2009
DOI: 10.1007/s11077-009-9075-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Interdisciplinary problem solving workshops for grizzly bear conservation in Banff National Park, Canada

Abstract: Policy sciences, Interdisciplinary problem solving, Decision process, Q method, Collaborative decision making, Conservation policy, Wildlife management, Grizzly bear,

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
26
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 68 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
26
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Overviews: (Ascher et al, 2010;Clark, 2011) Examples: (Chamberlain et al, 2012;Clark et al, 2008;Rutherford et al, 2009) (continued on next page) perspectives on the same issue to emerge (Neuman, 2000). Third, the results of social science research can be analyzed in a deductive or inductive fashion.…”
Section: The Social Sciencesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Overviews: (Ascher et al, 2010;Clark, 2011) Examples: (Chamberlain et al, 2012;Clark et al, 2008;Rutherford et al, 2009) (continued on next page) perspectives on the same issue to emerge (Neuman, 2000). Third, the results of social science research can be analyzed in a deductive or inductive fashion.…”
Section: The Social Sciencesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…That framework breaks down policy processes into discrete components, allowing precise diagnosis of what's going wrong and enabling interventions to be designed by integrating relevant information about all dimensions of the problem at hand. Comprehensive applications have focused on large carnivore conservation in the North American west (Chamberlain et al, 2012;Clark and Rutherford, 2014;Clark et al, 2005;Rutherford et al, 2009) and endangered species recovery (Clark, 2005).…”
Section: Policy Sciencesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…CDM can be viewed as "a transition from traditional top-down scientific management to a new form of adaptive governance" (Brunner et al, 2005) that is appropriate when local stakeholders want more involvement in decisions that affect their welfare and recognize the limitations, and in some cases failures, of scientific management (McLaughlin, Primm, & Rutherford, 2005;Cherney & Clark, 2009). On the downside, CDM can result in so-called "lowest common denominator" decisions that perpetuate existing power relationships (Pelletier, Kraak, McCullum, Uusitalo, & Rich, 1999;Gunton & Day, 2003;Peterson, Peterson, & Peterson, 2005) and do not result in the best course of action (Rutherford, Gibeau, Clark, & Chamberlain, 2009). The downside risks of CDM can be minimized by utilizing the best available knowledge from diverse sources "to produce outcomes that are rational, politically practical and morally justified, as well as acceptable to the decision makers themselves" (Rutherford et al, 2009).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the downside, CDM can result in so-called "lowest common denominator" decisions that perpetuate existing power relationships (Pelletier, Kraak, McCullum, Uusitalo, & Rich, 1999;Gunton & Day, 2003;Peterson, Peterson, & Peterson, 2005) and do not result in the best course of action (Rutherford, Gibeau, Clark, & Chamberlain, 2009). The downside risks of CDM can be minimized by utilizing the best available knowledge from diverse sources "to produce outcomes that are rational, politically practical and morally justified, as well as acceptable to the decision makers themselves" (Rutherford et al, 2009). …”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To be pragmatic, we must be clear about our goals and use an integrative framework to good effect, which we already know how to do (e.g., Rutherford et al 2009). However, this requires a different kind of scholarship and applied work than is currently standard procedure and rewarded (Boyer 1997).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%