Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Revealing Community Perceptions for Ecological Restoration Using a Soft System Methodology

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Systemic Practice and Action Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Human perceptions under unstructured forms contain valuable information for ecological restoration (ER). To aid in ER, this paper introduces a working process to analyze the unstructured information for the case study of black bear restoration (BBR) in East Texas where understanding of the perceptions of stakeholders at a community level is needed. We identified the current situation, revealed stakeholders and their interactions, and developed actions for change for BBR. Our techniques included recording discussions in meetings, Soft Systems Methodology, and stakeholder analysis. Results indicated the current situation of BBR with human-bear and human-human conflicts. We figured out that information exchange was interrupted in the public, a potential cause for conflicts. Through a systemization, results showed various roles of key stakeholders and constraints for BBR. We found that local state agencies and local residents (particularly landowners) are the key decision-makers for BBR success. Their collaboration can result in a small portion of success (1/9) that can be increased by more cooperation. The SSM framework introduced in this study can be used for modeling community perceptions in ecological restoration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Achterkamp MC, Boonstra A, Vos JFJ (2013) A bilateral, double motive perspective on stakeholder management in Healthcare EIS projects. Procedia Technology 9:167–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosch O, King C, Herbohn JL, Russell I, Smith C (2007) Getting the big picture in natural resource management—systems thinking as ‘method’for scientists, policy makers and other stakeholders. Syst Res Behav Sci 24:217–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunch MJ (2003) Soft systems methodology and the ecosystem approach: a system study of the Cooum River and environs in Chennai, India. Environ Manag 31:0182–0197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Celar S (2010) Stakeholder analysis: process model. DAAAM International Scientific Book, pp. 489

  • Checkland P (1999) Systems thinking, systems practice. Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P, Scholes J (1990) Soft systems methodology in action. Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey

  • Checkland P, Scholes J (1999) Soft systems methodology: a 30-year retrospective. Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Cundill G, Cumming G, Biggs D, Fabricius C (2012) Soft systems thinking and social learning for adaptive management. Conserv Biol 26:13–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis SM, Childers DL, Lorenz JJ, Wanless HR, Hopkins TE (2005) A conceptual model of ecological interactions in the mangrove estuaries of the Florida Everglades. Wetlands 25:832–842

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Farias Gomes S, De Oliveira Andrade AL, Costa Morais D (2015). Using soft systems methodology on the problem of water scarcity. In Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), 2015 IEEE International Conference on, pp. 273–278

  • Fitzmaurice A (2014) The direct and indirect impacts of logging on mammals in Sabah. Imperial College London, Borneo

    Google Scholar 

  • Flood RL (2000) A brief review of Peter B. Checkland's contribution to systemic thinking. Syst Pract Action Res 13:723–731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flood RL (2010) The relationship of ‘systems thinking’to action research. Syst Pract Action Res 23:269–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garshelis DL, Hristienko H (2006) State and provincial estimates of American black bear numbers versus assessments of population trend. Ursus 17:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guay J-F, Waaub J-P (2015) Application of a territorial soft system approach for conceptual modeling of an agroecosystem. Environment Systems and Decisions 35:363–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hjortsø CNP, Christensen S, Helles F (2005) Using soft systems methodology to develop a mangrove forest management and planning decision support system in a buffer zone: the case of Dam Doi Forest Enterprice, Vietnam. Center for Skov, Landskab og Planlægning/Københavns Universitet

  • Kaminski DJ, Comer CE, Garner NP, Hung I, Calkins GE (2013) Using GIS-based, regional extent habitat suitability modeling to identify conservation priority areas: a case study of the Louisiana black bear in East Texas. J Wildl Manag 77:1639–1649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khadka C, Hujala T, Wolfslehner B, Vacik H (2013) Problem structuring in participatory forest planning. Forest Policy Econ 26:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristiansen MB, Dahler-Larsen P, Ghin EM (2017) On the dynamic nature of performance management regimes. Adm Soc 0095399717716709

  • Maltby E, Linstead C, Van Ni D, Beazley H, Khiem NT, Nguyen TTN (2006) Application of the ecosystem approach to strategic wetland management in Vietnam’s Mekong Delta. Darwin Initiative, England

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison ML (2015) Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions. JHU Press, Baltimore, Maryland

    Google Scholar 

  • Nepstad DC (2005) Governing the world’s forests. In: Babbitt, B., Sarukha´n, J. (Eds.), Conserving Biodiversity. Aspen Institute, Washington, pp 37–52

  • Nguyen TT, Evans EA, Migliaccio KW (2016) Modelling decision-making regarding wetland services for wetland management in tram Chim National Park, Vietnam. J Environ Econ Policy 5:28–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poister TH, Pitts DW, Hamilton Edwards L (2010) Strategic management research in the public sector: a review, synthesis, and future directions. The American Review of Public Administration 40:522–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potts T, O'Higgins T, Brennan R, Cinnirella S, Brandt US, de Vivero JLS, Beusekom J v, Troost TA, Paltriguera L, Hosgor AG (2015) Detecting critical choke points for achieving good environmental status in European seas. Ecol Soc 20

  • Rico A (2006) Assessing protected areas management using soft systems analysis: the case of Carrasco National Park, Bolivia. In: Lönnstedt L, Rosenquist B (eds) The biennial meeting. Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics Uppsala, Sweden, p 313

    Google Scholar 

  • Roling NG, Wagemakers MAE (2000) Facilitating sustainable agriculture: participatory learning and adaptive management in times of environmental uncertainty. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Samways MJ (2000) A conceptual model of ecosystem restoration triage based on experiences from three remote oceanic islands. Biodivers Conserv 9:1073–1083

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanga C, TUMBO S, Mlozi M, Kilima F (2014) Stakeholders’ analysis using value chain analysis: AHP in action. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Technology and Business (ISITB) 1:85–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2004) Principles of ecosystem approach. In "The ecosystem approach". Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada

  • Siebrand S (2006) Participatory Forest Management in Conflict Situations: a case study in Swedish Lapland, Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet

  • Smith DW (2002) Public participation in TMDL development: can there be too much? Proc Water Environ Fed 2002:259–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen C, Fountas S, Nash E, Pesonen L, Bochtis D, Pedersen SM, Basso B, Blackmore S (2010) Conceptual model of a future farm management information system. Comput Electron Agric 72:37–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephens Williams P, Darville R, Keul A, Legg M, Garner N, Comer C (2011) Stakeholders' attitudes toward black bear in East Texas. Hum Dimens Wildl 16:414–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suriya S, Mudgal B (2013) Soft systems methodology and integrated flood management: a study of the Adayar watershed, Chennai, India. Water Environ J 27:462–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vacik H, Kurttila M, Hujala T, Khadka C, Haara A, Pykäläinen J, Honkakoski P, Wolfslehner B, Tikkanen J (2014) Evaluating collaborative planning methods supporting programme-based planning in natural resource management. J Environ Manag 144:304–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van de Water H, Schinkel M, Rozier R (2006) Fields of application of SSM: a categorization of publications. J Oper Res Soc 58:271–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker DH (2002) Decision support, learning and rural resource management. Agric Syst 73:113–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watkin LJ, Kemp PS, Williams ID, Harwood IA (2012) Managing sustainable development conflicts: the impact of stakeholders in small-scale hydropower schemes. Environ Manag 49:1208–1223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson B (2001) Soft systems methodology: conceptual model building and its contribution. Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study is supported by Arthur Temple College of Forestry and Agriculture at Stephen F. Austin State University. We would like to thank University of Florida for online resources, and An Giang University for comprehensive supports.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Engineering, Technology, and Environment, An Giang University, 18 Ung Van Khiem Street, Long Xuyen, An Giang, Vietnam

    Tanh T. N. Nguyen

  2. Arthur Temple College of Forestry and Agriculture, Stephen F. Austin State University, 419 East College Street, P.O. Box 6109, SFA Station, Nacogdoches, TX, 75962, USA

    Daniel G. Scognamillo & Christopher E. Comer

Authors
  1. Tanh T. N. Nguyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel G. Scognamillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christopher E. Comer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tanh T. N. Nguyen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nguyen, T.T.N., Scognamillo, D.G. & Comer, C.E. Revealing Community Perceptions for Ecological Restoration Using a Soft System Methodology. Syst Pract Action Res 32, 429–442 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-018-9463-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-018-9463-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation