Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Improving Voluntary Environmental Management Programs: Facilitating Learning and Adaptation

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Environmental planners and managers face unique challenges understanding and documenting the effectiveness of programs that rely on voluntary actions by private landowners. Programs, such as those aimed at reducing nonpoint source pollution or improving habitat, intend to reach those goals by persuading landowners to adopt behaviors and management practices consistent with environmental restoration and protection. Our purpose with this paper is to identify barriers for improving voluntary environmental management programs and ways to overcome them. We first draw upon insights regarding data, learning, and adaptation from the adaptive management and performance management literatures, describing three key issues: overcoming information constraints, structural limitations, and organizational culture. Although these lessons are applicable to a variety of voluntary environmental management programs, we then present the issues in the context of on-going research for nonpoint source water quality pollution. We end the discussion by highlighting important elements for advancing voluntary program efforts.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allan C, Curtis A (2005) Nipped in the bud: why regional scale adaptive management is not blooming. Environmental Management 36(3):414–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ammons D (1999) Common barriers to productivity improvement in local government. In: Kearney R, Berman E (eds) Public sector performance: management, motivation, and measurement. Westview Press, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris C (1999) Initiating change that perseveres. In: Kearney R, Berman E (eds) Public sector performance: management, motivation, and measurement. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 57–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris C, Schon DA (1994) What is an organization that it may learn? In: Armson R, Paton R (eds) Organizations: cases, issues, concepts. Paul Chapman with the Open University, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Armitage D (2005) Adaptive capacity and community-based natural resource management. Environmental Management 35(6):703–715

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behn RD (2002) The psychological barriers to performance management. Public Performance and Management Review 26(1):5–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behn RD (2003) Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review 63(5):586–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blalock A, Barnow B (2001) Is the new obsession with performance management masking the truth about social programs? In: Forsythe DW (ed) Quicker better cheaper? Managing performance in American government. Rockefeller Institute Press, Albany, pp 485–517

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouckaert G (1995) Improving performance measurement. In: Halachmi A, Bouckaert G (eds) The enduring challenges of public management: surviving and excelling in a changing world. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, pp 379–411

    Google Scholar 

  • Connick S, Innes JE (2003) Outcomes of collaborative water policy making: applying complexity thinking to evaluation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 46(2):177–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Lancer Julnes P, Holzer M (2001) Promoting the utilization of performance measures in public organizations: an empirical study of factors affecting adoption and implementation. Public Administration Review 61(6):693–708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ducros C, Watson NM (2002) Integrated land and water management in the United Kingdom: narrowing the implementation gap. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 45(3):403–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fielding KS, Terry DJ, Masser BM, Bordia P, Hogg MA (2005) Explaining landholders’ decisions about riparian zone management: the role of behavioural, normative, and control beliefs. Journal of Environmental Management 77(1):12–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J (2005) Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30:441–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Genskow K, Prokopy L (2008) The social indicator planning and evaluation system (SIPES) for nonpoint source management: a handbook for projects in USEPA Region 5. Great Lakes Regional Water Program. Publication Number: GLRWP-08-SI01

  • Genskow K, Prokopy L (2010) Lessons learned in developing social indicators for regional water quality management. Society & Natural Resources 23(1):83–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Genskow K, Wood D (2009) Management, learning, and adaptation in planning an implementing voluntary nonpoint source watershed programs. Journal of Planning Literature 24(2):137–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunderson LH, Holling CS (eds) (2002) Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinrich CJ (1999) Do government bureaucrats make effective use of performance management information? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 9(3):363–393

    Google Scholar 

  • Hibbard M (2008) Developing economic and civic engagement indicators for Oregon’s watersheds. Lakeline 28(3):38–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Hockings M, Stolton S, Dudley N, James R (2009) Data credibility: what are the “right” data for evaluating management effectiveness of protected areas? In: Birnbaum M, Mickwitz P (eds) Environmental program and policy evaluation: addressing methodological challenges. New Directions for Evaluation 122:53–63

  • Koontz TM, Steelman TA, Carmin J, Korfmacher KS, Mosely C, Thomas CW (2004) Collaborative environmental management: what roles for government? Resources for the Future, Washington, DC

  • Lee KN (1999) Appraising adaptive management. Conservation Ecology 3(2):3 [online]. http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss2/art3/

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee KN, Lawrence J (1986) Adaptive management: learning from the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Environmental Law 16(3):431–460

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovejoy SB, Lee JG, Engel B (2000) Managing watersheds: improving the decisions with science and values. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 55(4):434–436

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubell M, Fulton A (2008) Local policy networks and agricultural watershed management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18(4):673–696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margerum RD (2008) A typology of collaboration efforts in environmental management. Environmental Management 41:487–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margoluis R, Stem C, Salafsky N, Brown M (2009) Design alternatives for evaluating the impact of conservation projects. In: Birnbaum M, Mickwitz P (eds) Environmental program and policy evaluation: addressing methodological challenges. New Directions for Evaluation 122:85–96

  • McLain RJ, Lee RG (1996) Adaptive management: promises and pitfalls. Environmental Management 20(4):437–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyerhoff J (2006) Stated willingness to pay as hypothetical behaviour: can attitudes tell us more? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 49(2):209–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mickwitz P, Birnbaum M (2009) Key insights for the design of environmental evaluations. In: Birnbaum M, Mickwitz P (eds) Environmental program and policy evaluation: addressing methodological challenges. New Directions for Evaluation 122:105–112

  • Morton L, Padgitt S (2005) Selecting socio-economic metrics for watershed management. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 103:83–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moynihan DP (2005) Goal-based learning and the future of performance management. Public Administration Review 65(2):203–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moynihan DP (2008a) Advocacy and learning: an interactive dialogue approach to performance information use. In: van Dooren W, Van de Walle S (eds) Performance information in the public sector: how it is used. Palgrave Press, London, pp 24–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Moynihan DP (2008b) The dynamics of performance management: constructing information and reform. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Prokopy L, Floress K, Klotthor-Weinkauf D, Baumgart-Getz A (2008) Determinants of agricultural best management practice adoption: evidence from the literature. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 63(5):300–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prokopy L, Genskow K, Asher J, Baumgart-Getz A, Bonnell J, Broussard S, Curtis C, Floress K, McDermaid K, Power K, Wood D (2009) Designing a regional system of social indicators to evaluate nonpoint source water projects. Journal of Extension 47(2):8

    Google Scholar 

  • Radin BA (2006) Challenging the performance movement. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Roux DJ, Murray K, van Wyk E (2007) Principles of enabling learning environments for good ecosystem governance. In: Turton A, Hattingh HJ, Roux DJ (eds) Governance as a trialogue: government-society-science in transition. Springer, New York, pp 254–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan RL, Erickson DL, De Young R (2003) Farmers’ motivations for adopting conservation practices along riparian zones in a mid-western agricultural watershed. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 46(1):19–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schick A (2001) Getting performance measures to measure up. In: Forsythe DW (ed) Quicker better cheaper? Managing performance in American government. Rockefeller Institute Press, Albany, pp 39–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuett MA, Selin SW, Carr DS (2001) Making it work: keys to successful collaboration in natural resource management. Environmental Management 27(4):587–593

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stern PC (2000) Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues 56(3):407–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor A, Curnow R, Fletcher T, Lewis J (2007) Education to reduce stormwater pollution in commercial areas: do they work? Journal of Environmental Management 84(3):323–335

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • USEPA (2009) National water quality inventory: report to congress, 2004 reporting cycle. United States Environmental Protection Agency Publication EPA 841-R-08-001

  • van der Brugge R, van Raak R (2007) Facing the adaptive management challenge: insights from transition management. Ecology and Society 12(2):33 [online]. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art33/

  • van Thiel S, Leeuw FL (2002) The performance paradox in the public sector. Public Performance & Management Review 25(3):267–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westley F (2002) The devil in the dynamics: adaptive management on the front lines. In: Gunderson LH, Holling CS (eds) Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, pp 333–360

    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

The social indicators project highlighted in this article came about through the efforts of a dedicated team of colleagues (the authors of Prokopy and others 2009) with support from the state water quality agencies and USEPA NPS program in Region 5. Additional funding was provided by the Great Lakes Regional Water Program through the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, US Department of Agriculture, National Integrated Water Quality Program, under Agreement No. 2008-51130-04751. We greatly appreciate those contributions and the helpful suggestions from three anonymous reviewers.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 925 Bascom Mall, Madison, WI, 53706, USA

    Kenneth D. Genskow & Danielle M. Wood

Authors
  1. Kenneth D. Genskow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Danielle M. Wood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kenneth D. Genskow.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Genskow, K.D., Wood, D.M. Improving Voluntary Environmental Management Programs: Facilitating Learning and Adaptation. Environmental Management 47, 907–916 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-011-9650-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-011-9650-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation