Watershed-Scale Adaptive Management: A Social Science Perspective

Chapter
Part of the World Forests book series (WFSE, volume 15)

Abstract

Adaptive management is as much as social endeavor as a scientific or technical one. Drawing on our work as social scientists, and in particular on our evaluations of the Adaptive Management areas in the Pacific Northwest of the USA, and the Heartlands project in southeastern Australia, we suggest that watershed-scale adaptive management must be recognized as a radical departure from established ways of managing natural resources if it is to achieve its promise. Successful implementation will require new ways of thinking about management, new organizational structures and new implementation processes and tools. Adaptive management encourages scrutiny of prevailing social and organizational norms and this is unlikely to occur without a change in the culture of natural resource management and research. Planners and managers require educational, administrative, and political support as they seek to understand and implement adaptive management. Learning and reflection must be valued and rewarded, and fora established where learning through adaptive management can be shared and explored. The creation of new institutions, including educational curricula, organizational policies and practices, and professional norms and beliefs, will require support from within bureaucracies and from politicians. For adaptive management to be effective researchers and managers alike must work together at the watershed-scale to bridge the gaps between theory and practice, and between social and technical understandings of watersheds and the people who occupy and use them.

Keywords

Natural Resource Management Adaptive Management Resource Management Program Northwest Forest Plan Natural Resource Profession 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the contribution made by George Stankey to the American Water Resources Association Journal paper on which this chapter is based.

References

  1. Allan C (2004) Improving the outcomes of adaptive management at the regional scale. PhD thesis, Charles Sturt University, Albury, New South WalesGoogle Scholar
  2. Allan C (2009) Reviewing adaptive management through a wicked lens. In: Lane M, Robinson C (eds) Contested country. CSIRO Publishing, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  3. Allan C, Curtis A (2003) Regional scale adaptive management: lessons from the North East Salinity Strategy. Austr J Environ Manag 10:76–84Google Scholar
  4. Allan C, Curtis A (2005) Nipped in the bud: why regional scale adaptive management is not blooming. Environ Manag 36:414–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Allan C, Stankey GH (eds) (2009) Adaptive environmental management: a practitioner’s guide. Springer, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  6. Allan C, Curtis A, Stankey G, Shindler B (2008) Adaptive management and watersheds: a social science perspective. J Am Water Resour Assoc 44:166–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Allen W, Bosch O, Kilvington M, Oliver J, Gilbert M (2001) Benefits of collaborative learning for environmental management: applying the integrated systems for knowledge management approach to support animal pest control. Environ Manag 27:215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blomquist W, Shlager E (2005) Political pitfalls of integrated watershed management. Soc Nat Resour 18:101–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Commonwealth of Australia (2003) Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and New South Wales, 2003. http://www.napswq.gov.au/downloads/pdf/nsw-bilateral.pdf. Accessed Jan 2004
  10. Commonwealth of Australia (2008) Australia’s State of the forests report 2008. http://adl.brs.gov.au/forestsaustralia/publications/execsummary.html. Accessed Jan 2009
  11. Cook TD, Shadish WR (1986) Program evaluation: the worldly science. Annu Rev Psychol 37:193–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. CSIRO Heartlands Core Group (2000) Draft heartlands five year plan for 2001–2005: CSIRO/MDBCGoogle Scholar
  13. Curtis A, Lockwood M (2000) Landcare and catchment management in Australia: lessons for state-sponsored community participation [review]. Soc Nat Resour 13:61–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Curtis A, Shindler B, Wright A (2002) Sustaining local watershed initiatives: lessons from Landcare and Watershed Councils. J Am Water Resour Assoc 38:1207–1216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ewing S (1999) Landcare and community-led watershed management in Victoria, Australia. J Am Water Resour Assoc 35:663–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grint K (2005) Problems, problems, problems: the social construction of ‘leadership’. Hum Relat 58:1467–1494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guba EG, Lincoln YS (1989) Fourth generation evaluation. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  18. Gunderson L (1999) Resilience, flexibility and adaptive management – antidotes for spurious certitude? Conserv Ecol Online 3(1). http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss1/art7
  19. Gunderson LH, Holling CS, Light SS (1995) Barriers & bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Herrick C, Sarewitz D (2000) Ex post evaluation: a more effective role for scientific assessments in environmental policy. Sci Technol Hum Value 25:309–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hillman TJ, Koehn JD, Mitchell D, Thompson D, Sobels JD, Woodside D (2000) The Murrumbidgee: assessing the “health” of a working river. Irrigated Agribusiness Taskforce and Department of Land and Water Conservation, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  22. Holling CS (ed) (1978) Adaptive environmental management and assessment. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  23. Holling CS (1995) What barriers? what bridges? In: Gunderson LH, Holling CS, Light SS (eds) Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Holling CS, Meffe GK (1996) Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conserv Biol 10:328–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Howe GT, Shindler B, Cashore B, Hansen E, Lach D, Armstrong W (2005) Public influences on plantation forestry. J For 103:90–94Google Scholar
  26. Ison R, Watson D (2007) Illuminating the possibilities for social learning in the management of Scotland’s water. Ecol Soc 12:1–21Google Scholar
  27. Jacobson SK, Morris JK, Sanders JS, Wiley EN, Brooks M, Bennetts RE et al (2006) Understanding barriers to implementation of an adaptive land management program. Conserv Biol 20:1516–1527PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kapoor I (2001) Towards participatory environmental management? J Environ Manag 63:269–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kruger L (2001) What is essential is invisible to the eye: understanding the role of place and social learning in achieving sustainable landscapes. In: Sheppard SRJ, Harshaw HW (eds) Forest and landscapes: linking ecology, sustainability and aesthetics. CABI Publishing, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  30. Lee KN (1993) Compass and gyroscope: integrating science and politics for the environment. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  31. Lee KN (1999) Appraising adaptive management. Conserv Ecol online 3(2). (http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss2/art3)
  32. Miller A (1999) Environmental problem solving: psychosocial barriers to adaptive change. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. NSW Department of Primary Industries (2008) Forests NSW seeing report 2007–2008. Forests NSW, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  34. O’Neill KM (2005) Can watershed management unite town and country? Soc Nat Resour 18:241–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Poncelet EC (2004) Partnering for the environment: multistakeholder collaboration in a changing world. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  36. Rahnema M (1997) Participation. In: Sachs W (ed) The development dictionary: a guide to knowledge as power. Orient Longman, HyderabadGoogle Scholar
  37. Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4:155–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Roe E (1996) Why ecosystem management can’t work without social science: an example from the Californian Northern Spotted Owl controversy. Environ Manag 20:667–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Roling NG, Jiggins J, Geisler CC, Schelhas J, Wollenberg E (2001) Agents in adaptive collaborative management: The logic of collective cognition. In: Buck LE (ed) Biological diversity: balancing interests through adaptive collaborative management. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, pp 145–170Google Scholar
  40. Rossi P, Freeman H (1993) Evaluation: a systematic approach. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  41. Schusler TM, Decker DJ, Pfeffer MJ (2003) Social learning for collaborative natural resource management. Soc Nat Resour 16:309–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shindler B (2000) Landscape-level management: it’s all about context. J For 98:10–14Google Scholar
  43. Shindler B, Aldred-Cheek K, Stankey GH (1999) Monitoring and evaluating citizen-agency interactions: a framework developed for adaptive management. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-452. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  44. Shindler B, Brunson M, Stankey GH (2002) Social acceptability of forest conditions and management practices: a problem analysis. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-537. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  45. Shindler BA, Beckley TM, Finley C (eds) (2003) Two paths through the forest: the sustainability challenge in Canada and the United states. Oregon State University Press, CorvallisGoogle Scholar
  46. Slovic P, Finucane M, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2004) Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal 24:311–322PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Smith GR (1997) Making decisions in a complex and dynamic world. In: Kohm KA, Franklin JF (eds) Creating a forestry for the 21st century: the science of ecosystem management. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  48. Spencer LJ (1989). Winning through Participation. Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt Publishing CompanyGoogle Scholar
  49. Stankey GH, Shindler B (1997a) Adaptive management areas: achieving the promise, avoiding the peril. General Technical Report. PNW-GTR-654. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pacific Northwest Research Station, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  50. Stankey GH, Shindler B (1997b) Adaptive management areas: achieving the promise avoiding the Peril. United States Department of Agriculture Forests Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  51. Stankey GH, Bormann B, Ryan C, Shindler B, Sturtevant V, Clark R, Philpot C (2003) Adaptive management and the Northwest Forest Plan: rhetoric and reality. J For 101:40–46Google Scholar
  52. Stankey GH, Clark RN, Bormann BT (eds) (2006a) Learning to manage a complex ecosystem: adaptive management and the Northwest Forest Plan. Research Paper PNW-RP-567. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  53. Stankey GH, Clark RN, Bormann BT (2006b) Learning to manage a complex ecosystem: adaptive management and the Northwest Forest Plan. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  54. Swanson LE (2001) Rural policy and direct local participation: democracy, inclusiveness, collective agency, and locality based policy. Rural Sociol 1:1–2Google Scholar
  55. The Heinz Center (2002) The state of the nation’s ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  56. Thrower J (2006) Adaptive management and NEPA: how a nonequilibrium view of ecosystems mandates flexible regulation. Ecol Law Q 33:871–895Google Scholar
  57. Walters C (1986) Adaptive management of renewable resources. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  58. Walters CJ, Holling CS (1990) Large-scale management experiments and learning by doing. Ecology 71:2060–2068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Weiss CH (1997) How can theory-based evaluation make greater headway? Eval Rev 21:501–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wildavsky A, Dake K (1990) Theories of risk perception: who fears what and why? Dædalus 19:41–60Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Land, Water and SocietyCharles Sturt UniversityAlburyAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Forest ResourcesOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations