Policy Sciences

, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp 265–291 | Cite as

Social process in grizzly bear management: lessons for collaborative governance and natural resource policy

  • Lauren Richie
  • J. Daniel Oppenheimer
  • Susan G. Clark
Article

Abstract

In this study, we analyze a case of governance in natural resource management. Building on the limited body of literature on termination and using methods of problem orientation and social process mapping, we examine a stakeholder engagement process designed to address conflicts in grizzly bear management in Banff National Park, Alberta. Terminated in 2009 after several years of collaboration, this stakeholder engagement process explicitly used the policy sciences framework to cultivate dialogue, improve participants’ decision-making skills, and make consensus-based recommendations for grizzly bear management. Our analysis demonstrates the utility of undertaking social process mapping and problem orientation in order to understand a natural resource policy problem. We include recommendations to foster a social process that allows for clarification and advancement of the common interest in stakeholder groups, insights into how social process can contribute to policy termination, and reflections on the practical, collaborative use of the policy sciences to solve problems of governance. This analysis complements other articles on this case that examine stakeholder perspectives, initial outcomes, and decision process, collectively providing a thorough policy analysis.

Keywords

Governance Termination Social process Interdisciplinary problem solving Policy sciences Grizzly bear Prototype 

References

  1. Arnspiger, V. C. (1961). Personality in social process. Chicago: Follett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  2. Benn, B., & Herrero, S. (2002). Grizzly bear mortality and human access in Banff and Yoho National Parks, 1971–98. Ursus, 13, 213–221.Google Scholar
  3. Bertch, B., & Gibeau, G. (2009). Grizzly bear monitoring in and around the Mountain National Parks: Mortalities and bear/human encounters 19902008. 2nd annual report, Parks Canada.Google Scholar
  4. Bertch, B., & Gibeau, G. (2010). Grizzly bear monitoring in and around the Mountain National Parks: Mortalities and bear/human encounters 19802009. 3rd annual report, Parks Canada.Google Scholar
  5. Bolland, J. M., & Muth, R. (1984). The decision seminar: A new approach to urban problem solving. Science Communication, 6, 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bott, S., Cantrill, J. G., & Myers, O. E. (2003). Place and the promise of conservation psychology. Human Ecology Review, 10(2), 100–112.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, V. A. (2004). The more we are together: Collaborative decision-making, social planning and sustainability. Australian Planner, 41(3), 42–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brunner, R. D. (2004). Context-sensitive monitoring and evaluation for the World Bank. Policy Sciences, 37, 103–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brunner, R. D. (2010). Adaptive governance as a reform strategy. Policy Sciences, 43, 301–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brunner, R. D., Colburn, C. H., Cromley, C. M., Klein, R. A., & Olson, E. A. (2002). Finding common ground: Governance and natural resources in the American West. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Brunner, R. D., Steelman, T. A., Coe-Juell, L., Cromley, C. M., Edwards, C. M., & Tucker, D. W. (2005). Adaptive governance: Integrating science, policy, and decision making. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Bryson, J. M., Cunningham, G. L., & Lokkesmoe, K. J. (2002). What to do when stakeholders matter: The case of problem formulation for the African American Men project of Hennepin County. Minnesota. Public Administration Review, 62(5), 568–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burgess, P. M., & Slonaker, L. L. (1978). The decision seminar: A strategy for problem-solving. Columbus: Ohio State University Mershon Center.Google Scholar
  14. Canada National Parks Act. (2000). Resource document. Canada Department of Justice. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/PDF/Statute/N/N-14.01.pdf. Accessed August 20, 2010.
  15. Chamberlain, E. C. (2006). Perspectives on grizzly bear management in Banff National Park and the Bow River Watershed, Alberta: A Q methodology study. Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University School of Resource and Environmental Management.Google Scholar
  16. Chamberlain, E. C., & Rutherford, M. B. (2005). Perspectives on grizzly bear conservation in the Banff-Bow Valley: Views of problems and solutions. Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University School of Resource and Environmental Management.Google Scholar
  17. Chamberlain, E. C., Rutherford, M. B., & Gibeau, M. L. (2012). Human perspectives and conservation of grizzly bears in Banff National Park, Canada. Conservation Biology, 26(3), 420–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chartier, Andrée. (2004). Parks Canada—corporate intelligence bulletin 2004. Gatineau, QU: Parks Canada.Google Scholar
  19. Clark, T. W. (1997). Averting extinction: Reconstructing endangered species recovery. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Clark, T. W. (2001). Interdisciplinary problem solving in species and ecosystem conservation. In T. W. Clark, M. J. Stevenson, K. Ziegelmayer, & M. B. Rutherford (Eds.), Yale University Bulletin 105, Species and ecosystem conservation: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 35–54). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Clark, S. G. (2011). The policy process: A practical guide for natural resource professionals. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Clark, T. W., & Brunner, R. D. (2002). Making partnerships work in endangered species conservation: an introduction to the decision process. Endangered Species Update, 19(i4), 74–80.Google Scholar
  23. Clark, S. G., Cherney, D. N., Angulo, I., De León, R. B., & Morgan-Cahusac, C. (2009). An initial social process (contextual) map for Podocarpus National Park, Ecuador. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 28, 680–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Clark, T. W., & Gillesberg, A. M. (2001). Lessons from wolf restoration in Greater Yellowstone. In V. A. Sharpe, B. G. Norton, & S. Donnelley (Eds.), Wolves and human communities: Biology, politics, and ethics. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  25. Clark, T. W. & Rutherford, M. B. (Eds.). (in press). Large carnivores, people, and governance: Reforming conservation in the North American West.Google Scholar
  26. Clark, T. W., Rutherford, M. B., & Casey, D. (Eds.). (2005). Coexisting with large carnivores: Lessons from Greater Yellowstone. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  27. Clark, D. A., & Slocombe, D. S. (2011). Grizzly Bear conservation in the Foothills Model Forest: Appraisal of a collaborative ecosystem management effort. Policy Sciences, 44, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Clark, T. W., & Wallace, R. L. (2002a). Understanding the human factor in endangered species recovery: An introduction to the human social process (concepts). Endangered Species Update, 19(4), 87–94.Google Scholar
  29. Clark, T. W., & Wallace, R. L. (2002b). The professional in endangered species conservation: an introduction to standpoint clarification. In R. L. Wallace, T. W. Clark, & R. P. Reading (Eds.), Endangered species update: An interdisciplinary approach to endangered species recovery 19(4) (pp. 101–112). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, School of Natural Resources and Environment.Google Scholar
  30. Cromley, C. M. (2000). The killing of grizzly bear 209: Identifying norms for grizzly bear management. In T. W. Clark, A. R. Willard, & C. M. Cromley (Eds.), Foundations of natural resource policy and management (pp. 173–221). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Dearden, P. (2008). Progress and problems in Canada’s protected areas: Overview of progress, chronic issues and emerging challenges in the early 21st century. Resource document. University of Calgary. http://dspace1.acs.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/1880/46957/1/Dearden_Commissioned.pdf. Accessed April 23, 2011.
  32. deLeon, P. (1983). Policy evaluation and program termination. Policy Studies Review, 2(4), 631–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Dery, D. (1984). Problem definition in policy analysis. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  34. Fenimore, S. C., & Cullen L., Jr. (2002). Projeto Abraço Verde: A practice-based approach to Brazilian Atlantic Forest Conservation. In R. L. Wallace, T. W. Clark, & R. P. Reading (Eds.), Endangered species update: An interdisciplinary approach to endangered species recovery 19(4) (pp. 179–185). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, School of Natural Resources and Environment.Google Scholar
  35. Garshelis, D. L., Gibeau, M. L., & Herrero, S. (2005). Grizzly bear demographics in and around Banff National Park and Kananaskis Country, Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management, 69(1), 277–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gibeau, M. L. (2000). A conservation biology approach to management of grizzly bears in Banff National Park, Alberta. Ph.D. Dissertation. Resources and the Environment Program, University of Calgary. http://www.canadianrockies.net/grizzly/mikes_thesis.html. Accessed August 15, 2010.
  37. Gibeau, M. L. (2005). Mortality of grizzly bears in the Bow River Watershed. In S. Herrero (Ed.), Biology, demography, ecology, and management of grizzly bears in and around Banff National Park and Kananaskis Country: The final report of the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project (pp. 61–62). Calgary, AB: University of Calgary.Google Scholar
  38. Gibeau, M. L., & Stevens, S. (2005). Study areas. In S. Herrero (Ed.), Biology, demography, ecology, and management of grizzly bears in and around Banff National Park and Kananaskis Country: The final report of the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project (pp. 11–16). Calgary, AB: University of Calgary.Google Scholar
  39. Helling, A., & Thomas, J. C. (2001). Encouraging community dialogue: Approach, promise and tensions. International Journal of Public Administration, 24(7&8), 749–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Herrero, S. (2005). The eastern slopes grizzly bear project and science-based grizzly bear conservation. In S. Herrero (Ed.), Biology, demography, ecology, and management of grizzly bears in and around Banff National Park and Kananaskis Country: The final report of the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project (pp. 2–10). Calgary, AB: University of Calgary.Google Scholar
  41. Herrero, S., Roulet, J., & Gibeau, M. (2001). Banff National Park: Science and policy in grizzly bear management. Ursus, 12, 161–168.Google Scholar
  42. Jager, E., & Sanche, A. (2010). Setting the stage for visitor experiences in Canada’s National Heritage Places. The George Wright Forum, 27(2), 180–190.Google Scholar
  43. Jamal, T., & Eyre, M. (2003). Legitimation struggles in national park spaces: The Banff Bow Valley Round Table. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 46(3), 417–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kallis, G., Kiparsky, M., & Norgaard, R. (2009). Collaborative governance and adaptive management: Lessons from California’s CALFED Water Program. Environmental Science & Policy, 12, 631–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kellert, S. R., Black, M., Rush, C. R., & Bath, A. J. (1996). Human culture and large carnivore conservation in North America. Conservation Biology, 10, 977–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kelman, H. C. (2006). Interests, relationships, identities: Three central issues for individuals and groups in negotiating their social environment. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kleiman, D. G., Reading, R. P., Miller, B. J., Clark, T. W., Scott, J. M., Robinson, J., et al. (2000). Improving the evaluation of conservation programs. Conservation Biology, 14(2), 356–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kölhi, J. K. (2010). Stakeholder views on grizzly bear management in the Banff-Bow Valley: A before-after Q-methodology study. School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University. http://research.rem.sfu.ca/theses/KolhiJutta_2010_MRM493.pdf. Accessed April 23, 2011.
  49. Lasswell, H. D. (1971a). A pre-view of the policy sciences. New York: American Elsevier.Google Scholar
  50. Lasswell, H. D. (1971b). The continuing decision seminar as a technique of instruction. Policy Sciences, 2, 43–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lasswell, H. D., & McDougal, M. S. (1992). Jurisprudence for a free society: Studies in law, science and policy. New Haven: New Haven Press.Google Scholar
  52. Manzo, L. C., & Perkins, D. D. (2006). Finding common ground: The importance of place attachment to community participation and planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 20(4), 335–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mattson, D. J., Byrd, K. L., Rutherford, M. B., Brown, S. R., & Clark, T. W. (2006). Finding common ground in large carnivore conservation: Mapping contending perspectives. Environmental Science & Policy, 9(4), 392–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mattson, D. J., & Chambers, N. (2009). Human-provided waters for desert wildlife: What is the problem? Policy Sciences, 42, 113–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. May, B., & Plummer, R. (2011). Accommodating the challenges of climate change adaptation and governance in conventional risk management: Adaptive Collaborative Risk Management (ACRM). Ecology and Society, 16(1), 47.Google Scholar
  56. McBeth, M. K., Shanahan, E. A., Hathaway, P. L., Tigert, L. E., & Sampson, L. J. (2010). Buffalo tales: Interest group policy stories in Greater Yellowstone. Policy Sciences, 43, 391–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. McDougal, M. S., Reisman, W. M., & Willard, A. W. (1988). The world community: A planetary social process. University of California Law Review, 21, 808–971.Google Scholar
  58. McFarlane, B. L., Watson, D. O., & Strumpf-Allen, R. C. G. (2007). Public perceptions of conservation of grizzly bears in the Foothills Model Forest: A survey of local and Edmonton residents. Edmonton, AB: Canadian Forestry Service.Google Scholar
  59. Merrey, D. J., & De Lange, M. (2003). Boundaries of consent: Stakeholder representation in river basing management in Mexico and South Africa. World Development, 31(5), 797–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Muth, R., & Boland, J. M. (1983). Social context: A key to effective problem-solving. Planning & Changing, 14(4), 214–225.Google Scholar
  61. National Parks General Regulations. (2010). Resource document. http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/sor-78-213/latest/sor-78-213.html. Accessed October 13, 2011.
  62. Nelson, F., Nshala, R., & Rogers, W. A. (2007). The evolution and reform of Tanzanian wildlife management. Conservation and Society, 5(2), 232–261.Google Scholar
  63. Oppenheimer, J. D., & Richie, L. (in press). Collaborative grizzly bear management in Banff National Park: Learning from a prototype.Google Scholar
  64. Parks Canada. (2007). Banff National Park management plan: July 2007 Amendment. Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Canada. http://www.pc.gc.ca/~/media/pn-np/ab/banff/plan/pdfs/plan1_e.ashx. Accessed August 19, 2010.
  65. Parks Canada. (2008). Banff National Park of Canada state of the park report. Resource document. http://www.pc.gc.ca/~/media/pn-np/ab/banff/plan/pdfs/REP_SPR_e.ashx. Accessed August 19, 2010.
  66. Parks Canada. (2010). Banff National Park of Canada: Management plan 2010. Resource document. http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/ab/banff/~/media/pn-np/ab/banff/pdfs/2010/Banff-Management-Plan-EN-2010.ashx. Accessed August 10, 2010.
  67. Primm, S. A. (1996). A pragmatic approach to grizzly bear conservation. Conservation Biology, 10(4), 1026–1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Proctor, M. (2005). East slopes grizzly bear fragmentation based on genetic analyses. In S. Herrero (Ed.), Biology, demography, ecology, and management of grizzly bears in and around Banff National Park and Kananaskis Country: The final report of the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project (pp. 126–132). Calgary, AB: University of Calgary.Google Scholar
  69. Prohansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K., & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place-identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 57–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Reading, R. P., Clark, T. W., McCain, L., & Miller, B. J. (2002). Black-tailed prairie dog conservation: A new approach for a 21st century challenge. Endangered Species Update, 19(4), 162–170.Google Scholar
  71. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rutherford, M. B., Gibeau, M. L., Clark, S. G., & Chamberlain, E. C. (2009). Interdisciplinary problem solving workshops for grizzly bear conservation in Banff National Park, Canada. Policy Sciences, 42, 163–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 117–166). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  74. Simon, H. (1985). Human nature in politics: The dialogue of psychology with political science. The American Political Science Review, 79, 293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Statistics Canada. (2006). Census snapshotImmigration in Canada: A portrait of the foreign-born population, 2006 census. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2008001/article/10556-eng.htm. Accessed December 15, 2010.
  76. Steelman, T. A., & DuMond, M. E. (2009). Serving the common interest in U.S. forest policy: A case study of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. Environmental Management, 43, 396–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Susskind, L., Camacho, A. E., & Schenk, T. (2010). Collaborative planning and adaptive management in Glen Canyon: A cautionary tale. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 35(1), 1–54.Google Scholar
  78. Tuan, Y.-F. (1974). Topophilia. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  79. Wallace, R. L., & Clark, T. W. (1999). Understanding and solving problems in endangered species conservation: An introduction to problem orientation. Endangered Species Update, 16(2), 28–34.Google Scholar
  80. Walters, L. C., Aydelotte, J., & Miller, J. (2000). Putting more public in policy analysis. Public Administration Review, 60(4), 349–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Weeks, E. C. (2000). The practice of deliberative democracy: Results from four large-scale trials. Public Administration Review, 60(4), 360–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Weiss, J. A. (1989). The powers of problem definition: The case of government paperwork. Policy Sciences, 22, 97–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Willard, A. R., & Norchi, C. H. (1993). The decision seminar as an instrument of power and enlightenment. Political Psychology, 14(4), 575–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wilshusen, P. R. (2009). Social process as everyday practice: The micro politics of community-based conservation and development in southeastern Mexico. Policy Sciences, 42, 137–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wilson, S., & Clark, S. G. (2007). Resolving human-grizzly bear conflict: An integrated approach in the common interest. In K. S. Hanna & D. S. Slocombe (Eds.), Integrated resource and environmental management: Concepts and practice (pp. 137–163). Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lauren Richie
    • 1
  • J. Daniel Oppenheimer
    • 1
  • Susan G. Clark
    • 2
  1. 1.Yale School of Forestry and Environmental StudiesNew HavenUSA
  2. 2.Joseph F. Cullman 3rd Adjunct Professor of Wildlife Ecology and Policy Sciences and Fellow, Institution for Social and Policy Studies, School of Forestry and Environmental StudiesYale UniversityNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations