Abstract
Making a leap forward in restoring and sustaining lands requires more than refining conventional approaches for formulating environmental policy and making natural resource decisions. We are in a period of transition and evolution with regard to managing the dynamics of coupled natural and human systems. New forms of governance are emerging. We need institutions that will distill and harness the wisdom residing in diverse societies, facilitate dialogue, and enhance mutual learning about shared problems. We need governance regimes and processes that bridge the gaps among disciplines, methods, and current institutions that include public, private, and academic participants. New institutions and governance regimes will enable an ongoing process of collaborative action and shared decision making that supports durable environmental policy and land use decisions that sustain communities, economies, and the environment.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
“It is a tempting and safe academic device to approach any problem from a traditional viewpoint. By so doing we assume that the twenty or so civilizations of man and the few thousand years of recorded history are sufficient to have faced all problems and devised all solutions. Society now seems to be facing problems of resources and environment, however, more intensive and extensive than those experienced in the past” (Holling and Chambers 1973, 13). This was written almost 40 years ago. In this book, we endeavor to present unconventional approaches to dealing with the ever-increasing problems of resources and environment.
- 2.
John Hagan, president of the Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, stated, “we need to listen, learn, and apply,” at a panel session on Science in the Age of Sound Bites co-sponsored by MIT and Manomet spring 2010. The audience and the rest of the panel, comprising MIT professors, a newspaper reporter, and filmmakers, essentially overlooked his statement; the panel focused on their own messages.
- 3.
Shelia Jasanoff, Pforzheimer Professor of Science and Technology Studies, Harvard Kennedy School.
- 4.
Interdisciplinary research to us includes the combination and integration of biophysical science, social science, political science, and engineering applied to problem solving, environmental policy formulation, natural resource management, and planning. But in general usage “science” means physical science – the so-called hard sciences – and it is by this definition that we discuss science in this section.
- 5.
Papers published 30 and 40 years ago make this same statement.
- 6.
We would suggest there is a wide chasm between being wise and smart. Scientists are often wrong, perhaps, more often than they are right; this is how science advances. Wisdom is rare and is never easy to attain. However, it might be more likely to be attained through a collective process that involves many diverse voices than by a monolithic block of few ideological voices (see Surowiecki 2004, The Wisdom of Crowds). The same might be said of actions shaped solely by those with technical and scientific knowledge. Such actions may reflect knowledge of the physical properties and system dynamics of ecosystems, but they may not represent outcomes that reflect the multiple values of those affected by resource and land management choices nor practices that embody the experiential knowledge of those living on these lands and in their surrounding communities.
- 7.
A number of USGS scientists early in their careers have told Herman Karl that they would like to do the research he is doing on the role of science in collaborative processes, but know they would not get promoted. Indeed, when Karl shifted his career focus toward this research, his promotions were slowed because he was no longer publishing in the conventional journals of his discipline (marine geology). During one promotion cycle, a friend on the evaluation panel told him that his colleagues on the panel thought “you [Karl] had gone crazy because you are working with an economist” and publishing in ocean management journals. For Karl to continue to do so meant that he would not be promotable; he eventually transferred to another division where he was encouraged to continue his research.
- 8.
Leadership of both academic and governmental institutions may dispute this characterization. It is based on the experience of some of the authors. And all one needs to do is to ask scientists in the field and laboratories how easy it is to break down the barriers to interdisciplinary research within their organizations. We acknowledge that some progress has been made to encourage interdisciplinary research. But the very fact that publication after publication continues to assert the need for interdisciplinary research argues that it still is not routine. The few exceptions do not invalidate the assertion that interdisciplinary research is not common nor facilitated by most academic and governmental institutions.
- 9.
Karl was a member of the USGS Strategic Planning Team in 1994 and 1995. At that time USGS had about 30 programs distributed among three divisions (Geologic, Water Resources, and National Mapping) The team interviewed each program coordinator and learned that none of them had talked to one another; in other words there was no communication or coordination among programs. Yet, even at that time USGS considered itself an integrated science agency. Since then USGS has undergone several reorganizations.
- 10.
This statement is based on Karl’s 33-year career with USGS; he and many other USGS colleagues will argue that there is no easy way to conduct interdisciplinary research within USGS.
- 11.
Regionalism on Purpose, Kathryn A. Foster, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA, 2001.
- 12.
“Collaborative Public Management and Climate Change: Managing Climate Change in a Multi-level Governance System,” draft chapter, January 2010, for Climate Change and Federalism, forthcoming.
- 13.
Regionalism on Purpose, op. cit., p. 4.
- 14.
Ibid., p. 8.
- 15.
“Green, Clean, and Dollar Smart: Ecosystem Restoration in Cities and Countryside,” Lynn Scarlett, forthcoming, Environmental Defense Fund, Washington, D.C.
- 16.
This section was influenced and benefitted by discussions with Gary McVicker and Richard Whitely.
- 17.
These are a genre of civil society organizations (CSO).
- 18.
Will Hopkins, director of the Cobscook Bay Resource Center, made this statement July 2010 at a retreat in Maine to discuss the role of collaborative groups in resource management and ecosystem restoration.
- 19.
- 20.
Political parties perversely understand the importance of boundaries. Both gerrymander congressional districts that cut across jurisdictional boundaries of counties and municipalities.
- 21.
We do not consider specific issue conflicts of short duration (1 year or less), which are appropriate for environmental mediation, as relevant for the approach we develop herein. Ongoing stewardship situations of which the Tomales Bay Watershed Council is an example are the types under consideration here.
- 22.
NB: Consensus does not equate to unanimity.
- 23.
At MIT we developed a role-play simulation called the Owl Game about the spotted owl/timber harvest controversy. The game is to be played within 90 min. The first order of business is to define the problem, which initially seems obvious. Often the participants spend almost the full ninety minutes on reaching consensus on the problem definition. A Bureau of Land Management natural resource manager said it was the most realistic game he had played.
- 24.
Many scientists, engineers, and modelers have a large personal investment in their research and model. They tend to promote, either consciously or subconsciously, their particular research or model as the way to solve the problem – the problem usually defined by them. Until the problem is defined by all stakeholders reaching consensus, the appropriate way to solve it is cannot known.
- 25.
Kania and Kramer (2011) do not talk about wicked problems. They talk about adaptive problems, which by the way they define them are wicked problems.
- 26.
This example is adapted from a policy report by Lynn Scarlett, Clean, Green and Dollar Smart (February 2010) Washington, D.C.: Environmental Defense Fund.
- 27.
- 28.
Eric Walberg is the project manager; http://www.manomet.org/node/220
- 29.
- 30.
If there is disagreement that this is not typically the case, why then do so many editorials, reports, and scholarly articles continue to urge the changes discussed in this book? Small steps have been taken, but not the giant leaps necessary to tackle effectively wicked problems.
- 31.
San Francisquito Creek is a small creek in northern California (Rofougaran and Karl 2005). It is the boundary between two counties and flows through five municipalities. It is the last remaining riparian creek in that area of the San Francisco Bay. A Joint Powers Authority (JPA) was established to manage the land in the San Francisquito Creek basin. Management of the ecosystem was very contentious with some municipalities wanting the land preserved as the last remaining riparian creek and others wanting it developed for an increased tax base. The upper reaches of the creek are inhabited by some of the wealthiest people in the world and the lower by many people near or below the poverty level. These economic disparities mirror racial differences as well. Because of the conflict, an environmental mediator and the National Park Service suggested that the JPA meet around the table with residents of the watershed to have a conversation about the creek facilitated by a neutral. All agreed, particularly the JPA (who had difficulty talking with each other), this was the most productive and constructive meeting they had ever had. They never held another collaborative meeting after it. All subsequent meetings were the conventional format of JPA members sitting on a raised platform with citizens being allowed a limited time to speak. The conflict continued unabated.
References
Adler PS, Birkhoff JE (2002) Building trust: when knowledge from “Here” meets knowledge from “Away”, The national policy consensus center: Portland, OR. [Available online at http://www.resolv.org/about_pub_bt.html]
Armitage D, Plummer R (2010) Adaptive capacity and environmental governance, Springer series on Environmental Management. Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg
Brunner RD, Steelman TA, Coe-Juell L, Cromley CM, Edwards CM, Tucker DW (2005) Adaptive governance, integrating science, policy, and decision making. Columbia University Press, New York, 319 p
Brown VA, Harris JA, Russell JY (2010) Tackling wicked problems through the interdisciplinary imagination, Earthscan, Washington, DC and London, 312 p
Bush V (1945) Science the endless frontier: a report to the President by Vannevar Bush. Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, July 1945, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington
Chapin FS III, Kofinas GP, Folke C (eds) (2009) Principles of ecosystem stewardship: resilience-based natural resource management in a changing world. Springer/LLC, New York
Clark TW (2002) The policy process: a practical guide for natural resource professionals. Yale University Press, New Haven/London, 215 p
Coglianese C (2001) Is consensus an appropriate basis for regulatory policy? In: Orts EW, Deketelaere K (eds) Environmental contracts. Kluwer Law International, Boston, pp 93–113
Daniels SE, Walker GB (2001) Working through environmental conflict: the collaborative learning approach. Praeger, Westport/Connecticut/London, 299 p
Fisher F (2000) Citizens, experts, and the environment: the politics of local knowledge, Duke University Press, Durham and London, 336 p
Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M (1994) The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage, London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi, 179 p
Holling CS, Chambers AD (1973) Resource science: the nurture of an infant. Bioscience 23:13–20
in’t Veld RJ (2010) Knowledge democracy: consequences for science, politics, and media. Springer, Heidelberg/Dordrecht/London/New York, 397 p
Ison R, Collins K (2008) Public policy that does the right thing rather than the wrong thing righter: in analyzing collaborative and deliberative forms of governance, one-day workshop 14th November 2008, Deliberative Democracy
Issacs W (1999) Dialogue: and the art of thinking together. Currency, New York/London/Toronto/Sydney/Auckland, 428 p
Kania J, Kramer M (2011) Collective impact, Stanford Social Innovation Review. Winter 2011, 36–41
Klein JT, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Haberli R, Bill A, Scholz RW, Welti M (eds) (2001) Transdisciplinarity: joint problem solving among science, technology, and society: an effective way for managing complexity. Birhhauser-Verlag, Basel/Boston/Berlin, 332 p
Koontz TM, Steelman TA, Carmin J, Korfmacher KS, Moseley C, Thomas CW (2004) Collaborative environmental management: what roles for government?, Resources for the future, Washington, DC, 210 p
Layzer JA (2008) Natural experiments: ecosystem-based management and the environment. MIT, Cambridge, MA/London, 365 p
Leopold LB (ed) (1993) Round river. Oxford University Press, Oxford
McKinney M, Harmon W (2004) The western confluence: a guide to governing natural resources. Island, Washington/Covelo/London, 297 p
Miller A (1999) Environmental problem solving: psychosocial barriers to adaptive change. Springer, New York
Morris E (2010) Colonel roosevelt, Random House, Inc., New York, 766 p
National Research Council (2009) Informing decisions in a changing climate, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC 188 p
Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2001) Re-thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity, Cambridge, 278 p
Peterson MN, Peterson MJ, Peterson TR (2004) Conservation and the myth of consensus. Conserv Biol 19:762–767
Pielke RA Jr (2007) The honest broker: making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New York/Melbourne/Madrid/Cape Town/Singapore/Sao Paulo/Delhi, 188 p
Rofougaran NL, Karl HA (2005) San Francisquito Creek—the problem of science in environmental disputes: joint fact finding as a transdisciplinary approach toward environmental policy making. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1710, 24 p
Sayre RF, Thoreau HD (eds) (1985) A week on the Concord and Merrimack rivers, Walden, the Maine woods, Cape Cod. The Library of America, New York, 1113 p
Scholtz JT, Stiftel L (eds.) (2005) Adaptive governance and water conflict: new institutions for collaborative planning, Resources for the future, Washington, DC, 274 p
Surowiecki J (2004) The wisdom of crowds. Doubleday, New York/London/Toronto/Sydney/Auckland, 296 p
Susskind L, McKearman S, Thomas-Larmer J (eds.) (1999) The consensus building handbook, sage thousand oaks, CA, 1147 p
Webber EP (2003) Bringing society back in: grassroots ecosystem management, accountability, and sustainable communities. MIT, Cambridge, MA, 317 p
Wilson EO (1998) Consilience – the unity of knowledge. Alfred A Knopf, New York, 332 p
Wondolleck JM, Yaffee SL (2000) Making collaboration work, lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Island, Washington, DC/Covelo, 277 p
Worster D (2001) A river running west: the life of John Wesley Powell. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 673 p
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Karl, H.A., Scarlett, L., Vargas-Moreno, J.C., Flaxman, M. (2012). Synthesis: Developing the Institutions to Coordinate Science, Politics, and Communities for Action to Restore and Sustain Lands. In: Karl, H., Scarlett, L., Vargas-Moreno, J., Flaxman, M. (eds) Restoring Lands - Coordinating Science, Politics and Action. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2549-2_22
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2549-2_22
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2548-5
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2549-2
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)