Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 36, Issue 3, pp 414–425 | Cite as

Nipped in the Bud: Why Regional Scale Adaptive Management Is Not Blooming

  • Catherine Allan
  • Allan Curtis
RESEARCH

Abstract

Adaptive management is an approach to managing natural resources that emphasizes learning from the implementation of policies and strategies. Adaptive management appears to offer a solution to the management gridlock caused by increasing complexity and uncertainty. The concept of adaptive management has been embraced by natural resource managers worldwide, but there are relatively few published examples of adaptive management in use. In this article, we explore two watershed management projects in southeastern Australia to better understand the potential of adaptive management in regional scale programs through qualitative, case study–based investigation. The program logic of one case implies the use of passive adaptive management, whereas the second case claims to be based on active adaptive management. Data were created using participant observation, semistructured interviews with individuals and groups, and document review. Using thematic content and metaphor analysis to explore the case data, we found that each case was successful as an implementation project. However, the use of both passive and active adaptive management was constrained by deeply entrenched social norms and institutional frameworks. We identified seven “imperatives” that guided the behavior of project stakeholders, and that have consequences for the use of adaptive management. Reference to recent evaluations of the Adaptive Management Areas of the Pacific Northwest of the United States suggests that some of these imperatives and their consequences have broad applicability. The implications of our findings are discussed, and suggestions for improving the outcomes of regional scale adaptive management are provided.

Keywords

Adaptive management Watershed management Social norms 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge support received from the Charles Sturt University Academic Staff Writing-Up Award Scheme. Thanks are also extended to Steve Light and two anonymous reviewers for their comments.

Literature Cited

  1. Allan C. 2004. Improving the outcomes of adaptive management at the regional scale. Charles Sturt University, Albury, NSW. DissertationGoogle Scholar
  2. Allan C., A. Curtis. 2002. A review of the North East Salinity Strategy and its implementation 1997-2001, Johnstone Centre, Charles Sturt University, AlburyGoogle Scholar
  3. Allan C., A. Curtis. 2003. Regional Scale Adaptive Management: Lessons from the North East Salinity Strategy. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 10:76–84Google Scholar
  4. CSIRO Heartlands Core Group. 2000. Draft Heartlands Five Year Plan for 2001-2005. CSIRO/MDBC, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  5. CSIRO Land and Water. 2003. Billabong Land Information System. CSIRO. Viewed 13 February 2004. http://www.clw.csiro.au/heartlands/BLIS1.3/index.html
  6. Curtis A., B. Shindler A. Wright. 2002. Sustaining local watershed initiatives: lessons from Landcare and Watershed councils. Journal of American Water Resources Association 38:1207–1216Google Scholar
  7. Denzin N. K., Y. S. Lincoln. 2000. The discipline and practice of qualitative research. in N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks. Pages 1–28Google Scholar
  8. Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs. 2002. Working for the essentials of life, Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs. Viewed 26 July 2004. http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/prospectus/defrawork.pdf Google Scholar
  9. Dey I. 1993. Qualitative data analysis. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Dovers S. R., C. D. Mobbs. 1997. An alluring prospect? Ecology and the requirements of adaptive management. N. Klomp I. Lunt (eds.), Frontiers in ecology: building the links. Elsevier Science, Albury, NSW. Pages 39–52Google Scholar
  11. Environment Canada. 2004. Ecoaction; a community funding program. Environment Canada, viewed 26 July 2004, < http://www.ec.gc.ca/ecoaction/index_e.html> Google Scholar
  12. Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT). 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic and social assessment. US Department of Agriculture, Portland, OregonGoogle Scholar
  13. Goleman D. 1997. Vital lies, simple truths: The psychology of self deception. Bloomsbury, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Gray, A. N. 2000. Adaptive ecosystem management in the Pacific Northwest: a case study from coastal Oregon. Conservation Ecology 4(2). Viewed March 21 2004. http://www.consecol.org/Journal/vol4/iss2/art6/index.html Google Scholar
  15. Gunderson, L. H. 1999. Resilience, flexibility and adaptive management – antidotes for spurious certitude? Conservation Ecology 3(1). Viewed March 15 2001. http://www.consecol.org/Journal/vol3/iss1/art7
  16. Gunderson L. H., C. S. Holling S. S. Light. 1995. Barriers & bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Holling C. S. 1978. Adaptive environmental management and assessment, Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  18. Holling, C. S. 1995. What barriers? What bridges? pages 3–34 in L. H. Gunderson, C.S. Holling, and S.S. Light (eds.), Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Lakoff G., M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  20. Lee K. N. 1993. Compass and gyroscope: integrating science and politics for the environment. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  21. Lee, K. N. 1999. Appraising adaptive management. Conservation Ecology. 3:2, viewed 16 August 2001, < http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss2/art3,>Google Scholar
  22. Lumsden, D., and M. Reid. 1996. Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Centre for Land Protection and Research. Technical report no. 33Google Scholar
  23. McLain R. J., R. G. Lee. 1996. Adaptive management: promises and pitfalls. Environmental Management 20:437–448Google Scholar
  24. Morgan G. 1997. Images of organization. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  25. Moser, K. 2000. Metaphor analysis in psychology—method, theory, and fields of application. Qualitative social research, 1. Viewed November 2002. http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-00/2-00moser-e.htm
  26. Nerlich B., 2004. War on foot and mouth disease in the UK, 2001: Towards a cultural understanding of metaphor. Agriculture and Human Values 21:15–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. NHT. 2002. Extension of the Natural Heritage Trust, viewed 26 September 2002. http://www.nht.gov.au/extension.html
  28. North East Catchment and Land Protection Board. 1997. North East Regional Catchment Strategy, North East Catchment and Land Protection Board, Wodonga, VicGoogle Scholar
  29. North East Catchment Management Authority. 2001. Annual report 2001/2001. North East Catchment Management AuthorityGoogle Scholar
  30. Oberlechner T., T. Slunecko N. Kronberger. 2004. Surfing the money tides: understanding the foreign exchange market through metaphors. The British Journal of Social Psychology 43:133–156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Pacific Northwest Regional office of the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service 2002, Northwest Forest plan adaptive management area network strategy and plan of work, viewed 18 April 2004, < http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/plan/amaplanhtm>
  32. Parma A. M., P. Amarasekare M. Mangel J. Moore W. Murdoch E. Noonburg M. A. Pascual H. P. Possingham K. Shea C. Wilcox D. Yu. 1998. What can adaptive management do for our fish. Forests, food and biodiversity? Integrative Biology 1:16–26Google Scholar
  33. Patton M. Q. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods, Sage Publications, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  34. Pipkin J. 1998. The Northwest Plan revisited, Office of the Interior, Office of Policy Analysis, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  35. Rossman G. B., S. F. Rallis. 2003. Learning in the field: an introduction to qualitative research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  36. Shindler B., M. Brunson G. H. Stankey. 2002. Social acceptability of forest conditions and management practices: a problem analysis. USDA Forest Service, Corvallis, OregonGoogle Scholar
  37. Silverman D. 2001. Interpreting qualitative data: methods for analysing talk, text and interaction. Sage Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  38. Slingerland E., 2004. Conception of the self in the Zhuangzi: conceptual metaphor analysis and comparative thought. Philosophy East and West 53:322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Spradley J. P. 1980. Participant observation. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Stake R. E. 1994. Case studies. N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln (eds), Handbook of qualitative research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks. Pages 236–247Google Scholar
  41. Stankey G. H. 2002 Adaptive management at the regional scale: breakthrough innovation or mission impossible? A report on an American experience. Agriculture for the Australian Environm ent, Fenner Conference on the Environment, Charles Strut University, Albury, Aust pp 159–177 Google Scholar
  42. Stankey G. H., B. Bormann R. Clare B. Shindler V. Sturtevant R. Clarke C. Philpot. 2003. Adaptive management and the Northwest Forest Plan: rhetoric and reality. Journal of Forestry 101:40–46Google Scholar
  43. Upper Billabong LWMP Working Group. 1999. Upper Billabong Land and Water Management Plan. Holbrook, NSWGoogle Scholar
  44. USDA Forest Service. 2004. USDA Forest Service: regions, USDA. Viewed 29 July 2004. http://www.fs.fed.us/contactus/regions.shtml
  45. USDA Forest Service. 2002. Northwest forest plan adaptive management area network strategy and plan of work. Viewed 18 August 2004. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/plan/amaplan.htm
  46. Walters C. J., R. Green. 1997. Valuation of experimental management options for ecological systems. Journal of Wildlife Management 61:987–1006Google Scholar
  47. Walters C. J., C. S. Holling. 1990. Large-scale management experiments and learning by doing. Ecology 71:2060–2068Google Scholar
  48. Wood L. A., R. O. Kroger. 2000. Doing discourse analysis: methods for studying action in talk and text. Sage Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Charles Sturt UniversityAlburyAustralia

Personalised recommendations