The emergence of ecosystem management: Reinterpreting the gospel?

Freemuth, John

doi:10.1080/08941929609380983

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The relatively recent imperative to conserve the world's biodiversity continues to produce biocentric approaches that marginalize consideration of the human dimension. In addition, technocratic approaches to ecosystem management, which largely ignore the political dimensions of decision making, continue to emerge (Freemuth 1996). Similarly, the importance of integrating socioeconomic issues with biophysical considerations has only recently been seen as critical to achieving sustainable development (Shaw and Kidd 1996).…”

Section: Convergencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, sharing the burden of both management problems and solutions can be identi ed as the most important conceptual issue in the eld (West 1991). Outside of the protected area context, in the broader eld of ecosystem management, decentralization can also be identi ed as a developing trend (Freemuth 1996).…”

Section: Convergencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Freemuth (1996) suggests caution. He argues that "ecosystem management" can in fact mean many things.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Like Freemuth (1996), I am cautious in predicting areas of convergence. New paradigms are frequently predicted but are, as history shows, rare events indeed.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Affirming New Directions in Planning Theory: Comanagement of Protected Areas

Lane

2001

Society and Natural Resources

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years the conservation management literature has seen many calls for comanagement of parks and protected areas. The rationale for this approach to protected area management has come from the experience of park managers struggling to integrate the protected area with the socioeconomic fabric of the surrounding region. This rich experience informs calls for comanagement. A theoretical rationale for and explanation of comanagement, however, have been slow in coming. This article considers the trajectory of change in planning theory over the past 50 years and demonstrates that planning theorists have converged on similar ground to managers of protected areas. Developing cooperative relationships with local stakeholders and sharing the burden of management responsibilities have emerged as a potential new paradigm in natural resource planning. Protected areas therefore provide a context in which many of the ideas and concepts, much debated among scholars of planning, have been empirically tested.Conceptual convergence seems to be a popular topic for commentators and observers of natural resource planning and management. Freemuth (1996) comments that ecosystem management is increasingly viewed as a "new paradigm" in public lands management. Field (1997a, 336) suggests that:Integrated resource management, landscape ecology, watershed management, ecosystem management, biodiversity, and restoration ecology-terms in the lexicon of contemporary resource management -will enhance the convergence of a uni ed conservation philosophy.

show abstract

Section: Convergencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Convergencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Affirming New Directions in Planning Theory: Comanagement of Protected Areas

Lane

2001

Society and Natural Resources

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The trend toward decentralization and enhancing the role of civil society is now discernable in many aspects of natural resource policy around the world, including forest management, conservation, watershed management, and regional planning (Freemuth 1996;Agrawal and Ribot 1999;Gibson, McKean, and Ostrom 2000;Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000;Snow 2001) as well as a host of other areas of social policy (Eberly 2000). Arguably, devolution to more localized actors and applying planning activities to ecoregions or localities (rather than to state jurisdictions) currently enjoys the support of most commentators in the field (Friedmann 1998;Gibson, McKean, and Ostrom 2000;Brick, Snow, and van de Wetering 2001).…”

Section: ᭤ Participation Civil Society and Decentralization In Planmentioning

confidence: 99%

Participation, Decentralization, and Civil Society

Lane¹

2003

Journal of Planning Education and Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines Australian indigenous participation in environmental planning to challenge some of the claims made by advocates of more participatory modes of planning. Calls for the enhanced participation of civil society in planning are associated with an international trend toward the decentralization and devolution of many areas of natural resource policy and state responsibility. Democratic decentralization has been widely advocated as being more efficient and equitable than state control. These claims are examined with reference to three stories involving environmental planning and Australian indigenous peoples. The stories suggest that rather than a “new political economy of planning” whereby the spaces for democracy are enlarged by the activities of civil society, the participation of civil society and decentralization can result in political processes whereby public deliberation is suborned by interest group politics.

show abstract