Adaptive Approaches to Biosecurity Governance

Cook, David; Liu, Shuang; Murphy, Brendan; Lonsdale, Mark

doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01439.x

Cited by 45 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A resilience-based framing of environmental governance can inform the choice of management strategies applied to achieve a desired regime amidst complexity and uncertainty (Garmestani and Benson, 2013;Chaffin et al, 2014), which includes managing the impacts and interactions of biological invasions. 'Adaptive governance' describes one resilience-based approach to environmental governance with the potential to inform future efforts to manage biological invasions (Cook et al, 2010).…”

Section: Governing Biological Invasionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Invasions and Adaptive Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cook et al (2010) proposed a set of design principles for the adaptive governance of invasive species termed "biosecurity governance" with an emphasis on efficiency of information flow and generation of shared information through adaptive management throughout networks of individuals and organizations managing invasive species. Cook et al (2010) called for "overlapping complementary biosecurity response capabilities, [that] depart from centralist (or linear) governance structures" and networks of biodiversity collectives for increased attention to local detection and response. In terms of biological invasions, the relevant spatial and temporal scales of governance are invasion dependentdfor example, governing the ubiquitous spread of the invasive cheat grass (Bromus tectorum) across the western USA would require a large-scale, landscape approach to governance involving multiple jurisdictions, multiple scales of resource users and multiple levels of government.…”

Section: Invasions and Adaptive Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, we argue that the previous scholarship calling for adaptive governance of biological invasionsdwhich presumed designed governance structuresdignored the self-organizing nature of adaptive governance. Our approach assumes that the emergence of adaptive governance will include governance mechanisms to ensure fairness and justice in prioritizing the management of invasions at various scales, beyond what Cook et al (2010) referred to as mechanisms "to achieve the highest ratio of winners to losers within a society." However, this idea represents a critical void in scholarship on adaptive governance generally, and the governance of invasions specifically.…”

Section: Invasions and Adaptive Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Invasive speciesdnon-native species that geographically spread and increase in abundance following initial establishment (Lodge et al, 2006)dby affecting ecological processes (Gandhi and Herms, 2010), engineering ecosystem structure (Crooks, 2002) or affecting community dynamics (Yurkonis et al, 2005), can significantly alter ecosystem structure and function that may result in a significant alteration in the provision of ecosystem services. Although there has been a recent shift toward prevention of invasions (Cook et al, 2010;Simberloff, 2013), traditional approaches to managing invasions have been largely reactionary in nature, with a focus on control through mitigation and eradication (Keller et al, 2007;Foxcroft and McGeoch, 2011). This control approach grew out of a dominant narrative that invasions are ecologically, economically and culturally undesirable, and has been reinforced by many documented cases of detrimental, and often highly visible, impacts (Keller et al, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Biological invasions, ecological resilience and adaptive governance

Chaffin

Garmestani

Angeler

et al. 2016

Journal of Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tIn a world of increasing interconnections in global trade as well as rapid change in climate and land cover, the accelerating introduction and spread of invasive species is a critical concern due to associated negative social and ecological impacts, both real and perceived. Much of the societal response to invasive species to date has been associated with negative economic consequences of invasions. This response has shaped a war-like approach to addressing invasions, one with an agenda of eradications and intense ecological restoration efforts towards prior or more desirable ecological regimes. This trajectory often ignores the concept of ecological resilience and associated approaches of resilience-based governance. We argue that the relationship between ecological resilience and invasive species has been understudied to the detriment of attempts to govern invasions, and that most management actions fail, primarily because they do not incorporate adaptive, learning-based approaches. Invasive species can decrease resilience by reducing the biodiversity that underpins ecological functions and processes, making ecosystems more prone to regime shifts. However, invasions do not always result in a shift to an alternative regime; invasions can also increase resilience by introducing novelty, replacing lost ecological functions or adding redundancy that strengthens already existing structures and processes in an ecosystem. This paper examines the potential impacts of species invasions on the resilience of ecosystems and suggests that resilience-based approaches can inform policy by linking the governance of biological invasions to the negotiation of tradeoffs between ecosystem services.

show abstract

Section: Governing Biological Invasionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Invasions and Adaptive Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Invasions and Adaptive Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Invasions and Adaptive Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Biological invasions, ecological resilience and adaptive governance

Chaffin

Garmestani

Angeler

et al. 2016

Journal of Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Managing Risk and Increasing the Robustness of Invasive Species Eradication Programs

Spring

Kompas

2015

Asia & Pacific Policy Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Invasive species eradication programs can fail by applying management strategies that are not robust to potentially large but nonquantified risks. A more robust strategy can succeed over a larger range of possible values for non-quantified risk. This form of robustness analysis is often not undertaken in eradication program evaluations. The main nonquantified risk initially facing Australia's fire ant eradication program was that the invasion had spread further than expected. Earlier consideration of this risk could have led to a more robust strategy involving a larger area managed in the program's early stages. This strategy could potentially have achieved eradication at relatively low cost without significantly increasing known and quantified risks. Our findings demonstrate that focusing on known and quantifiable risks can increase the vulnerability of eradication programs to known but non-quantified risks. This highlights the importance of including robustness to potentially large but non-quantified risks as a mandatory criterion in evaluations of invasive species eradication programs.

show abstract