Abstract
It is generally acknowledged that protected areas do not encompass the scale necessary for effective conservation of socio-ecological systems. Consequently, there have been repeated calls for a “new paradigm” for conservation that transitions from “islands” to “networks.” By extending conservation to reflect wider landscape perspectives, this approach integrates community development and economic and quality of life interests, thereby forging productive relationships between protected areas and their regional context. This broadened agenda involves many more landowners, organizations, and levels of government and requires coordination, partnerships, and new forms of governance. Drawing from nearly a decade of research, this contribution examines US experience with this new paradigm for conservation and models of network governance. The findings from this research program indicate that three key dimensions are fundamental to governance: engaging a diversity of stakeholders and building consensus, creating and sustaining ongoing networks of partners, and developing a central hub for the network. This central coordinating and facilitating function appears to be an essential governance element as it is the activity of these networks of private and public partners that deliver accomplishments. This contribution suggests that despite their challenges, networked-based models can strengthen social capital at regional levels, thereby increasing capacity for innovation, adaptation, and resiliency.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Alliance of National Heritage Areas (2013) National Park Service evaluations find national heritage areas are achieving their purpose and accomplishing their goals. Available via http://www.nationalheritageareas.us/pdf/Final-NHA.pdf. Accessed 20 Nov 2013
Barrett B, Mitchell N (eds) (2003) Stewardship of heritage areas. Thematic issue of The George Wright Forum 20(2):1–88
Bogason P, Musso JA (2006) The democratic prospects of network governance. Am Rev Public Adm 36:3–18
Brown J, Mitchell N, Beresford M (eds) (2005) The protected landscape approach: linking nature, culture and community. IUCN, Gland
Copping S, Huffman P, Laven D, Mitchell N, Tuxill J (2006) Connecting stories, landscapes, and people: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor partnership. USNPS Conservation Study Institute, Woodstock
Dudley N (ed) (2008) Guidelines for applying protected areas management categories. IUCN, Gland
Gunderson LH, Holling CS (eds) (2002) Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, DC
Innes JE, Booher DE (2003) Collaborative policymaking: governance through dialogue. In: Hajer M, Wagenaar H (eds) Deliberative policy analysis: understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 33–59
Jewiss J (2007) A qualitative evaluation of the partnership system of the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network. Report submitted to the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network, Annapolis
Jewiss J, Laven D, Mitchell N, Huffman P (2008) Development of a National Heritage Area evaluation strategy: report on phase I. USNPS Conservation Study Institute, Woodstock, VT in cooperation with the USNPS National Heritage Areas Office and the Alliance of National Heritage Areas
Jones M, Stenseke M (eds) (2011) The European landscape conventions: challenges of participation. Springer, Dordrecht
Kothari A, Camill P, Brown J (2013) Conservation as if people also mattered: policy and practice of community-based conservation. Conserv Soc 11(1):1–15
Laven D (2006) Evaluating national heritage areas: theory, methods, and application. Doctoral dissertation, University of Vermont, Burlington
Laven D, Jewiss J, Mitchell N (2013) Toward landscape-scale stewardship and development: a theoretical framework of United States national heritage areas. Soc Nat Resour 26(7):762–777
Laven DN, Krymkowski DH, Ventriss CL, Manning RE, Mitchell NJ (2010a) From partnerships to networks: new approaches for evaluating US National Heritage Area effectiveness. Eval Rev 34:271–298
Laven D, Ventriss C, Manning R, Mitchell N (2010b) Evaluating US national heritage areas: theory, methods, and application. Environ Manag 46:195–212
Mandell MP (1984) Application of social network analysis to the implementation of complex project. Hum Relat 37:659–679
McKinney M, Johnson S (2013) Large landscape conservation in the rocky Mountain West: an inventory and status report. University of Montana, Missoula
Mitchell N, Rössler M, Tricaud PM (2009) World heritage cultural landscapes: a handbook for conservation and management (World heritage papers 26). UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris
Mose I (ed) (2007) Protected areas and regional development in Europe: towards a new model for the 21st century. Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot, pp 3–20
Provan KG, Milward HB (2001) Do networks really work: a framework for evaluating public-sector organizational networks. Publ Admin Rev 61:414–423
Rands MR, Adams WM, Bennun L, Butchart SH, Clements A, Coomes D, Vira B et al (2010) Biodiversity conservation: challenges beyond 2010. Science 32(5997):1298–1303
Regional Plan Association (2012) Landscapes: improving conservation practice in the Northeast Megaregion. Available via http://www.rpa.org/library/pdf/RPA-Northeast-Landscapes.pdf. Accessed 5 Nov 2013
Rössler M, Mitchell N (2005) Landscapes linkages without boundaries? In: World Heritage reports 16. UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris, pp 23–26
Thompson JD, Mathevet R, Delanoë O, Gil-Fourrier C, Bonnin M, Cheylan M (2011) Ecological solidarity as a conceptual tool for rethinking ecological and social interdependence in conservation policy for protected areas and their surrounding landscape. C R Biol 334(5):412–419
Tuxill J, Huffman P, Laven D, Mitchell N (2008) Shared legacies in Cane River National Heritage Area: linking people, traditions, and culture. USNPS Conservation Study Institute, Woodstock
Tuxill J, Mitchell N, Huffman P, Laven D, Copping S, Gifford G (2005) Reflecting on the past, looking to the future: sustainability study report. USNPS Conservation Study Institute, Woodstock
USNPS National Heritage Areas (n.d.) Available via http://www.cr.nps.gov/heritageareas/htm. Accessed 5 Nov 2013
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Laven, D., Mitchell, N.J., Jewiss, J., Barrett, B. (2015). Lessons Learned from U.S. Experience with Regional Landscape Governance: Implications for Conservation and Protected Areas. In: Gambino, R., Peano, A. (eds) Nature Policies and Landscape Policies. Urban and Landscape Perspectives, vol 18. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05410-0_37
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05410-0_37
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-05409-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-05410-0
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)