Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The Potential for Double-Loop Learning to Enable Landscape Conservation Efforts

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As conservation increases its emphasis on implementing change at landscape-level scales, multi-agency, cross-boundary, and multi-stakeholder networks become more important. These elements complicate traditional notions of learning. To investigate this further, we examined structures of learning in the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs), which include the entire US and its territories, as well as parts of Canada, Mexico, and Caribbean and Pacific island states. We used semi-structured interviews, transcribed and analyzed using NVivo, as well as a charrette-style workshop to understand the difference between the original stated goals of individual LCCs and the values and purposes expressed as the collaboration matured. We suggest double-loop learning as a theoretical framework appropriate to landscape-scale conservation, recognizing that concerns about accountability are among the valid points of view that must be considered in multi-stakeholder collaborations. Methods from the social sciences and public health sectors provide insights on how such learning might be actualized.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams VM, Moon K (2013) Security and equity of conservation covenants: contradictions of private protected area policies in Australia. Land Use Policy 30(1):114–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson MG, Ferree CE (2010) Conserving the stage: climate change and the geophysical underpinnings of species diversity. Plos One 5(7):e11554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyris C, Schon DA (1978) Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Aycrigg JL, Davidson A, Svancara LK, Gergely KJ, McKerrow A, Scott JM (2013) Representation of ecological systems within the protected areas network of the continental United States. Plos One 8(1):e54689

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bardach E (1998) Getting agencies to work together: the practice and theory of managerial craftsmanship. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergmann SA, Bliss JC (2004) Foundations of cross-boundary cooperation: resource management at the public-private interface. Soc Nat Resour 17(5):377–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs D, Abel N, Knight AT, Leitch A, Langston A, Ban NC (2011) The implementation crisis in conservation planning: could “mental models” help? Conserv Lett 4(3):169–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler WH, Goldstein BE (2010) The US fire learning network: springing a rigidity trap through multiscalar collaborative networks. Ecol Soc 15(3):21

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark SA, Howell P (2007) From Diamond International to Plum Creek: the era of large landscape conservation in the northern forest. Mar Policy Rev 16(2):56–65

    Google Scholar 

  • CMP (2009) Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation. Conservation Measures Partnership, Bethesda, Maryland

  • Cumming GS, Bodin O, Ernstson H, Elmqvist T (2010) Network analysis in conservation biogeography: challenges and opportunities. Divers Distrib 16(3):414–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dale VH, Efroymson RA, Kline KL, Langholtz MH, Leiby PN, Oladosu GA, Davis MR, Downing ME, Hilliard MR (2013a) Indicators for assessing socioeconomic sustainability of bioenergy systems: a short list of practical measures. Ecol Indic 26:87–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dale VH, Kline KL, Kaffka SR, Langeveld JWA (2013b) A landscape perspective on sustainability of agricultural systems. Landsc Ecol 28(6):1111–1123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dervitsiotis KN (2004) The design of performance measurement systems for management learning. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell 15(4):457–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DOE (2009) A handbook for planning and conducting charettes for high-performance projects. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

  • Ferraro PJ, Pattanayak SK (2006) Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biol 4(4):482–488

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fields KR, Ament R, Johns D, Davis J, Bowers K (2012) Policy foundations for a path forward in large landscape connectivity conservation. Ecol Restor 30:308–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin JF (1993) Preserving biodiversity—species, ecosystems, or landscapes. Ecol Appl 3(2):202–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Game ET, Kareiva P, Possingham HP (2013) Six common mistakes in conservation priority setting. Conserv Biol 27(3):480–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Morales VJ, Verdu-Jover AJ, Llorens FJ (2009) The influence of CEO perceptions on the level of organizational learning single-loop and double-loop learning. Int J Manpow 30(6):567–590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner TA, Von Hase A, Brownlie S, Ekstrom JMM, Pilgrim JD, Savy CE, Stephens RT, Treweek J, Ussher G, Ward G, Ten Kate K (2013) Biodiversity offsets and the challenge of achieving no net loss. Conserv Biol 27(6):1254–1264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero AM, McAllister RRJ, Corcoran J, Wilson KA (2013) Scale mismatches, conservation planning, and the value of social-network analyses. Conserv Biol 27(1):35–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilborn R (2013) Environmental cost of conservation victories. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110(23):9187

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kark S, Levin N, Grantham HS, Possingham HP (2009) Between-country collaboration and consideration of costs increase conservation planning efficiency in the Mediterranean Basin. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106(36):15368–15373

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Keen M, Mahanty S (2006) Learning in sustainable natural resource management: challenges and opportunities in the Pacific. Soc Nat Resour 19(6):497–513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight AT, Cowling RM, Difford M, Campbell BM (2010) Mapping human and social dimensions of conservation opportunity for the scheduling of conservation action on private land. Conserv Biol 24(5):1348–1358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee KN (1993) Compas and gyroscope: integrating science and politics for the environment. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Leslie HM, Goldman E, McLeod KL, Sievanen L, Balasubramanian H, Cudney-Bueno R, Feuerstein A, Knowlton N, Lee K, Pollnac R, Samhouri JF (2013) How good science and stories can go hand-in-hand. Conserv Biol 27(5):1126–1129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer DB, Likens GE (2009) Adaptive monitoring: a new paradigm for long-term research and monitoring. Trends Ecol Evol 24(9):482–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer DB, Likens GE (2010) The science and application of ecological monitoring. Biol Conserv 143(6):1317–1328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manno BV (2007) A road to results. The Annie E. Casey Foundation, Baltimore, Maryland

  • MacNeil MA, Cinner JE (2013) Hierarchical livelihood outcomes among co-managed fisheries. Global Environ Chang 23(6):1393–1401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinney M, Scarlett L, Kemmis D (2010) Large landscape conservation: a strategic framework for policy and action. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin C, Krantzberg G (2012) An appraisal of management pathologies in the Great Lakes. Sci Total Environ 416:40–47

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Muir MJ (2010) Are we measuring conservation effectiveness? A survey of current results-based management practices in the conservation community. Unpublished report

  • Parks Canada (2009) EI Monitoring and Reporting Program. Presentation at the Environmental Evaluators Network meeting, 21 September, Ottawa, Canada

  • Penuel W, Riel M, Krause A, Frank K (2009) Analyzing teachers’ professional interactions in a school as social capital: a social network approach. Teach Coll Rec 111(1):124–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson RB, Russell D, West P, Brosius JP (2010) Seeing (and doing) conservation through cultural lenses. Environ Manag 45(1):5–18

  • Petersen B, Wellstead A (2014) Responding to a forest catastrophe: the emergence of new governance arrangements in southern California. ISRN Econ 2014

  • Pralle SB (2006) Branching Out, Digging In: Environmental Advocacy and Agenda Setting. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC

  • Prell C, Hubacek K, Reed M (2009) Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural resource management. Soc Natur Resour 22(6):501–518

  • Pressey RL, Bottrill MC (2009) Approaches to landscape- and seascape-scale conservation planning: convergence, contrasts and challenges. Oryx 43(4):464–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sayer J, Sunderland T, Ghazoul J, Pfund JL, Sheil D, Meijaard E, Venter M, Boedhihartono AK, Day M, Garcia C, van Oosten C, Buck LE (2013) Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110(21):8349–8356

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Scarlett L (2013) Collaborative adaptive management: challenges and opportunities. Ecol Soc 18(3):26

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz MW, Deiner K, Forrester T, Grof-Tisza P, Muir MJ, Santos MJ, Souza LE, Wilkerson ML, Zylberberg M (2012) Perspectives on the open standards for the practice of conservation. Biol Conserv 155:169–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stem C, Margoluis R, Salafsky N, Brown M (2005) Monitoring and evaluation in conservation: a review of trends and approaches. Conserv Biol 19(2):295–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Susskind L, Camacho AE, Schenk T (2012) A critical assessment of collaborative adaptive management in practice. J Appl Ecol 49(1):47–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tscharntke T, Klein AM, Kruess A, Steffan-Dewenter I, Thies C (2005) Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity—ecosystem service management. Ecol Lett 8(8):857–874

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USFS (2007) LMP monitoring and evaluation: a monitoring framework to support land management planning. US Department of Agriculture, US Forest Service, Washington, DC

  • USFWS (2010) Landscape Conservation Cooperative Bulletin #1. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Interior, Washington, DC

  • USGS (2006) Strategic habitat conservation: Final Report of the National Ecological Assessment Team. United States Geological Survey, Department of Interior, Washington, DC

  • Vance-Borland K, Holley J (2011) Conservation stakeholder network mapping, analysis, and weaving. Conserv Lett 4(4):278–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vangen S, Huxham C (2003) Enacting leadership for collaborative advantage: dilemmas of ideology and pragmatism in the activities of partnership managers. Br J Manag 14:S61–S76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wondolleck JM, Yaffee SL (2000) Making Collaboration Work: lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for comments by Kim Hall, James Fitzsimons, and Kai N. Lee, which have improved earlier versions of this manuscript. This work was performed under funding by the USFWS OSA CFDA Numbers 15.669 and 15.670. Protocols for conducting interviews were approved by the Michigan State University Institutional Review Board on October 5, 2012. The opinions expressed in this article represent those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the authors’ respective institutions or funding agencies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian Petersen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Petersen, B., Montambault, J. & Koopman, M. The Potential for Double-Loop Learning to Enable Landscape Conservation Efforts. Environmental Management 54, 782–794 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0337-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0337-4

Keywords

Navigation