The underappreciated role of regulatory enforcement in natural resource conservation

Nie, Martin

doi:10.1007/s11077-008-9060-4

Cited by 32 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, even if such local knowledge is developed by low-ranking field personnel (such as some of the forest guards discussed by Robbins 2000), this will have little meaning to the outcomes of agency programs if they are not consulted by decision makers who, in most resource management agencies, work primarily in regional or national centers far removed from the natural resources being managed. Procedures that expose agency planning to public criticism, such as the notice and comment procedures enshrined in the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act, may also serve to limit the development of PEK (Yackee 2006, Nie 2008, Auer et al 2011. If this is the case, we would expect that agencies whose work is subjected to less public criticism, such as the NRCS and Indian forest departments, to incorporate less scientific and local knowledge than agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and USDA Forest Service, which engage in substantially more notice and comment procedures.…”

Section: Creation Of Professional Ecological Knowledge (Pek)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Professional ecological knowledge: an unrecognized knowledge domain within natural resource management

Fleischman¹,

Briske²

2016

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Successful natural resource management is dependent on effective knowledge exchange and utilization. Local/traditional/ indigenous knowledge derived from place-based experience and scientific knowledge generated by systematic inquiry are the most commonly recognized knowledge domains. However, we propose that many natural resource decisions are not based on local or scientific knowledge, but rather on a little recognized domain that we term professional ecological knowledge (PEK). Professional ecological knowledge is founded upon codification of broad ecological principles, but not necessarily scientific evidence, to legitimize agency programs, support operational efficiency, and encourage user compliance. However, in spite of these benefits, PEK may reduce program effectiveness by inhibiting the exchange of local and scientific knowledge and minimizing the development of evidence-based conservation. We describe what we consider to be common facets of PEK through case studies examining the sources of knowledge utilized by forestry agencies in India and by rangeland conservation programs of the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service. Three propositions are presented regarding the origins and continued existence of PEK: (1) minimal information feedbacks regarding the efficacy of agency programs contributes to development of PEK; (2) a narrow scientific agenda and a perception that most scientific knowledge is not relevant to management decisions encourages a divide between scientists and managers; and (3) political interests often benefit from existing applications of PEK. By calling attention to the existence of PEK as a distinctive knowledge domain, we aim to encourage more explicit and critical consideration of the origins of knowledge used in environmental decision making. Explicit recognition of PEK may provide greater understanding of the dynamics of knowledge exchange and decision making in natural resource management.

show abstract

Section: Creation Of Professional Ecological Knowledge (Pek)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Professional ecological knowledge: an unrecognized knowledge domain within natural resource management

Fleischman¹,

Briske²

2016

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In general, there is a need for a better understanding of the impact of legal and institutional frameworks on adaptive management implementation. While the literature suggests that collaboratively-based, iterative processes are needed to promote flexibility and facilitate adaptation (e.g., Gunderson and Light 2006), others note that this stands in opposition to most legal requirements and processes, and that specifically enforceable standards are often preferable to open-ended guidance (Nie 2008). Adaptive management methodologies are of limited value unless they can be employed within the highly complex, often overlapping regulatory frameworks currently in place in the United States.…”

Section: Conclusion: Beyond Cogs and Toward Wheelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intelligent Tinkering: the Endangered Species Act and Resilience

Benson¹

2012

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is one of the most powerful and controversial environmental laws in the United States. As a result of its uncompromising position against biodiversity loss, the ESA has become the primary driver of many ecological restoration efforts in the United States. This article explains why the ESA has become the impetus for so many of these efforts and assesses the strengths and weaknesses of the ESA as a primary driver from a resilience-based perspective. It argues that in order to accommodate resilience theory, several changes to ESA implementation and enforcement should be made. First and foremost, there is a need to shift management strategies from a species-centered to a systems-based approach. Chief among the shifts required will be a more integrated approach to governance that includes a willingness to reassess demands placed on ecological systems by our social systems. Building resilience will also require more proactive management efforts that support the functioning of system processes before they are endangered and on the brink of regime change. Finally, resilience thinking requires a reorientation of management away from goals associated with achieving preservation, restoration, and optimization and toward goals associated with fostering complexity and adaptive capacity.

show abstract

“…This means that those outside the agency are not able to enforce the agencies' commitment to adaptive management. Enforceability is important because, historically, judicial interpretation has been necessary to establish the details and define the duties and expectations of agency mandates and insure implementation (Nie, 2008). Without more specific and enforceable legal grounding, adaptive management principles are in danger of losing their legitimacy as "agency speak" with little meaning.…”

Section: Integrating Emerging Conceptual Understandings Of Natural Symentioning

confidence: 99%

Embracing panarchy, building resilience and integrating adaptive management through a rebirth of the National Environmental Policy Act

Benson

Garmestani

2011

Journal of Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The underappreciated role of regulatory enforcement in natural resource conservation

Abstract: Natural resource policy, Environmental policy, Governance, Conservation, Regulation, Collaboration, Easements, Adaptive management,

Cited by 32 publications

References 22 publications

Professional ecological knowledge: an unrecognized knowledge domain within natural resource management

Professional ecological knowledge: an unrecognized knowledge domain within natural resource management

Intelligent Tinkering: the Endangered Species Act and Resilience

Embracing panarchy, building resilience and integrating adaptive management through a rebirth of the National Environmental Policy Act

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About