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

Abstract

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