]{b7}\label{b7} \textit{Sacred ecologies: Traditional ecological knowledge and resource management}, F Berkes . 1999. New York: Taylor and Francis. \bibitem[Scott ()]{b57}\label{b57} \textit{Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed}, James C Scott . 1998. New Haven: Yale University Press. \bibitem[Scharmer ()]{b54}\label{b54} ‘Seven acupuncture points for shifting capitalism to create a regenerative ecosystem economy’. Otto C Scharmer . \textit{Oxford Leadership Journal} 2010. 1 (3) p. . \bibitem[Moore ()]{b33}\label{b33} ‘Seven recommendations for creating sustainability education at the university level: A guide for change agents’. Janet Moore . \textit{International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education} 2005. 6 (4) p. . \bibitem[Netting ()]{b37}\label{b37} \textit{Smallholders, Householders; Farm Families and the Ecology of Intensive, Sustainable Agriculture}, Robert Mcc Netting . 1993. Stanford: Stanford University Press. \bibitem[Wals ()]{b67}\label{b67} \textit{Social learning towards a sustainable world}, Argen E J Wals . 2007. The Netherlands: Wageringen Academic Publishers. \bibitem[Clarke and Mccool ()]{b11}\label{b11} \textit{Staking out the terrain: Power differentials among natural resource management agencies}, J N Clarke , D Mccool . 1996. Albany: SUNY Press. \bibitem[Plummer ()]{b40}\label{b40} ‘The adaptive comanagement process: An initial synthesis of representative models and influential variables’. Ryan Plummer . \textit{Ecology and Society} 2009. 14 (2) p. 24. \bibitem[Pinkerton and Edwards ()]{b46}\label{b46} ‘The elephant in the room: The hidden costs of leasing individual transferable fishing quotas’. E Pinkerton , D Edwards . \textit{Marine Policy} 2009. 33 p. . \bibitem[Axelrod ()]{b5}\label{b5} \textit{The Evolution of Cooperation}, Robert Axelrod . 1984. New York: Basic Books. \bibitem[Wilson and Raakjaer (ed.) ()]{b77}\label{b77} \textit{The fisheries comanagement experience: Accomplishments, challenges and prospects}, Douglas C Wilson , Jesper Raakjaer . Nielsen and Poul Degnbol, (ed.) 2003. Dordrecht: Kluwer. \bibitem[Senge ()]{b59}\label{b59} ‘The leader's new work: Building learning organizations’. Peter Senge . \textit{Sloan Management Review} 1990. 32 (1) p. . \bibitem[Acheson ()]{b0}\label{b0} ‘The lobster fiefs: economic and ecological effects of territoriality in the Maine lobster fishery’. James M Acheson . \textit{Human} 1975. 3 (3) p. . \bibitem[Schlager and Ostrom (ed.) ()]{b55}\label{b55} \textit{The political economy of customs and culture: informal solutions to the commons problem}, E Schlager , E Ostrom . Anderson, TL and Simmons, RT, (ed.) 1993. Savage, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. (Property-rights regimes and coastal fisheries: an empirical analysis) \bibitem[McCay, Bonnie and Acheson, James, (ed.) ()]{b31}\label{b31} \textit{The Question of the Commons: The Culture and Ecology of Communal Resources Tucson}, McCay, Bonnie and Acheson, James, (ed.) 1987. University of Arizona Press. \bibitem[Berkes ()]{b6}\label{b6} ‘The role of self-regulation in living resources management in the North’. F Berkes . \textit{Renewable Resources and the Economy of the North}, M M R Freeman (ed.) (Ottawa) 1981. p. . (ACUNS/MAB) \bibitem[Hutchings et al. ()]{b21}\label{b21} \textit{The scholarship of teaching and learning reconsidered: Institutional integration and impact}, Pat Hutchings , Mary Taylor Huber , Anthony Ciccone . 2011. New York: Jossey-Bass. \bibitem[Feeney et al. ()]{b17}\label{b17} ‘The tragedy of the commons: Twenty-two years later’. D Feeney , F Berkes , B Mccay , J Acheson . \textit{Human Ecology} 1990. 18 (1) p. . \bibitem[Welch ()]{b69}\label{b69} ‘The White Mountain Apache Tribe Heritage Program: Origins, Operations, and Challenges’. John R Welch . \textit{Working Together: Native Americans and Archaeologists}, Kurt E Dongoske, Mark Aldenderfer, Karen Doehner (ed.) (Washington, DC) 2000. p. . \bibitem[Scharmer ()]{b53}\label{b53} \textit{Theory U: Leading from the future as it emerges}, Otto C Scharmer . 2007. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. \bibitem[Melvin et al. ()]{b35}\label{b35} ‘Training tomorrow's environmental problem solvers: An integrative approach to graduate education’. Timothy M Melvin , Dena M Vadas , James M Vallano , Marissa Watkins , Weiss . \textit{Bio Science} 2009. 59 (6) p. . \bibitem[Welch et al. ()]{b74}\label{b74} ‘Treasure Bearers: Personal foundations for effective leadership in Northern Coast Salish heritage stewardship’. John R Welch , Dana Lepofsky , Megan Caldwell , Georgia Combes , Craig Rust . \textit{Heritage and Society} 2011a. 4 (1) p. . \bibitem[Scott ()]{b56}\label{b56} \textit{Two cheers for Anarchism: Six easy pieces on autonomy, dignity, and meaningful work and play}, James C Scott . 2012. Princeton: Princeton University Press. \bibitem[Arnocky and Stroink ()]{b4}\label{b4} ‘Variation in environmentalism among university students: Majoring in outdoor recreation, parks, and tourism predicts environmental concerns and behaviors’. Steven Arnocky , Mirella L Stroink . \textit{The Journal of Environmental Education} 2011. 42 (3) p. . \bibitem[Lewin ()]{b28}\label{b28} ‘When facing danger’. Kurt Z Lewin . \textit{Resolving Social Conflict}, G W Lewin (ed.) (London) 1939. Harper and Row. \bibitem[Johannes ()]{b23}\label{b23} \textit{Word of the lagoon: Fishing and marine lore in the Palau District of Micronesia}, R E Johannes . 1981. Berkley, CA: University of California Press. \bibitem[Poteete et al. ()]{b50}\label{b50} \textit{Working together: Collective action, the commons, and multiple methods in practice}, Amy R Poteete , A Marco , Elinor Janssen , Ostrom . 2010. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. \end{bibitemlist} \end{document}