Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 59, Issue 2, pp 218–229 | Cite as

Adaptive Management as an Effective Strategy: Interdisciplinary Perceptions for Natural Resources Management

  • Lindsay M. Dreiss
  • Jan-Michael Hessenauer
  • Lucas R. Nathan
  • Kelly M. O’Connor
  • Marjorie R. Liberati
  • Danielle P. Kloster
  • Janet R. Barclay
  • Jason C. Vokoun
  • Anita T. Morzillo
Article

Abstract

Adaptive management is a well-established approach to managing natural resources, but there is little evidence demonstrating effectiveness of adaptive management over traditional management techniques. Peer-reviewed literature attempts to draw conclusions about adaptive management effectiveness using social perceptions, but those studies are largely restricted to employees of US federal organizations. To gain a more comprehensive insight into perceived adaptive management effectiveness, this study aimed to broaden the suite of disciplines, professional affiliations, and geographic backgrounds represented by both practitioners and scholars. A questionnaire contained a series of questions concerning factors that lead to or inhibit effective management, followed by another set of questions focused on adaptive management. Using a continuum representing strategies of both adaptive management and traditional management, respondents selected those strategies that they perceived as being effective. Overall, characteristics (i.e., strategies, stakeholders, and barriers) identified by respondents as contributing to effective management closely aligned with adaptive management. Responses were correlated to the type of adaptive management experience rather than an individual’s discipline, occupational, or regional affiliation. In particular, perceptions of characteristics contributing to adaptive management effectiveness varied between respondents who identified as adaptive management scholars (i.e., no implementation experience) and adaptive management practitioners. Together, these results supported two concepts that make adaptive management effective: practitioners emphasized adaptive management’s value as a long-term approach and scholars noted the importance of stakeholder involvement. Even so, more communication between practitioners and scholars regarding adaptive management effectiveness could promote interdisciplinary learning and problem solving for improved resources management.

Keywords

Adaptive management Effective Perceptions Stakeholders Barriers Interdisciplinary 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was developed based on discussions during a graduate colloquium on adaptive management. The authors would like to thank the natural resources professionals who voluntarily participated in our survey. D. Kloster, M. Liberati, and J. Barclay were supported by Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant no. 2014-38420-21802 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

Supplementary material

267_2016_785_MOESM1_ESM.docx (13 kb)
Supplementary Appendix
267_2016_785_MOESM2_ESM.docx (18 kb)
Supplementary Information

References

  1. Agrawal A (2002) Transboundary protected areas and adaptive management. In: Oglethorpe J (ed) Adaptive management: from theory to practice. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen CR, Gunderson LH (2011) Pathology and failure in the design and implementation of adaptive management. J Environ Manage 92:1379–1384. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.10.063 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belton LR, Jackson-Smith D (2010) Factors influencing success among collaborative sage-grouse management groups in the western United States. Environ Conserv 37:250–260. doi: 10.1017/S0376892910000615 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benson MH, Stone AB (2013) Practitioner perceptions of adaptive management implementation in the United States. Ecol Soc 18:32. doi: 10.5751/ES-05613-180332 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bierwagen BG, Thomas R, Kane A (2008) Capacity of management plans for aquatic invasive species to integrate climate change. Conserv Biol 22:568–574. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00954.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boesch DF (2006) Scientific requirements for ecosystem-based management in the restoration of Chesapeake Bay and Coastal Louisiana. Ecol Eng 26:6–26. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2005.09.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bolte A, Ammer C, Lof M, Madsen P, Nabuurs G, Schall P, Spathelf P, Rock J (2014) Adaptive forest management in central Europe: climate change impacts, strategies and integrative concept. Scand J Forest Res 24:473–482. doi: 10.1080/02827580903418224 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borrini-Feyerabend G, Farvar MT, Nguinguiri JC, Ndangang VA (2000) Co-management of natural resources: organising, negotiating and learning-by-doing. Kasparek, Heidelberg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  9. Bosch OJH, Ross AH, Beeton RJS (2003) Integrating science and management through collaborative learning and better information management. Sys Res Behav Sci 20:107–118. doi: 10.1002/sres.536 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bouwen R, Taillieu T (2004) Multi-party collaboration as social learning for interdependence: developing relational knowing for sustainable natural resource management. J Comm Appl Soc Psych 14:137–153. doi: 10.1002/casp.777 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Butler KF, Koontz TM (2005) Theory into practice: implementing ecosystem management objectives in the USDA Forest Service. Environ Manage 35:138–150. doi: 10.1007/s00267-003-0312-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Callicott JB, Crowder LB, Mumford K (1999) Current normative concepts in conservation. Conserv Biol 13:22–35. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.97333.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Caplan N (1979) The two communities theory and knowledge utilization. Am Behav Sci 22:459–470. doi: 10.1177/000276427902200308 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper DU, Perrings C, Venail P, Narwani A, Mace GM, Tilman D, Wardle DA, Kinzig AP, Daily GC, Loreau M, Grace JB, Larigauderie A, Srivastava DS, Naeem S (2012) Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486:59–67. doi: 10.1038/nature11148 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Conservation Measures Partnership (2013) Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation Version 3.0. http://CMP-OS-V3-0-Final.pdf. Accessed 22 May 2015
  16. Convention on Biological Diversity (2004) CBD guidelines: the ecosystem approach. ISBN: 92-9225-023-x .Accessed 22 May 2015. https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/ea-text-en.pdf
  17. Crona BI, Parker JN (2012) Learning in support of governance: theories, methods, and a framework to assess how bridging organizations contribute to adaptive resource governance. Ecol Soc 17:32. doi: 10.5751/ES-04534-170132 Google Scholar
  18. Davies AL, White RM (2012) Collaboration in natural resource governance: reconciling stakeholder expectation in deer management in Scotland. J Environ Manage 112:160–169. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.07.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dillman DA (2000) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method. Wiley, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  20. Downs PW, Kondolf GM (2002) Post-project appraisals in adaptive management of river channel restoration. Environ Manage 29:477–496. doi: 10.1007/s00267-001-0035-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eberhard R, Robinson CJ, Waterhouse J, Parslow J, Hart B, Grayson R, Taylor B (2009) Adaptive management for water quality planning - from theory to practice. Mar Freshwater Res 60:1189–1195. doi: 10.1071/MF08347 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Etzioni AW (1964) Modern organizations. Prentice Hall, Ann Arbor, MIGoogle Scholar
  23. Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J (2005) Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30:441–473. doi: 10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Foster BC, Wang D, Keeton WS, Ashton MS (2010) Implementing sustainable forest management using six concepts in an adaptive management framework. J Sustain Forest 29:79–108. doi: 10.1080/10549810903463494 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Foxcroft LC, McGeoch M (2011) Implementing invasive species management in an adaptive management framework. Koedoe 53:1–11. doi: 10.4102/koedoe.v53i2.1006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Garland R (1991) The mid-point on a rating scale: is it desirable? Market Bull 2:66–70Google Scholar
  27. Hayslett MM, Wildemuth BM (2004) Pixels or pencils? The relative effectiveness of web-based versus paper surveys. Lib Inform Sci 26(2):73–93. doi: 10.1016/j.lisr.2003.11.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Holling CS (1978) Adaptive environmental assessment and management. John Wiley and Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Innes J, Hay R, Flux I, Bradfield P, Speed H, Jansen P (1999) Successful recovery of North Island kokako Callaeas cinerea wilsoni populations, by adaptive management. Biol Conserv 87:201–214. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(98)00053-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jacobson SK, Morris JK, Sanders JS, Wiley EN, Brooks M, Bennetts RE, Percival HF, Marynowski S (2006) Understanding barriers to implementation of an adaptive land management program. Conserv Biol 20:1516–1527. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00476.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Knight AT, Cowling RM, Rouget M, Balmford A, Lombard AT, Campbell RM (2008) Knowing but not doing: selecting priority conservation areas and the research-implementation gap. Conserv Biol 22:610–617. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00914.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Krosnick JA (1991) Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Appl Cognitive Psych 5:213–236. doi: 10.1002/acp.2350050305 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Krosnick JA, Holbrook AL, Berent MK, Carson RT, Hanemann W, Kopp RJ, Mitchell RC, Presser S, Ruud PA, Smith VK, Moody WR, Green MC, Conaway M (2002) The impact of ‘no opinion’ response options on data quality: non-attitude reduction or an invitation to satisfice?. Public Opin Quart 66:371–403. doi: 10.1086/341394 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leach WD, Pelkey NW (2001) Making watershed partnerships work: a review of the empirical literature. J Water Resour Plann Manage 127:378–385. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2001)127:6(378) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lee KN (2001) Appraising adaptive management. In: Buck LE, Geisler CC, Schelhas J, Wollenberg E (eds) Biological diversity: balancing interests through adaptive collaborative management. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FLGoogle Scholar
  36. Likert R (1932) A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol 22:55Google Scholar
  37. Linkov I, Satterstrom FK, Kiker G, Batchelor C, Bridges T, Ferguson E (2006) From comparative risk assessment to multi-criteria decision analysis and adaptive management: recent developments and applications. Environ Int 32:1072–1093. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2006.06.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McFadden JE, Hiller TL, Tyre AJ (2011) Evaluating the efficacy of adaptive management approaches: is there a formula for success?. J Environ Manage 92:1354–1359. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.10.038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McIver JP, Carmines EG (1981) Unidimensional scaling. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Medema W, McIntosh BS, Jeffrey PJ (2008) From premise to practice: a critical assessment of integrated water resources management and adaptive management approaches in the water sector. Ecol Soc 13:29. doi: 10.5751/ES-2008-2611 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Moore CT, Conroy MJ (2006) Optimal regeneration planning for old-growth forest: addressing scientific uncertainty in endangered species recovery through adaptive management. Forest Sci 52:155–172Google Scholar
  42. Mullins GW, Danter KJ, Griest DL, Norland E, Christensen JE (1998) US Fish and Wildlife Service ecosystem approach to fish and wildlife conservation: an assessment. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, http://library.fws.gov/Pubs9/ecosystem_approach98_files/index.html Google Scholar
  43. National Research Council (2004) Adaptive management for water resources planning. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  44. The Nature Conservancy (2007) Conservation action planning handbook: developing strategies, taking action and measuring success at any scale. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VAGoogle Scholar
  45. Oh CH, Rich RF (1996) Explaining use of information in public policymaking. Know Tech Pol 9:3–35. doi: 10.1007/BF02832231 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Olsson P, Gunderson LH, Carpenter SR, Ryan P, Lebel L, Folke C, Holling CS (2006) Shooting the rapids: navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 11:18. doi: 10.5751/ES-2005-1595 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Park K (2004) Assessment and management of invasive alien predators. Ecol Soc 9:12. doi: 10.5751/ES-2008-2611 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Prendergast JR, Quinn RM, Lawton JH (1999) The gaps between theory and practice in selecting nature reserves. Conserv Biol 13:484–492. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.97428.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Raymond CM, Fazey I, Reed MS, Stringer LC, Robinson GM, Evely AC (2010) Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. J Environ Manage 91:1766–1777. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.03.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rigg CM (2001) Orchestrating ecosystem management: challenges and lessons from the Sequoia National Forest. Conserv Biol 15:78–90. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2001.99339.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rist L, Campbell BM, Frost P (2013) Adaptive management: where are we now? Environ Conserv 40(1):5–18Google Scholar
  52. Rout TM, Hauser CE, Possingham HP (2009) Optimal adaptive management for the translocation of a threatened species. Ecol Appl 19:515–526. doi: 10.1890/07-1989.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rynes SL, Bartunek JM, Daft RL (2001) Across the great divide: knowledge creation and transfer between practitioners and academics. Acad Manage 44:340–355. doi: 10.2307/3069460 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Shih T-H, Fan X (2009) Comparing response rates in e-mail and paper surveys: a meta-analysis. Educ Res Rev 4(1):26–40. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2008.01.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Selin SW, Schuett MA, Carr D (2000) Modeling stakeholder perceptions of collaborative initiative effectiveness. Soc Natur Resour 13:75–745. doi: 10.1080/089419200750035593 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Shea K, Possingham HP, Murdoch WW, Roush R (2002) Active adaptive management in insect pest and weed control: intervention with a plan for learning. Ecol Appl 12:927–936. doi: 10.2307/3061000 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Spooren P, Mortelmans D, Denekens J (2007) Student evaluation of teaching quality in higher education: development of an instrument based on 10 Likert scales. Assess Eval Higher Ed 32:667–679. doi: 10.1080/02602930601117191 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Szaro RC, Berc J, Cameron S, Cordle S, Crosby M, Martin L, Norton D, O’Malley R, Ruark G (1998) The ecosystem approach: science and information management issues, gaps and needs. Landscape Urban Plan 40:89–101. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(97)00101-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Thom RM, Williams G, Borde A, Southard J, Sargeant S, Woodruff D, Laufle JC, Glasoe S (2005) Adaptively addressing uncertainty in estuarine and near coastal restoration projects. J Coastal Res 40:94–108Google Scholar
  60. US Environmental Protection Agency (2009) Decision support framework research implementation plan. EPA/600/R-09/104. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. http://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/P1005W10.pdf. Accessed 22 May 2015
  61. US Department of Interior (2007) Secretary Order #3270: “Adaptive Management”. http://elips.doi.gov/elips/0/doc/415/Page1.aspx. Accessed 22 May 2015
  62. Walters CJ (1986) Adaptive management of renewable resources. Macmillan Publishing, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  63. Wenger E (1998) Communities of practice. Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Williams BK, Brown ED (2014) Adaptive management: from more talk to real action. Environ Manage 53:465–479. doi: 10.1007/s00267-013-0205-7. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. World Wildlife Fund (2007) Wildlife and climate change: Species vulnerability assessments and adaptation strategies. World Wildlife Fund. http://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/wildlife-and-climate. Accessed 22 May 2015

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lindsay M. Dreiss
    • 1
  • Jan-Michael Hessenauer
    • 1
  • Lucas R. Nathan
    • 1
  • Kelly M. O’Connor
    • 1
  • Marjorie R. Liberati
    • 1
  • Danielle P. Kloster
    • 1
  • Janet R. Barclay
    • 1
  • Jason C. Vokoun
    • 1
  • Anita T. Morzillo
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Natural Resources and the EnvironmentUniversity of ConnecticutStorrsUSA

Personalised recommendations