Understanding Barriers to Implementation of an Adaptive Land Management Program

Abstract

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission manages over 650,000 ha, including 26 wildlife management and environmental areas. To improve management, they developed an objective-based vegetation management (OBVM) process that focuses on desired conditions of plant communities through an adaptive management framework. Our goals were to understand potential barriers to implementing OBVM and to recommend strategies to overcome barriers. A literature review identified 47 potential barriers in six categories to implementation of adaptive and ecosystem management: logistical, communication, attitudinal, institutional, conceptual, and educational. We explored these barriers through a bureau-wide survey of 90 staff involved in OBVM and personal interviews with area managers, scientists, and administrators. The survey incorporated an organizational culture assessment instrument to gauge how institutional factors might influence OBVM implementation. The survey response rate was 69%. Logistics and communications were the greatest barriers to implementing OBVM. Respondents perceived that the agency had inadequate resources for implementing OBVM and provided inadequate information. About one-third of the respondents believed OBVM would decrease their job flexibility and perceived greater institutional barriers to the approach. The 43% of respondents who believed they would have more responsibility under OBVM also had greater attitudinal barriers. A similar percentage of respondents reported OBVM would not give enough priority to wildlife. Staff believed that current agency culture was hierarchical but preferred a culture that would provide more flexibility for adaptive management and would foster learning from land management activities. In light of the barriers to OBVM, we recommend the following: (1) mitigation of logistical barriers by addressing real and perceived constraints of staff, funds, and other resources in a participatory manner; (2) mitigation of communication barriers through interpersonal and electronic communication channels; (3) development of an OBVM external advisory committee; and (4) adoption of characteristics of an organizational culture that promotes flexibility and learning.

Practitioner Perceptions of Adaptive Management Implementation in the United States

“…Although legal and regulatory requirements were not listed explicitly, related issues regarding management flexibility and availability of agency resources were included among the categories on logistical and institutional barriers. Their survey revealed that logistical issues were the most problematic of all barriers, specifically citing lack of agency resources and the time-consuming nature of AM protocols (Jacobson et al 2006). Similarly, Butler and Koontz (2005) surveyed 345 U.S. Forest Service managers regarding their experiences implementing the agency's ecosystem management objectives, of which AM is one component (Grumbine 1994).…”

“…The subset of this literature that specifically addresses AM implementation in the United States emphasizes the need for a more explicit commitment to AM methodologies (Moir and Block 2001, Stankey et al 2003, Benson 2010a. Jacobson et al (2006) looked at barriers to AM implementation by surveying the 90 staff members of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission using a questionnaire that identified 47 potential barriers to the use of AM. Although legal and regulatory requirements were not listed explicitly, related issues regarding management flexibility and availability of agency resources were included among the categories on logistical and institutional barriers.…”

Protected area management under climate change: A framework for decision making

“…Lack of resources is one of the most recognised barriers (Walters 1997;Jacobson et al 2006), particularly as adaptive management can create additional management costs. Legislation and government policies may restrict adaptive management methods (Walters 1997;Jacobson et al 2006).…”

“…Lack of resources is one of the most recognised barriers (Walters 1997;Jacobson et al 2006), particularly as adaptive management can create additional management costs. Legislation and government policies may restrict adaptive management methods (Walters 1997;Jacobson et al 2006). Protected areas are managed and operate within government policies and legislation which may or may not be flexible enough for adaptive management strategies (Young & Lipton 2006;Scheepers et al 2011).…”

“…Protected areas are managed and operate within government policies and legislation which may or may not be flexible enough for adaptive management strategies (Young & Lipton 2006;Scheepers et al 2011). Various people will benefit or lose from a variety of options and therefore some strategies will not be acceptable to some (Peterson et al 1997;Walters 1997;Jacobson et al 2006). Particular options and strategies, despite being beneficial for many reasons may be socially unacceptable.…”