Institutional barriers and incentives for ecosystem management: a problem analysis.

Cortner, Hanna J.; Shannon,; Wallace, Mary G.; Burke, Sabrina; Moote,

doi:10.2737/pnw-gtr-354

Cited by 46 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Barriers to collaboration include power differentials among stakeholders (Selin and Chavez 1995;Williams and Ellefson 1997), unclear or inflexible legal authorities and administrative policies; organizational cultures unaccustomed to collaborative processes (Cortner et al 1996;Pinchot Institute 2001), agency fears of losing control (Schuett et al 2001), and funding availability (Pinchot Institute 2001). Factors which promote collaboration include shared and open decision-making processes, goal-setting early on in the process, and continual information sharing (Gray 1985;Schuett et al 2001;Williams and Ellefson 1997).…”

Section: Characteristics Of Collaborative Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tribal-Federal Collaboration in Resource Management

Donoghue¹,

Thompson²,

Bliss³

2010

JEA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Characteristics Of Collaborative Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tribal-Federal Collaboration in Resource Management

Donoghue¹,

Thompson²,

Bliss³

2010

JEA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Institutions generally are taken to include the array of mechanisms society employs to achieve desired ends (Cortner et al 1996). Scholars (e.g., Ostrom 1986) have described institutions as sets of rules, as standards of behavior, or as political He contended that the scientific uncertainty associated with managing complex systems has created a more difficult conservation problem than necessary because current governing institutions assume more control over natural processes than in fact is possible.…”

Section: Institutional Structures and Processes For Adaptive Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Calls for ecosystem-based, integrative resource management explicitly or implicitly are grounded in the need for innovative institutional structures and processes (Cortner et al 1996). Such approaches acknowledge the critical role of ongoing monitoring and evaluation as the basis from which learning would inform subsequent action.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptive management? Observations of knowledge coordination in the communication practice of Swedish game management

Hallgren

Westberg

2015

Wildlife Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modern management of natural resources is guided by the normative theory of adaptive management (AM). Behind this theory lies a strong, albeit implicit, expectation that organisations aiming for AM have the capacity to communicate in a way that facilitates the required coordination of the knowledge perspectives involved. h e aim of this article is to discuss the extent to which the communication practice of Swedish game management organisations facilitates coordination of knowledge corresponding to AM. Based on operationalizations of communicative rationality and agonistic pluralism, we use the concepts ' discursive closure ' and ' discursive opening ' to investigate how the coordination of knowledge is carried out through communication in relatively recently established organisations, the Swedish Game Management Delegations (GMDs). We analyse four communication episodes from GMD meetings and notice that multiple perspectives were expressed (discourse openings) but were not evaluated in a communicative rational way before being closed. h e consequences of these closures were that knowledge perspectives with potential relevance, but with unclear validity for game management, were not elaborated upon, in terms of their truth, intelligibility, legitimacy or sincerity, which inhibited AM. h e concepts of discursive closure and discursive opening proved useful for investigating communicative capacity. An important question which needs to be addressed to improve communicative capacity for AM is whether it would be practically possible to keep to the agenda and rules of the GMD meetings and still admit discursive openings about diff erences in perspectives.

show abstract

“…Additionally, citizens and field personnel voiced frustration with the prescriptive "one size fits all" policies that came from the top-down management styles of the resource agencies (Stankey and Shindler 1997). Cortner et al (1996) made similar judgments in a problem analysis of federal institutional barriers; they asserted that implementing adaptive approaches will require both internal changes and a break from traditional management styles. The freedom to try new ideas will require a major shift in management culture toward one that encourages risk and accepts the occurrence of failures.…”

Section: Propositions For Integrating Citizens In Adaptive Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating Citizens in Adaptive Management: A Propositional Analysis

Shindler¹,

Cheek²

1999

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Institutional barriers and incentives for ecosystem management: a problem analysis.

Cited by 46 publications

References 0 publications

Tribal-Federal Collaboration in Resource Management

Tribal-Federal Collaboration in Resource Management

Adaptive management? Observations of knowledge coordination in the communication practice of Swedish game management

Integrating Citizens in Adaptive Management: A Propositional Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About