Managing Public Forests: Understanding the Role of Collaborative Planning

/ As federal land management agencies such as the USDA Forest Service increasingly choose to implement collaborative methods of public participation, research is needed to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the technique, to identify barriers to effective implementation of collaborative processes, and to provide recommendations for increasing its effectiveness. This paper reports on the findings of two studies focused on the experiences of Forest Service employees and their external partners as they work to implement collaborative planning processes in national forest management. The studies show both similarities and differences between agency employees and their partners in terms of how they evaluate their collaborative experiences. The studies reveal that both Forest Service employees and external partners are supportive of collaborative planning and expect it to continue in the future, both see the trust and relationships built during the process as being its greatest benefit, and both see the Forest Service's organizational culture as the biggest barrier to effective collaborative efforts. The groups differed in terms of evaluating each other's motivation for participating in the process and in whether the process was a good use of time and resources, with external partners seeing it as too drawn out and expensive. The paper concludes with a discussion of the policy implications and changes necessary to increase the effectiveness of collaborative efforts within the Forest Service and other federal land management agencies.KEY WORDS: Public land management; Collaborative planning; National forests; Public participation     

A Framework for Assessing Collaborative Capacity in Community-Based Public Forest Management

Community-based collaborative groups involved in public natural resource management are assuming greater roles in planning, project implementation, and monitoring. This entails the capacity of collaborative groups to develop and sustain new organizational structures, processes, and strategies, yet there is a lack of understanding what constitutes collaborative capacity. In this paper, we present a framework for assessing collaborative capacities associated with community-based public forest management in the US. The framework is inductively derived from case study research and observations of 30 federal forest-related collaborative efforts. Categories were cross-referenced with literature on collaboration across a variety of contexts. The framework focuses on six arenas of collaborative action: (1) organizing, (2) learning, (3) deciding, (4) acting, (5) evaluating, and (6) legitimizing. Within each arena are capacities expressed through three levels of social agency: individuals, the collaborative group itself, and participating or external organizations. The framework provides a language and set of organizing principles for understanding and assessing collaborative capacity in the context of community-based public forest management. The framework allows groups to assess what capacities they already have and what more is needed. It also provides a way for organizations supporting collaboratives to target investments in building and sustaining their collaborative capacities. The framework can be used by researchers as a set of independent variables against which to measure collaborative outcomes across a large population of collaborative efforts.     

Adaptation in Collaborative Governance Regimes

Adaptation and the adaptive capacity of human and environmental systems have been of central concern to natural and social science scholars, many of whom characterize and promote the need for collaborative cross-boundary systems that are seen as flexible and adaptive by definition. Researchers who study collaborative governance systems in the public administration, planning and policy literature have paid less attention to adaptive capacity specifically and institutional adaptation in general. This paper bridges the two literatures and finds four common dimensions of capacity, including structural arrangements, leadership, knowledge and learning, and resources. In this paper, we focus on institutional adaptation in the context of collaborative governance regimes and try to clarify and distinguish collaborative capacity from adaptive capacity and their contributions to adaptive action. We posit further that collaborative capacities generate associated adaptive capacities thereby enabling institutional adaptation within collaborative governance regimes. We develop these distinctions and linkages between collaborative and adaptive capacities with the help of an illustrative case study in watershed management within the National Estuary Program.     

Evaluating the Outcomes of Collaborative Modeling for Decision Support

Does collaborative modeling improve water resource management outcomes? How does collaborative modeling improve these outcomes? Does it always work? Under what conditions is collaborative modeling most appropriate? With support from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Institute for Water Resources (IWR), researchers developed an evaluation framework to help address these questions. The framework links the effects of collaborative modeling on decision‐making processes with improvements in the extent to which resource management decisions, practices, and policies balance societal needs. Both practitioners' and participants' experiences suggest that under the right circumstances, collaborative modeling can generate these beneficial outcomes. Researchers developed performance measures and a survey to systematically capture these experiences and evaluate the outcomes of collaborative modeling processes. The survey can provide immediate feedback during a project to determine whether collaborative modeling is having the desired effect and whether course correction is warranted. Over the longer term, the systematic evaluation of collaborative modeling processes will help demonstrate in what ways and under what circumstances collaborative modeling is effective, inform and improve best practices, and raise awareness among water resource planners regarding the use of collaborative modeling for resource management decisions.     

水资源多目标协同配置:全价值基础上的框架研究

从资源的视角而言,水资源具有的社会、经济、生态属性中,社会属性和生态属性所提供的生态功能和服务多是外部性和非市场的,其价值在纯粹的市场驱动下难以充分实现。从资源管理视角而言,水资源多目标协同配置的实质是水资源多重属性功能和服务的均衡。因此,将具有外部性的社会、生态功能和服务与具有经济价值的功能和服务同时纳入配置框架,是实现多目标协同配置实践的关键问题。本文在回顾水资源配置和水资源非市场价值评估的相关研究的基础上,围绕我国现行水资源配置存在的主要问题,通过水资源的全价值(市场价值和非市场价值)将其多属性功能和公众意愿纳入水资源多目标协同配置中,从水资源管理信息系统、全价值评估和配置管理的绩效评价三个方面构建了水资源配置的多目标协同框架,最后提出相关的保障政策建议。     

Benefits of Collaborative Learning for Environmental Management: Applying the Integrated Systems for Knowledge Management Approach to Support Animal Pest Control

Resource management issues continually change over time in response to coevolving social, economic, and ecological systems. Under these conditions adaptive management, or “learning by doing,” offers an opportunity for more proactive and collaborative approaches to resolving environmental problems. In turn, this will require the implementation of learning-based extension approaches alongside more traditional linear technology transfer approaches within the area of environmental extension. In this paper the Integrated Systems for Knowledge Management (ISKM) approach is presented to illustrate how such learning-based approaches can be used to help communities develop, apply, and refine technical information within a larger context of shared understanding. To outline how this works in practice, we use a case study involving pest management. Particular attention is paid to the issues that emerge as a result of multiple stakeholder involvement within environmental problem situations. Finally, the potential role of the Internet in supporting and disseminating the experience gained through ongoing adaptive management processes is examined.     

Incorporating Complex Adaptive Systems Theory into Strategic Planning: The Sierra Nevada Conservancy

Conservation organizations rely increasingly on integrated planning approaches that explicitly address social and economic goals while pursuing ecological conservation. Moreover, the spatial and temporal scale at which these organizations operate is growing. The Sierra Nevada Conservancy, established as a new state agency by California legislation in 2004 to pursue social, economic and ecological sustainability across a 25 million acre region, exemplifies this large-scale, integrated approach. Therefore, the new agency faces a complex set of policy objectives that must be pursued across a widely varying geography of social, economic and ecological conditions. Using the Conservancy's fire management program area as an example, the paper illustrates how application of an analytic framework from complex adaptive systems theory can guide the Conservancy to deploy its resources more effectively than broader-scale application of a single, agency-wide strategy relying on a more static model. Therefore, the complex adaptive systems framework offers promise in strategic planning. The paper illustrates how the model's four-stage cycle can be applied at the sub-regional and programmatic level to identify opportunities for agency intervention that address varying local conditions. This approach is likely to increase the effectiveness of programs for agencies facing similar complexities and challenges.     

污染源主数据统一协同管理设计

本文对江苏省生态环境监控的业务进行了分析,研究了协同管理各监控业务子系统及应用业务子系统中污染源信息的方法,统一集成了各业务子系统的污染源数据,重点描述了协同管理平台的架构设计、统一协同的设计流程。通过污染源统一协同平台的设计和建设,为江苏省环境保护决策提供了科学依据。     

Adaptive Comanagement for Building Resilience in Social–Ecological Systems

Ecosystems are complex adaptive systems that require flexible governance with the ability to respond to environmental feedback. We present, through examples from Sweden and Canada, the development of adaptive comanagement systems, showing how local groups self-organize, learn, and actively adapt to and shape change with social networks that connect institutions and organizations across levels and scales and that facilitate information flows. The development took place through a sequence of responses to environmental events that widened the scope of local management from a particular issue or resource to a broad set of issues related to ecosystem processes across scales and from individual actors, to group of actors to multiple-actor processes. The results suggest that the institutional and organizational landscapes should be approached as carefully as the ecological in order to clarify features that contribute to the resilience of social–ecological systems. These include the following: vision, leadership, and trust; enabling legislation that creates social space for ecosystem management; funds for responding to environmental change and for remedial action; capacity for monitoring and responding to environmental feedback; information flow through social networks; the combination of various sources of information and knowledge; and sense-making and arenas of collaborative learning for ecosystem management. We propose that the self-organizing process of adaptive comanagement development, facilitated by rules and incentives of higher levels, has the potential to expand desirable stability domains of a region and make social–ecological systems more robust to change.Published online     

Outcomes of Collaborative Water Policy Making: Applying Complexity Thinking to Evaluation

Collaborative policy making has become increasingly significant in environmental management, but it is often evaluated by whether or not agreement is reached and implemented. The most important outcomes of such policy dialogues are often invisible or undervalued when seen through the lens of a traditional, modernist paradigm of government and accountability. These dialogues represent a new paradigm of governance that can be best understood in the light of a complex adaptive system model of society. From this perspective collaborative policy making is a way of making a system more flexible, adaptive and intelligent. The authors document such outcomes in three cases of water policy making in California, including the San Francisco Estuary Project, the CALFED Bay-Delta Program and the Sacramento Area Water Forum. The outcomes include social and political capital, agreed-on information, the end of stalemates, high-quality agreements, learning and change, innovation and new practices involving networks and flexibility.     

Integrating Science into Management of Ecosystems in the Greater Blue Mountains

Effective management of large protected conservation areas is challenged by political, institutional and environmental complexity and inconsistency. Knowledge generation and its uptake into management are crucial to address these challenges. We reflect on practice at the interface between science and management of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area (GBMWHA), which covers approximately 1 million hectares west of Sydney, Australia. Multiple government agencies and other stakeholders are involved in its management, and decision-making is confounded by numerous plans of management and competing values and goals, reflecting the different objectives and responsibilities of stakeholders. To highlight the complexities of the decision-making process for this large area, we draw on the outcomes of a recent collaborative research project and focus on fire regimes and wild-dog control as examples of how existing knowledge is integrated into management. The collaborative research project achieved the objectives of collating and synthesizing biological data for the region; however, transfer of the project’s outcomes to management has proved problematic. Reasons attributed to this include lack of clearly defined management objectives to guide research directions and uptake, and scientific information not being made more understandable and accessible. A key role of a local bridging organisation (e.g., the Blue Mountains World Heritage Institute) in linking science and management is ensuring that research results with management significance can be effectively transmitted to agencies and that outcomes are explained for nonspecialists as well as more widely distributed. We conclude that improved links between science, policy, and management within an adaptive learning-by-doing framework for the GBMWHA would assist the usefulness and uptake of future research.     

A participatory decision making framework for artisanal fisheries collaborative governance: Insights from management committees in Chile

Fisheries management is increasingly transitioning towards collaborative governance. Collaborative systems depend on stakeholders’ capacity to design and implement legitimate and scientifically robust management plans within collective action arenas. Here we propose that collaborative governance outcomes, in fisheries management, will benefit from using structured participatory decision making frameworks that enhance deliberative thinking among stakeholders. We tested our approach in the artisanal fishery of Chile, an important producer of marine resources. Recently in 2013, Chile made important changes to fisheries policies by creating multi-sectorial management committees to manage de facto open access fishing areas. We applied a structured decision making framework to inform the restructuring of a management plan within a committee. As a result, we identified goals,objectives and indicators, including social, economic, biological and ecological dimensions; we explored tradeoffs, assessing the relative importance of the objectives; finally, we created scenarios and prioritized alternatives, reflecting on the interplay between self-regulation and government control. Members of the management committee were able to rationalize the different steps of the framework and identify ways forward which highlighted the importance of self-regulation in comparison to central authorities’ control. We concluded that structured decision making promotes spaces for rational analysis of alternatives costs and benefits. Promoting deliberative thinking in fisheries management can improve equity, legitimacy and sustainability of collaborative governance.     

Collaborative Modeling to Evaluate Water Management Scenarios in the Rio Grande Basin

This article describes the collaborative modeling process and the resulting water resources planning model developed to evaluate water management scenarios in the transboundary Rio Grande basin. The Rio Grande is a severely water stressed basin that faces numerous management challenges as it crosses numerous jurisdictional boundaries. A collaborative process was undertaken to identify and model water management scenarios to improve water supply for stakeholders, the environment, and international obligations of water delivery from Mexico to the United States. A transparent and open process of data collection, model building, and scenario development was completed by a project steering committee composed of university, nongovernmental, and governmental experts from both countries. The outcome of the process was a planning model described in this article, with data and operations that were agreed on by water planning officials in each country. Water management scenarios were created from stakeholder input and were modeled and evaluated for effectiveness with the planning model.     

Hydropower,adaptive management,and Biodiversity

Adaptive management is a policy framework within which an iterative process of decision making is followed based on the observed responses to and effectiveness of previous decisions. The use of adaptive management allows science-based research and monitoring of natural resource and ecological community responses, in conjunction with societal values and goals, to guide decisions concerning man's activities. The adaptive management process has been proposed for application to hydropower operations at Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River, a situation that requires complex balancing of natural resources requirements and competing human uses. This example is representative of the general increase in public interest in the operation of hydropower facilities and possible effects on downstream natural resources and of the growing conflicts between uses and users of river-based resources. This paper describes the adaptive management process, using the Glen Canyon Dam example, and discusses ways to make the process work effectively in managing downstream natural resources and biodiversity.     

Adaptive Management: From More Talk to Real Action

The challenges currently facing resource managers are large-scale and complex, and demand new approaches to balance development and conservation goals. One approach that shows considerable promise for addressing these challenges is adaptive management, which by now is broadly seen as a natural, intuitive, and potentially effective way to address decision-making in the face of uncertainties. Yet the concept of adaptive management continues to evolve, and its record of success remains limited. In this article, we present an operational framework for adaptive decision-making, and describe the challenges and opportunities in applying it to real-world problems. We discuss the key elements required for adaptive decision-making, and their integration into an iterative process that highlights and distinguishes technical and social learning. We illustrate the elements and processes of the framework with some successful on-the-ground examples of natural resource management. Finally, we address some of the difficulties in applying learning-based management, and finish with a discussion of future directions and strategic challenges.     

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT OF LARGE RIVERS WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE MISSOURI RIVER1

ABSTRACT: The technocratic approach for managing the Missouri River and other large rivers is not effective in resolving conflicts among competing uses of water and dealing with uncertainty about how river ecosystems respond to alternative management actions. Adaptive management offers an alternative way to address these and other issues. It has the potential to alleviate management gridlock and provide lasting solutions to management of the Missouri River and other large river ecosystems. In passive adaptive management, simulation models and expert judgment are combined to select a preferred management action. While passive adaptive management is relatively simple and inexpensive to use, it does not necessarily provide reliable information for making management decisions. Active adaptive management uses statistically designed experiments to test assumptions or hypotheses about ecosystem responses to management actions. It is best carried out by a collaborative working group. Active adaptive management has several advantages, but the inability to satisfy certain prerequisites for successful application makes it more difficult to implement in large river ecosystems. A second‐best approach is proposed here to select, implement, monitor, and evaluate a preferred management action and retain that action provided ecological conditions improve and socioeconomic indicators do not fall below established acceptability limits.     

Adaptive management of natural resources--framework and issues

Adaptive management, an approach for simultaneously managing and learning about natural resources, has been around for several decades. Interest in adaptive decision making has grown steadily over that time, and by now many in natural resources conservation claim that adaptive management is the approach they use in meeting their resource management responsibilities. Yet there remains considerable ambiguity about what adaptive management actually is, and how it is to be implemented by practitioners. The objective of this paper is to present a framework and conditions for adaptive decision making, and discuss some important challenges in its application. Adaptive management is described as a two-phase process of deliberative and iterative phases, which are implemented sequentially over the timeframe of an application. Key elements, processes, and issues in adaptive decision making are highlighted in terms of this framework. Special emphasis is given to the question of geographic scale, the difficulties presented by non-stationarity, and organizational challenges in implementing adaptive management.     

Sustaining Ecological Integrity with Respect to Climate Change: A Fuzzy Adaptive Management Approach

A fuzzy adaptive management framework is proposed for evaluating the vulnerability of an ecosystem to losing ecological integrity as a result of climate change in an historical period (ex post evaluation) and selecting the best compensatory management action for reducing potential adverse impacts of future climate change on ecological integrity in a future period (ex ante evaluation). The ex post evaluation uses fuzzy logic to test hypotheses about the extent of past ecosystem vulnerability to losing ecological integrity and the ex ante evaluation uses the fuzzy minimax regret criterion to determine the best compensatory management action for alleviating potential adverse impacts of climate change on ecosystem vulnerability to losing ecological integrity in a future period. The framework accounts for uncertainty regarding: (1) the relationship between ecosystem vulnerability to losing ecological integrity and ecosystem resilience; (2) the relationship between ecosystem resilience and the extent to which observed indicators of ecological integrity depart from their thresholds; (3) the extent of future climate change; and (4) the potential impacts of future climate change on ecological integrity and ecosystem resilience. The adaptive management element of the framework involves using the ex post and ex ante evaluations iteratively in consecutive time segments of the future time period to determine if and when it is beneficial to adjust compensatory management actions to climate change. A constructed example is used to demonstrate the framework.     

The application of an indicator based on taxonomic distinctness for UK marine biodiversity assessments

Mankind needs to use the resources and opportunities offered by the marine environment while protecting ecological processes and systems. This is the foundation for sustainable development, which can only be achieved by adopting an appropriate management approach. Whether internationally or at a regional scale, successful management of marine ecosystems needs to be based on a scientifically robust approach to monitoring environmental change. Within such a framework, the conservation of marine biological diversity is problematic, as many conventional measures of diversity are not appropriate for measuring the types of change that require management. New indicators are required and in this paper we summarise some of the current methodology being used to derive such indices, which may be used to evaluate the effectiveness of marine stewardship initiatives. Through a series of examples we demonstrate the application of the taxonomic distinctness indicator of biodiversity to marine environmental assessment and its development towards becoming an operational tool.