The collaborative conservation model has emerged as an alternative to deadlocked negotiations and protracted court battles over natural resource management. Watershed management is a frequent focus for collaborative groups. Membership in these groups usually represents a variety of interests. The engagement of Native American tribes, however, is infrequent. This comparative case study of two tribes in the Northwest and one tribe in the Southwest reveals six broad factors that influence tribal participation in collaborative watershed management. Factors include tribal cultural connection to aquatic resources, the political clout and legal standing of tribes, relationships between tribal and nontribal communities and relevant agencies, recognition of the benefits of collaboration, consistency and vision of tribal leadership, and the availability of resources to tribes. By understanding the factors that shape the development of tribal-nontribal partnerships, managers can direct financial and human resources to better manage watersheds for a full range of values.
The hegemonic view of tourism is as a global panacea for struggling peoples, environments and economies (Smith and Brent 2001). This article begins by arguing that increasing worldwide risks from human-induced climate change fundamentally alter the veracity of this prediction claim. As one of the world's largest industries, tourism is also one of the largest emitters of carbon, primarily from air transport. Far from standing apart from our carbon-dependent economy, tourism is quite profoundly a creation of that economy and cannot be an antidote to the very stuff of which it is made. Further, to the extent that tourism functions as escape from the ills of petroleum-driven life, it detracts critical attention and investment from home places and communities. The article concludes with a proposition for an alternative futures forecast based on bioregional tourism, or locavism. Characteristics of a locavist approach include the de-growth of the high-carbon, distant travel model of tourism and replacement with a low-carbon model that emphasizes local destinations, short distances, lower-carbon transport modes, and capital investment (both financial and social) in local communities.
The fall of the USSR revealed the depth of Russia's environmental crisis to both the world and the Russian people, despite early indications during President Gorbachev's policies of glasnost.1 As the public raised its voice over the crumbling regime, policy-makers changed the way that Russia approached the environment.2 At the same time, the country was adopting the foundations for a democratic, multiparty political system and the tenets of free market capitalism. If indeed there was an underlying change in political economy, the implication is that policy-makers would use environmental policy processes that were compatible with the emerging Russian liberal project.In support of this hypothesis, the adoption of the expertiza (SER) and the post-Soviet addition of public participation (PER) indicate increased liberalism in environmental policy-making. Key authors reviewed the liberal environmental laws of Western European, United States' and Canadian environmental legislation who constructed the 1995 Law on Specially Protected Natural Areas. We contend that the threat of institutionalizing a liberal political economy in Russia provided speci c requirements and boundaries for policy choices. As a result, natural resource policy had to be con gured within these liberal constraints, such as requirements for public participation and state decentralization.The effects of liberalism upon the post-Soviet social organization has not received adequate systematic investigation. 3 We nd that liberalism has had a direct effect on environmental policy as evidenced by a change in the institutional role of Russian scientists who have taken a back seat in the policy-making process. While Soviet environmental management left much to be desired, the change to a liberal environmental policy has further endangered natural resource protection, particularly of the Russian key preserves and national parks.
In recent years residents of the intermontane West have experienced a series of expensive and high-profile fire seasons. One result is that the concept of ecological restoration has moved squarely into public view. As scientists and practitioners continue to refine the definition of ecological restoration as a practical matter, citizens are forming their own perceptions of how restoration should be applied to local forests. We used a recent public opinion survey in north-central Arizona to assess public views of restoration. Our findings indicate broad support for restoration although portions of the population, particularly those in rural areas, see restoration primarily as a means to protect human lives and property from fire. Most importantly, our findings suggest that a majority of the public in this region have a view of restoration beyond fire risk reduction, but vary in their willingness to accept dramatic changes to forest conditions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.