Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Socially Strategic Ecological Restoration: A Game-Theoretic Analysis Shortened: Socially Strategic Restoration

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 27 May 2006

Abstract

Major transitions in a multiple-use or mosaic landscape often lead to frictions among new and existing users. In this article, we consider the problem of ecological restoration within a mosaic landscape in which restoration activities elicit feedbacks from individuals and groups that are harmed by restoration outcomes. Using game theory, we identify three potential outcomes ranked by the extent of restoration of ecosystem services and processes: nonstrategic, noncooperative strategic equilibrium, and cooperative bargaining solution. We identify conditions under which additional restoration can decrease the overall flow of ecosystem services and processes. A “strategic restorationist” will cease new restoration activities when the net effect of defensive response moves by farmers offsets gains. Imperfect information regarding expected payoffs to farmers can lead to inefficient overshooting or undershooting the optimal scale, geographical positioning, and form of restoration. Gains to all parties from cooperation might exist. As a case study and to aid model design, we consider restoration activities on California’s upper Sacramento River.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  • Bergmann S., J. Bliss. 2004. Foundations of cross-boundary cooperation: resource management at the public-private interface. Society and Natural Resources 17:377–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, K. 2002. Sacramento River conservation area is scaled back. Accessed 5/2003. <http://www.cfbf.com/agalert/2002/aa-030602b.htm>. Last updated 3/6/2002

  • Conover M. R. 1998. Perceptions of American agricultural producers about wildlife on their farms and ranches. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:597–604

    Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R., R. d’Arge, R. De Groot, S. Farberk, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R. V. O’Neill, J. Paruelo, R. G. Raskin, P. Sutton, M. Van den Belt. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford V., J. Sobel. 1982. Strategic information transmission. Econometrica 50:1431–1451

    Google Scholar 

  • Dailey G. 1997. Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Covelo, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Family Water Alliance. 2002. <http://www.familywateralliance.com>. Updated 3/2002. Accessed 9/2002

  • Goodwin C. N., C. P. Hawkins, J. L. Kershner. 1997. Riparian restoration in the western United States: overview and perspective. Restoration Ecology 5:4–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harsanyi J. 1968. Part II: Bayesian equilibrium points. Management Science 14:320–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howarth R. B., S. Farber. 2002. Accounting for the value of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 41:421–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes F., W. Adams, E. Muller, C. Nilsson, K. Richards, N. Barsoum, H. Decamps, R. Foussadier, J. Girel, H. Guiolloy, A. Hayes, M. Johansson, L. Lams, G. Pautou, J. Peiry, M. Perrow, F. Vautier, M. Winfield. 2001. The importance of different scale processes for the restoration of floodplain woodlands. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 17:325–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyman J., S. Leibowitz. 2000. A general framework for prioritizing land units for ecological protection and restoration. Environmental Management 25:23–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janofsky, M. 2000. U.S. takes blame in Los Alamos fire, which still burns. New York Times; 5/19/2000

  • Kirk D. A., M. L. Evenden, P. Mineau. 1996. Past and current attempts to evaluate the role of birds as predators of insect pests in temperate agriculture. Current Ornithology 13:175–269

    Google Scholar 

  • Kremen C., N. M. Williams, R. W. Thorp. 2002. Crop pollination from native bees at risk from agricultural intensification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99:16812–16816

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lauter, D., and L. Sahagun. 1993. Clinton asks flood aid of $2.5 billion disaster. Los Angeles Times; 7/15/1993

  • Leach W., N. Pelkey. 2001. Making watershed partnerships work: a review of the empirical literature. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 127:378–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leach W., N. Pelkey, P. Sabatier. 2002. Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative policymaking: evaluation criteria applied to watershed management in California and Washington. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 21:645–670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mciver J., L. Starr. 2001. Restoration of degraded lands in the interior Columbia River basin: passive vs. active approaches. Forest Ecology and Management 153:15–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naiman, R., K. Fetherston, S. Mckay, and J. Chen. 2001. Riparian forests. Pages 289–323 in R. Naiman and R. Bilby (eds.), River ecology and management. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Nash J. 1950. The bargaining problem. Econometrica 18:155–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Nash J. 1951. Noncooperative games. Annals of Mathematics 54:286–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of aquatic ecosystems. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsson P., C. Folke, F. Berkes. 2004. Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in social-ecological systems. Environmental Management 34:75–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer M. A., E. S. Bernhardt, J. D. Allan, P. S. Lake, G. Alexander, S. Brooks, J. Carr, S. Clayton, C. N. Dahm, J. Follstad Shah, D. L. Galat, S. G. Loss, P. Goodwin, D. D. Hart, B. Hassett, R. Jenkinson, G. M. Kondolf, R. Lave, J. L. Meyer, T. K. O’Donnell, L. Pagano, E. Sudduth. 2005. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 42:208–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rickenbach M., A. Reed. 2002. Cross-boundary cooperation in a watershed context: the sentiments of private forest landowners. Environmental Management 30:584–594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sacramento River Advisory Council (SRAC). 1998. Sacramento River Conservation Area handbook. Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacramento River Conservation Area Forum (SRCAF). 2002. Meeting notes. <http://www.sacramentoriver.ca.gov>. Last updated 8/2002. Accessed 10/2002

  • Selten R. 1965. Spieltheoretische behandlung eines oligopolmodells mitnachfragetragheit. Zeitschrift für die Gesamte Dtaatrwissenschaft 121:301–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Society for Ecological Restoration. 2002. The SER primer on ecological restoration. < http://www.ser.org/reading.php?Pg=primer2>. Accessed 7/2003

  • The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2002. <http://www.sacrivermt.org> Updated 1/2002, Accessed 8/2002

  • Ward J., K. Tockner, U. Uehlinger, F. Malard. 2001. Understanding natural patterns and processes in river corridors as the basis for effective river restoration. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 17:311–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webler T., S. Tuler, R. Krueger. 2001. What is a good public participation process? Five perspectives from the public. Environmental Management 27:435–450

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, K. 2002. Advancing wildlife restoration and compatible farming along the Sacramento River—Final report. The Nature Conservancy (May 21 2002 draft), Chico, California

  • Woolley J., M. Mcginnis. 2000. The conflicting discourses of restoration. Society and Natural Resources 13:339–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Funding for this research was provided by the National Science Foundation under grants DEB-0083450 (Elizabeth Crone and Karen Holl, P.I.’s) and SES-0351836; the STEPS Institute for Innovation in Environmental Research, and the UCSC Department of Environmental Studies. The authors gratefully acknowledge extensive valuable comments by three anonymous reviewers, and comments on earlier drafts of this article provided by Karen Holl, Nirvikar Singh, Jason Scorse, and the UCSC Ecological Economics Lab.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California, 95064, USA

    Mark Buckley & Brent M. Haddad

Authors
  1. Mark Buckley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brent M. Haddad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Buckley.

Additional information

An erratum to this article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-005-7165-5.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Buckley, M., Haddad, B.M. Socially Strategic Ecological Restoration: A Game-Theoretic Analysis Shortened: Socially Strategic Restoration. Environmental Management 38, 48–61 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-005-0165-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-005-0165-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation