Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conclusion: From Describing to Prescribing—Transitioning to Place-Based Conservation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Place-Based Conservation

Abstract

The chapters of this book describe various perspectives from the social sciences of place-based conservation. The prescriptive implications are often close to the surface and become entangled with them. This chapter highlights four overlapping approaches to the practice of place-based conservation and acknowledges the difficulty of separating descriptions from prescriptions: (1) a planning process, (2) an emergent process, (3) an organizing concept, and (4) a framework for policy. Yet to be considered are the incorporation of cultivating new communication channels, developing civic capacity, identifying appropriate roles for expertise, integrating multiple geographic scales, and customizing governance strategies. Addressing these challenges will support transitions to place-based conservation.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Allen, T. F. H., & Hoekstra, T. W. (1992). Toward a unified ecology. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 543–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Appleyard, D. (1979). The environment as a social symbol: Within a theory of environmental action and perception. American Planning Association Journal, 53, 143–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bray, D., & Velazquez, A. (2009). From displacement-based conservation to place-based conservation. Conservation and Society, 7(1), 11–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callicott, J., & Nelson, M. (Eds.). (1998). The great new wilderness debate. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, A. S., Kruger, L. E., & Daniels, S. E. (2003). “Place” as an integrating concept in natural resource politics: Propositions for a social science research agenda. Society and Natural Resources, 16, 87–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, K. (1998). Spaces of dependence, spaces of engagement and the politics of scale, or: Looking for local politics. Political Geography, 17(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, S., & Walker, G. (2001). Working through environmental conflict: The collaborative learning approach. Westport, CT: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, D. (2010). The applicability of the concept of resilience to social systems: Some sources of optimism and nagging doubts. Society and Natural Resources, 23(12), 1135–1149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M., & Slobodkin, L. (2004). The science and values of restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology, 12, 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. (2011). Custer on canvas: Representing Indians, memory, and violence in the New West. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenfeld, J. (2000). Defining the limits of restoration: The need for realistic goals. Restoration Ecology, 8, 2–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Entrikin, J. N. (1991). The betweenness of place: Towards a geography of modernity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F. (2000). Citizens, experts, and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gieryn, T. F. (2000). A space for place in sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 463–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gobster, P., & Barro, S. (2000). Negotiating nature: Making restoration happen in an urban park context. In P. Gobster & R. Hull (Eds.), Restoring nature: Perspectives from the social sciences and humanities (pp. 185–208). Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. (2008). Stricken fields: The Little Bighorn since 1876. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgs, E. (2003). Nature by design: People, natural process, and ecological restoration. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull, R., & Robertson, D. (2000). The language of nature matters: We need a more public ecology. In P. Gobster & R. Hull (Eds.), Restoring nature: Perspectives from the social sciences and humanities (pp. 97–118). Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, W. (2003). The sunflower forest: Ecological restoration and the new communion with nature. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keiter, R. (2003). Keeping faith with nature: Ecosystems, democracy, and America’s public lands. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruger, L. E. (1996). Understanding place as a cultural system: Implications of theory and method (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9705050). Washington, Seattle: University of Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruger, L. E. (2001). What is essential is invisible to the eye: Understanding the role of place and social learning in achieving sustainable landscapes. In S. R. J. Sheppard & H. W. Harshaw (Eds.), Forests and landscapes: Linking ecology, sustainability and aesthetics (pp. 173–187). Wallingford, UK: CABI International.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kruger, L. E., Hall, T. E., & Stiefel, M. C. (Eds.). (2008). Understanding concepts of place in recreation research and management (PNW-GTR-744). Portland, OR: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruger, L. E., & Shannon, M. A. (2000). Getting to know ourselves and our places through participatory civic social assessment. Society and Natural Resources, 13, 461–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, G., Holden, A., Kapaldo, D., Leasure, J., Mason, J., Salwasser, H., … Shands, W. E. (1990). Synthesis of the critique of land management planning (FS-452). Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lejano, R. P., & Ingram, H. (2007). Place-based conservation: Lessons from the Turtle Islands. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 49(9), 18–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, R. (2007). Collaborative land use management: The quieter revolution in place-based planning. Landham, MD: Rowen & Littelfield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masuda, J. R., & Garvin, T. (2008). Whose heartland?: The politics of place in a rural-urban interface. Journal of Rural Studies, 24, 112–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morse, W. C., Hall, T. E., & Kruger, L. E. (2009). Improving the integration of recreation management with management of other natural resources by applying concepts of scale from ecology. Environmental Management, 43(3), 369–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nie, M., & Fiebig, M. (2010). Managing the national forests through place-based legislation. Ecology Law Quarterly, 37, 1–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pahre, R. (2011). Telling Yellowstone’s stories. Journal of the West, 50(3), 31–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz, D. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science and Policy, 7, 385–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, D. C. (2001). The rise of the concept of scale in ecology. BioScience, 51, 545–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silver, J. J. (2008). Weighing in on scale: Synthesizing disciplinary approaches to scale in the context of building interdisciplinary resource management. Society and Natural Resources, 21, 921–929.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, W., Liebert, D., & Larkin, K. (2004). Community identities as visions for landscape change. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69, 315–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T., & Blader, S. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia: Cooperation Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vining, J., Tyler, E., & Kweon, B. (2000). Public values, opinions, and emotions in restoration controversies. In P. Gobster & R. Hull (Eds.), Restoring nature: Perspectives from the social sciences and humanities (pp. 143–162). Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, P. (2001). Environmental non-governmental organizations and the nature of ethnographic inquiry. Social Analysis, 45, 55–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, M., & Hoffman, C. H. (2011). A few words about Landscape Conservation Cooperatives and Climate Science Centers. Park Science, 28(1), 9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wulfhorst, J. D., Rimbey, N., & Darden, T. (2006). Sharing the rangelands, competing for sense of place. American Behavioral Scientist, 50, 166–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wyborn, C. (2011). Landscape scale ecological connectivity in Australia: Survey and analysis. Pacific Conservation Biology, 17(2), 121–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yung, L., Freimund, W., & Belsky, J. (2003). The politics of place: Understanding meaning, common ground, and political difference on the Rocky Mountain Front. Forest Science, 49, 855–866.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Recreation, Sport and Tourism, University of Illinois, 104 Huff Hall, Champaign, IL, 61820, USA

    William P. Stewart

  2. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 240 West Prospect Road, Fort Collins, CO, 80526-2098, USA

    Daniel R. Williams

  3. Juneau Forestry Sciences Laboratory, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 11175 Auke Lake Way, Juneau, AK, 99801, USA

    Linda E. Kruger

Authors
  1. William P. Stewart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel R. Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Linda E. Kruger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William P. Stewart .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Recreation, Sport and Tourism, University of Illinois, 104 Huff Hall 1206 S. Fo, Champaign, 61820, Illinois, USA

    William P. Stewart

  2. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Centre Avenue 2150A, Fort Collins, 80526-1891, Colorado, USA

    Daniel R. Williams

  3. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Glacier Highway 11305, Juneau, 99801-8626, Alaska, USA

    Linda E. Kruger

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Stewart, W.P., Williams, D.R., Kruger, L.E. (2013). Conclusion: From Describing to Prescribing—Transitioning to Place-Based Conservation. In: Stewart, W., Williams, D., Kruger, L. (eds) Place-Based Conservation. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5802-5_18

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation