River Federalism

Doyle, Martin W.; Lave, Rebecca; Robertson, Morgan; Ferguson, Julia L.

doi:10.1080/00045608.2013.754686

Cited by 50 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Instead of conducting restoration as scientific endeavors, they regard restoration as providing opportu-1 In addition to the most relevant studies reviewed here, other lines of geographical inquiry focus on ecological restoration as a case for analyzing changing narratives of environmental policies (see Clark, 2009;Norgaard et al, 2009) and neoliberal governance of the environment (see Robertson, 2010;Dempsey and Robertson, 2012). Others also examine stream restoration as an example of a new form of expertise, which is produced in the private sector as opposed to in the academia (see Doyle et al, 2013;Lave, 2012Lave, , 2014.…”

Section: Debates Over the Role Of Science In Ecological Restorationmentioning

confidence: 98%

Contrasting visions of science in ecological restoration: Expert-lay dynamics between professional practitioners and volunteers

Weng

2015

Geoforum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tEcological restoration as a popular form of volunteer participation has been praised as an example of democratic natural resource management. However, the involvement of volunteers in projects guided by professionals does not necessarily ensure democratic knowledge exchange and production. Drawing insights from citizen science and political ecology, this paper investigates the role of science in mediating the dynamics between professional practitioners and volunteers. Using case studies of ecological restoration programs at two university arboreta in the American Midwest, this paper argues that the contrasting visions of science between professional practitioners and volunteers led to conflicts and presented challenges for the institutions to genuinely engage the public in contributing local knowledge and framing management priorities. While both groups emphasized the practical aspect of science in guiding restoration work, they differed in how they conceptualized the role of humans in restoration, work priorities, and how to apply scientific theories and methods in restoration. Moreover, at the university arboreta, science defined institutional identity and claims to scientific authority further delineated boundaries between professional practitioners and volunteers. As a result, distrust, tensions, lack of engagement, and different levels of desired public participation existed in these seemingly participatory programs. Theoretically, this paper contributes to the cross-fertilization between citizen science and political ecology by underscoring the politics of participation and the role of science (and its interpretations) in challenging expert-lay dynamics in environmental volunteering programs. Practical recommendations are included for deconstructing the expert-lay hierarchy and moving restoration toward a democratic practice.

show abstract

Section: Debates Over the Role Of Science In Ecological Restorationmentioning

confidence: 98%

Contrasting visions of science in ecological restoration: Expert-lay dynamics between professional practitioners and volunteers

Weng

2015

Geoforum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Echoing interventions in physical geography calling for the integration of insights from human geography (Tadaki et al, 2012;Wilcock et al, 2013), recent CPG contributions (cf Carey, 2010;Doyle et al, 2013;Lave and Lutz, 2014;Simon, 2014;Tadaki et al, 2014) respond to perennial calls in geography and other disciplines for an integrated science that takes seriously the interrelations between the social and the biophysical. Furthermore, CPG has the potential to move beyond the conventional ''impact model'' of human drivers of urban biogeochemical change (cf Grimm et al, 2008;Kaye et al, 2006;Pickett et al, 2011) by explicitly addressing the distal social processes mediating proximal soil disturbance, recognizing that ''socio-biophysical landscapes are as much the product of unequal power relations, histories of colonialism, and racial and gender disparities as they are of hydrology, ecology, and climate change'' (Lave et al, 2014, p. 3).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

A critical physical geography of urban soil contamination

McClintock

2015

Geoforum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For instance, Patterson and Doyle () demonstrated differences in reservoirs meeting their WCPs, while Owen () and Doyle et al. () demonstrated differences in how Corps Districts and Divisions implemented their regulatory authority of the Clean Water Act.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Federal Decentralization and Adaptive Management of Water Resources: Reservoir Reallocation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Doyle

Patterson

2019

J American Water Resour Assoc

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reservoir operations must respond to changing conditions, such as climate, water demand, regulations, and sedimentation. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) can reallocate reservoir storage to respond to such changes. We assembled and analyzed a database of reservoir reallocations implemented and proposed by the Corps. While only a small portion of total reservoir storage nationwide has been reallocated, there are substantial differences in reallocation frequency and magnitude across the nation: some Corps Districts and Divisions use reallocation while others do not, relying more on discretion and small‐scale adaptation of operations. This difference illustrates how water resource agencies like the Corps decentralize management decisions to allow responding to disparate conditions. Decentralized decision‐making provides a responsive approach to water management, while centralized and hierarchical decision‐making is a slower, more deliberative approach. Decentralized decision‐making may lead to the accumulation of short‐term, local decisions over time to the point that the system is managed differently than anticipated. Reallocation, which is a form of planned adaptive management, can be accommodating of multiple competing demands and different stakeholders, yet expensive and less temporally responsive. The challenge for any large water resource management agency is to balance between local‐level, responsive discretion vs. centralized, planned decision‐making.

show abstract

River Federalism

Cited by 50 publications

References 10 publications

Contrasting visions of science in ecological restoration: Expert-lay dynamics between professional practitioners and volunteers

Contrasting visions of science in ecological restoration: Expert-lay dynamics between professional practitioners and volunteers

A critical physical geography of urban soil contamination

Federal Decentralization and Adaptive Management of Water Resources: Reservoir Reallocation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About