Confronting socially generated uncertainty in adaptive management

Tyre, Andrew J.; Michaels, Sarah

doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.10.014

Cited by 41 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The challenge of implementing adaptive management stems from: 1) a lack of clarity in definition and approach (Fontaine, 2011), 2) a paucity of success stories on which to build (Lee, 1993;McLain and Lee, 1996;Lee, 1999;Moir and Block, 2001;Walters, 2007), 3) management, policy, and funding paradigms that favor reactive rather than proactive approaches to natural resource management (Walters, 1997;Ascher, 2001;Schreiber et al, 2004), 4) failure to recognize the potential for shifting objectives (Tyre and Michaels, 2011), and 5) failure to acknowledge the social source of uncertainty, and hence increased risk of surprise (Tyre and Michaels, 2011). Each of these challenges has slowed the development of adaptive management as a paradigm for natural resource management and resulted in incomplete, inefficient, and even inappropriate implementation of adaptive management.…”

Section: Adaptive Management Todaymentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptive management for a turbulent future

Allen

Fontaine

Pope

et al. 2011

Journal of Environmental Management

400

238

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tThe challenges that face humanity today differ from the past because as the scale of human influence has increased, our biggest challenges have become global in nature, and formerly local problems that could be addressed by shifting populations or switching resources, now aggregate (i.e., "scale up") limiting potential management options. Adaptive management is an approach to natural resource management that emphasizes learning through management based on the philosophy that knowledge is incomplete and much of what we think we know is actually wrong. Adaptive management has explicit structure, including careful elucidation of goals, identification of alternative management objectives and hypotheses of causation, and procedures for the collection of data followed by evaluation and reiteration. It is evident that adaptive management has matured, but it has also reached a crossroads. Practitioners and scientists have developed adaptive management and structured decision making techniques, and mathematicians have developed methods to reduce the uncertainties encountered in resource management, yet there continues to be misapplication of the method and misunderstanding of its purpose. Ironically, the confusion over the term "adaptive management" may stem from the flexibility inherent in the approach, which has resulted in multiple interpretations of "adaptive management" that fall along a continuum of complexity and a priori design. Adaptive management is not a panacea for the navigation of 'wicked problems' as it does not produce easy answers, and is only appropriate in a subset of natural resource management problems where both uncertainty and controllability are high. Nonetheless, the conceptual underpinnings of adaptive management are simple; there will always be inherent uncertainty and unpredictability in the dynamics and behavior of complex social-ecological systems, but management decisions must still be made, and whenever possible, we should incorporate learning into management.Published by Elsevier Ltd.

show abstract

Section: Adaptive Management Todaymentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptive management for a turbulent future

Allen

Fontaine

Pope

et al. 2011

Journal of Environmental Management

400

238

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A variety of factors can contribute to this: funding and administrative priorities based on reactive rather than proactive management paradigms (Walters 1997), failure to identify or address the potential to shift goals to acknowledge the increased risk of surprise because of social sources of uncertainty (Tyre and Michaels 2011), defaulting to extant institutional norms rather than reflecting, box-ticking as opposed to learning and favoring competition over cooperation (Allan and Curtis 2005), and resource limitations in terms of funding and human capital.…”

Section: Challenges To the Adoption Of Adaptive Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptive Management of Riverine Socio-ecological Systems

Sendzimir

Magnuszewski

Gunderson

2018

Riverine Ecosystem Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Similarly, a second problem concerns the struggles that SES and SEA have in recognising the potential shift of objectives caused by social uncertainty deriving from stakeholders and decision-makers varying attitude, interests and thinking (Tyre & Michaels 2011). These conditions affect the management and the policy organisation, favouring reactive approaches to natural resource management rather than proactive ones.…”

Section: 41mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Adaptive forms of management have evolved through time by developing and testing actions in the face of uncertainty (Walters 1986). Similarly to SEA and SES, adaptive management cannot perform without accounting for the social and institutional factors in place in each context and for consequent obstacles raised by complex human interactions (Allen et al 2011;Tyre & Michaels 2011;Walters 1997;Williams 2011). The need to extensively account for human factors is achieved through adaptive types of governance, based on the cooperation among stakeholders in self-organized and learning environments (Folke et al 2005;Dietz 2003).…”

Section: From Adaptive Approaches To Policy-making To Adaptive and Itmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This lack involves all the dimensions directly depending on indicators measurement, such as data collection and management, definition of parameters and thresholds, plan's assessment through indicators, and monitoring. As a result, decision-making processes involved with natural resource management through planning schemes might suffer from diffused uncertainty (Tyre & Michaels 2011).…”

Section: 3mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A limits-oriented approach to sustainable planning assessments: a comparative analysis of South East Queensland (Australia) and Lombardia (Italy)

Baresi¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sustainable development is one of the key issues facing human survival on this planet. The urban planning discipline is actively involved in fostering more feasible ways to structure human activities and their relationship with the global ecosystem's finite resources. Since sustainability has become a major issue for human kind, sustainability assessments have proliferated in different ways to integrate socio-economic prosperity and provide environmental safeguards. In theory, these assessments can contribute towards addressing the increasing threats posed by climate change and by the depletion of natural resources, by building consensus around shared strategies involving a wide range of stakeholders to address national and international sustainable development goals. In practice however, sustainability assessments are undermined by problems associated with first the policy-making processes (for example, stakeholders' involvement) and second the measurement of the impacts of policies, plans and programs (such as the definition and computation of sustainability indicators). These issues weaken community trust in sustainability assessments and reduce their efficacy. Critical research is required to explore viable solutions.The main goal of this thesis is to address the shortcomings of current procedures for sustainability assessment. A comparative case study explores differences and similarities between an Australian region (South East Queensland) and an Italian region (Lombardia), which are representative of different institutional and planning backgrounds. Methodologically, this thesis develops and applies a framework to understand how limitations within political and societal processes prevent the achievement of environmentally sustainable planning. This framework combines a 'limits-oriented approach to evolutionary ecology' (Sih & Gleeson 1995) transposed to governance and policy-making processes, and the need to pursue a sustainable use of finite natural resources as suggested by positions addressing the 'limits to growth' by Meadows et al. (1972).Overall, this thesis develops an approach to diagnose current obstacles that need to be overcome and the pathway for achieving institutionalised limits-oriented approaches for improving procedures of sustainability assessment. This 'limits-oriented' framework outlines the benefits that South East Queensland and Lombardia can achieve by optimising current practices for sustainable planning within their regional contexts. This approach explores the limiting traits that undermine the performance of sustainability assessments, and proposes ways to bridge the gaps that separate their theoretical conceptualisation from their practical implementation.The framework developed and tested through this thesis offers an analytical lens to examine how the assessment of sustainable planning is currently featured in different institutional contexts. Its experimental implementation in countries with different planning traditions provides an insight on iii how to overcome iss...

show abstract

Confronting socially generated uncertainty in adaptive management

Cited by 41 publications

References 22 publications

Adaptive management for a turbulent future

Adaptive management for a turbulent future

Adaptive Management of Riverine Socio-ecological Systems

A limits-oriented approach to sustainable planning assessments: a comparative analysis of South East Queensland (Australia) and Lombardia (Italy)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About