Suchergebnisse

This book includes chapters by some of the leading analysts in outdoor recreation research. Experts in the fields of natural resource management, geography, economics, political science, forestry, and leisure sociology address current issues in outdoor recreation policy. The underlying themes of all chapters are the preservation/use dilemma inherent in outdoor recreation policy and the management of natural resources. Extremely comprehensive and current, the volume focuses on the economic, social, attitudinal, and demographic considerations pertinent in today's outdoor recreation policy formulation. The first section of the book defines the dimensions of the preservation/use dilemma as well as key concepts in outdoor recreation research. The next two sections focus upon the measurement of the benefits of recreational resources and the financing of maintenance and management of natural resource areas. Another section includes chapters on the assessment of public preferences and the outdoor recreation demands/needs of various constituencies. The fifth section of the book includes chapters which focus upon federal agencies' approaches to the implementation of recreation resource policies. The final section includes chapters which describe management techniques that may be utilized in attempting to balance the demands of preservation and use. Accessible to a wide audience, the book makes valuable reading for policymakers, administrators, and scholars in the areas of recreation and natural resources.

Natural resource management is rich with systems complexity, which is amplified when interest group politics and tactics create an overlay of strategic behaviors. For the past two decades, systems thinking techniques have comprised a key part of the Collaborative Learning facilitation methodology in natural resources management and environmental policy decision making. This essay focuses specifically on the contribution that systems thinking makes to the facilitation of natural resource conflict, drawing upon broad observations drawn from a number of applications. The discussion provides a context for understanding the systemic complexity of natural resource conflicts, offers a brief summary of a particular systems‐based facilitation paradigm (i.e. Collaborative Learning), and then presents a set of lessons that have emerged from 20 years of application. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Examines the uses of collaboration in environmental and natural resource policy decision making and conflict management.Environmental and natural resource policy decision making is changing. Increasingly citizens and management agency personnel are seeking ways to do things differently; to participate meaningfully in the decision making process as parties work through policy conflicts. Doing things differently has come to mean doing things collaboratively.Daniels and Walker examine collaboration in environmental and natural resource policy decision making and conflict management. They address collaboration by featuring a method collaborative learning, that has been designed to address decision making and conflict management needs in complex and controversial policy settings. As they illustrate, collaborative learning differs in some significant ways from existing approaches for dealing with policy decision making, public participation, and conflict management. First, it is a hybrid of systems thinking and alternative dispute resolution concepts. Second, it is grounded explicitly in experiential, team-or organizational-and adult learning theories. It is a theory-based framework through which parties can make progress in the management of controversial environmental policy situations. They discuss both the theory and technique of collaborative learning and present cases where it has been applied. This is a professional and teaching tool for scholars, students, and researchers involved with environmental issues as well as dispute resolution.

Immersed in natural resource policy approaches such as ecosystem management is the expectation that the best available science will be applied so that the best policy management decision will result. Citizens, like scientists and land managers, want natural resource management decisions based on good science rather than special interest group politics. Yet citizens also want to be involved in the decision process and are skeptical about the very science they claim must be the basis for policy actions. Herein lies an apparent paradox. Citizens' want the best science to guide natural resource management decisions, but not to the exclusion of their input. Similarly, there seems to be a paradox in the sentiments expressed by natural resource management agency administrators and specialists. Agency personnel know they need meaningful citizen involvement in their management decisions, but they also want citizens to trust their scientific expertise. This paper is about that paradox and innovative ways to work through it. We first discuss the nature of natural resource conflict, then address the paradox in some depth. A discussion of traditional public participation precedes innovative methods for working through the paradox.

Environmental and natural resource policy decision making is changing. Increasingly citizens and management agency personnel are seeking ways to "do things differently"; to participate meaningfully in the decision making process as parties work through policy conflicts. "Doing things differently" has come to mean doing things collaboratively. Daniels and Walker examine collaboration in environmental and natural resource policy decision making and conflict management. They address collaboration by featuring a method "collaborative learning," that has been designed to address decision making and conflict management needs in complex and controversial policy settings. As they illustrate, collaborative learning differs in some significant ways from existing approaches for dealing with policy decision making, public participation, and conflict management. First, it is a hybrid of systems thinking and alternative dispute resolution concepts. Second, it is grounded explicitly in experiential, team-or organizational-and adult learning theories. It is a theory-based framework through which parties can make progress in the management of controversial environmental policy situations. They discuss both the theory and technique of collaborative learning and present cases where it has been applied. This is a professional and teaching tool for scholars, students, and researchers involved with environmental issues as well as dispute resolution.

The recent impasse over federal forest management in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States has been a living laboratory of conflict and its management, and provides the context for this case study. While most of the media attention has been focused on regional or national events such as President Clinton's Forest Conference of April 1993, a larger number of localized conflicts have shaped the controversy at the grassroots level. This case study focuses on a pivotal meeting in one such conflict: the Shasta Costa planning process. Outside intervenors mediated the meeting, and USDA Forest Service personnel, timber industry representatives, and environmentalists participated Participant observation and a supplemental survey led to the following conclusions: (1) measures of standing (the legal and social basis for legitimate participation) differed between the industry and environmental representatives, (2) reliance on science differed between groups, and (3) the process was not able to overcome a power imbalance. These findings suggest that there may be little hope for local dispute efforts if there is substantial policy uncertainty at the national level. Implications for managing forestry conflict in the region are discussed.

The recent impasse over federal forest management in the Pacific Northwest region of the US has been a living laboratory of conflict & its management. While most of the media attention has been focused on regional or national events, eg, President Clinton's Forest Conference of Apr 1993, a larger number of localized conflicts have shaped the controversy at the grass-roots level. This case study focuses on a pivotal meeting in one such conflict: the Shasta Costa planning process. Outside intervenors mediated the meeting, & US Dept of Agriculture Forest Service personnel, timber industry representatives, & environmentalists participated. Participant observations & a supplemental survey (N = 18) of participants led to the following conclusions: (1) measures of standing (the legal & social basis for legitimate participation) differed between the industry & environmental representatives, (2) reliance on science differed between groups, & (3) the process was not able to overcome a power imbalance. These findings suggest that there may be little hope for local dispute efforts if there is substantial policy uncertainty at the national level. Implications for managing forestry conflict in the region are discussed. 1 Figure, 1 Appendix, 55 References. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractThe Unifying Negotiation Framework is an integrative model of policy negotiation. It flows out of the discourse tradition in public policy and political theory. It conceptualizes decision processes as discourses that occur at three levels (micro, meso, and macro), and are affected by six different factors (culture, institutions, agency, incentives, cognition, and actor orientation and experience). Initial applications of the Framework show that it has value in training, ex ante evaluation and design, and ex post evaluation and analysis. It has the additional benefit of synthesizing the disparate literatures on participatory processes. Because the Framework does not lead to specific predictions, it is more accurately referred to as an organizing meta‐narrative than a theory.

Although studies show that actions by property owners, such as maintaining a defensible space, are generally the best means of protecting property from wildfire, victims often blame government agencies and others for property damage, injury, and death. This article describes a multiple-methods approach for investigating factors that influence how people who experience wildfire perceive the cause of wildfire damage. Phase I and II mail surveys and real-time field interviews were conducted in communities on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada. Generally speaking, people who had experienced wildfire attributed damage to other people's actions more than people who had not. Whether residents incurred damage or not, having maintained a sense of control or interacting with firefighters also appears to have influenced attributions. We argue that multiple-methods approaches to such questions have the potential to reveal more about such phenomena than approaches based on any single method.

Since the early 1990s collaboration and consensus processes have become associated with success in the environmental policy and natural resource policy arenas. Interest in collaboration and consensus processes have emerged, in part, out of a frustration with more conventional efforts used to involve stakeholders, to work though conflicts, and to make decisions in the environmental and natural resource policy arenas. Collaboration and consensus processes, when designed well and applied appropriately, provide opportunities for meaningful stakeholder engagement. This essay features aspects of two government-led or agency-based (Koontz et al. 2004; Moore and Koontz 2003) planning efforts that consider collaboration and citizens/stakeholder engagement. Both projects, a forest management plan revision on the Allegheny National Forest in Pennsylvania, and a regional sediment management planning effort at the mouth of the Columbia River in the Pacific Northwest, have considered a Collaborative Learning (CL) approach (Daniels and Walker 2001) for stakeholder involvement. As part of these CL applications, citizens/stakeholders have been asked for their views of the kind of participation processes they value and how they prefer to be involved. This essay presents a summary of citizens' ideas. In doing so, it addresses the question: How do stakeholders want to be engaged in agency-led planning efforts? Data reveal that stakeholders prefer active engagement, access to information and events, and clearly defined decision space. Prior to presenting the project data germane to this question, the paper highlights the trinity of voice and Collaborative Learning.