Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Policy Sciences
Erschienen in: Policy Sciences 3/2012

01.09.2012

Social process in grizzly bear management: lessons for collaborative governance and natural resource policy

verfasst von: Lauren Richie, J. Daniel Oppenheimer, Susan G. Clark

Erschienen in: Policy Sciences | Ausgabe 3/2012

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

In this study, we analyze a case of governance in natural resource management. Building on the limited body of literature on termination and using methods of problem orientation and social process mapping, we examine a stakeholder engagement process designed to address conflicts in grizzly bear management in Banff National Park, Alberta. Terminated in 2009 after several years of collaboration, this stakeholder engagement process explicitly used the policy sciences framework to cultivate dialogue, improve participants’ decision-making skills, and make consensus-based recommendations for grizzly bear management. Our analysis demonstrates the utility of undertaking social process mapping and problem orientation in order to understand a natural resource policy problem. We include recommendations to foster a social process that allows for clarification and advancement of the common interest in stakeholder groups, insights into how social process can contribute to policy termination, and reflections on the practical, collaborative use of the policy sciences to solve problems of governance. This analysis complements other articles on this case that examine stakeholder perspectives, initial outcomes, and decision process, collectively providing a thorough policy analysis.
Vorheriger Artikel The challenge of diversity management: police reform and the Arab minority in Israel

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
1
Over its lifetime, this group was called the GBDG and the IPS or process. Here, we use the former name.
 
2
For a detailed appraisal of the decision process, see Oppenheimer and Richie (in manuscript).
 
3
Throughout this analysis, by “new” participants, we mean individuals who had not attended the initial policy science-based training workshops and/or had only attended a few of the subsequent meetings. “Existing” participants are those who had been a part of the GBDG for longer; they had attended the initial training workshops and/or numerous meetings. Given that the GBDG lasted several years and “new” participants eventually became “old,” these terms are dynamic and reflect the constant influx of new participants over the years.
 
4
Although it went by several different names, in this analysis we refer to it as the Bow Valley Parkway Advisory Group, since that is what interviewees most commonly called it.
 
Literatur
Arnspiger, V. C. (1961). Personality in social process. Chicago: Follett Publishing Company.
Benn, B., & Herrero, S. (2002). Grizzly bear mortality and human access in Banff and Yoho National Parks, 1971–98. Ursus, 13, 213–221.
Bertch, B., & Gibeau, G. (2009). Grizzly bear monitoring in and around the Mountain National Parks: Mortalities and bear/human encounters 1990–2008. 2nd annual report, Parks Canada.
Bertch, B., & Gibeau, G. (2010). Grizzly bear monitoring in and around the Mountain National Parks: Mortalities and bear/human encounters 1980–2009. 3rd annual report, Parks Canada.
Bolland, J. M., & Muth, R. (1984). The decision seminar: A new approach to urban problem solving. Science Communication, 6, 75–88.CrossRef
Bott, S., Cantrill, J. G., & Myers, O. E. (2003). Place and the promise of conservation psychology. Human Ecology Review, 10(2), 100–112.
Brown, V. A. (2004). The more we are together: Collaborative decision-making, social planning and sustainability. Australian Planner, 41(3), 42–45.CrossRef
Brunner, R. D. (2004). Context-sensitive monitoring and evaluation for the World Bank. Policy Sciences, 37, 103–136.CrossRef
Brunner, R. D. (2010). Adaptive governance as a reform strategy. Policy Sciences, 43, 301–341.CrossRef
Brunner, R. D., Colburn, C. H., Cromley, C. M., Klein, R. A., & Olson, E. A. (2002). Finding common ground: Governance and natural resources in the American West. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Brunner, R. D., Steelman, T. A., Coe-Juell, L., Cromley, C. M., Edwards, C. M., & Tucker, D. W. (2005). Adaptive governance: Integrating science, policy, and decision making. New York: Columbia University Press.
Bryson, J. M., Cunningham, G. L., & Lokkesmoe, K. J. (2002). What to do when stakeholders matter: The case of problem formulation for the African American Men project of Hennepin County. Minnesota. Public Administration Review, 62(5), 568–584.CrossRef
Burgess, P. M., & Slonaker, L. L. (1978). The decision seminar: A strategy for problem-solving. Columbus: Ohio State University Mershon Center.
Chamberlain, E. C. (2006). Perspectives on grizzly bear management in Banff National Park and the Bow River Watershed, Alberta: A Q methodology study. Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University School of Resource and Environmental Management.
Chamberlain, E. C., & Rutherford, M. B. (2005). Perspectives on grizzly bear conservation in the Banff-Bow Valley: Views of problems and solutions. Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University School of Resource and Environmental Management.
Chamberlain, E. C., Rutherford, M. B., & Gibeau, M. L. (2012). Human perspectives and conservation of grizzly bears in Banff National Park, Canada. Conservation Biology, 26(3), 420–431.CrossRef
Chartier, Andrée. (2004). Parks Canada—corporate intelligence bulletin 2004. Gatineau, QU: Parks Canada.
Clark, T. W. (1997). Averting extinction: Reconstructing endangered species recovery. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Clark, T. W. (2001). Interdisciplinary problem solving in species and ecosystem conservation. In T. W. Clark, M. J. Stevenson, K. Ziegelmayer, & M. B. Rutherford (Eds.), Yale University Bulletin 105, Species and ecosystem conservation: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 35–54). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Clark, S. G. (2011). The policy process: A practical guide for natural resource professionals. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Clark, T. W., & Brunner, R. D. (2002). Making partnerships work in endangered species conservation: an introduction to the decision process. Endangered Species Update, 19(i4), 74–80.
Clark, S. G., Cherney, D. N., Angulo, I., De León, R. B., & Morgan-Cahusac, C. (2009). An initial social process (contextual) map for Podocarpus National Park, Ecuador. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 28, 680–693.CrossRef
Clark, T. W., & Gillesberg, A. M. (2001). Lessons from wolf restoration in Greater Yellowstone. In V. A. Sharpe, B. G. Norton, & S. Donnelley (Eds.), Wolves and human communities: Biology, politics, and ethics. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Clark, T. W. & Rutherford, M. B. (Eds.). (in press). Large carnivores, people, and governance: Reforming conservation in the North American West.
Clark, T. W., Rutherford, M. B., & Casey, D. (Eds.). (2005). Coexisting with large carnivores: Lessons from Greater Yellowstone. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Clark, D. A., & Slocombe, D. S. (2011). Grizzly Bear conservation in the Foothills Model Forest: Appraisal of a collaborative ecosystem management effort. Policy Sciences, 44, 1–11.CrossRef
Clark, T. W., & Wallace, R. L. (2002a). Understanding the human factor in endangered species recovery: An introduction to the human social process (concepts). Endangered Species Update, 19(4), 87–94.
Clark, T. W., & Wallace, R. L. (2002b). The professional in endangered species conservation: an introduction to standpoint clarification. In R. L. Wallace, T. W. Clark, & R. P. Reading (Eds.), Endangered species update: An interdisciplinary approach to endangered species recovery 19(4) (pp. 101–112). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, School of Natural Resources and Environment.
Cromley, C. M. (2000). The killing of grizzly bear 209: Identifying norms for grizzly bear management. In T. W. Clark, A. R. Willard, & C. M. Cromley (Eds.), Foundations of natural resource policy and management (pp. 173–221). New Haven: Yale University Press.
deLeon, P. (1983). Policy evaluation and program termination. Policy Studies Review, 2(4), 631–647.CrossRef
Dery, D. (1984). Problem definition in policy analysis. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
Fenimore, S. C., & Cullen L., Jr. (2002). Projeto Abraço Verde: A practice-based approach to Brazilian Atlantic Forest Conservation. In R. L. Wallace, T. W. Clark, & R. P. Reading (Eds.), Endangered species update: An interdisciplinary approach to endangered species recovery 19(4) (pp. 179–185). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, School of Natural Resources and Environment.
Garshelis, D. L., Gibeau, M. L., & Herrero, S. (2005). Grizzly bear demographics in and around Banff National Park and Kananaskis Country, Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management, 69(1), 277–297.CrossRef
Gibeau, M. L. (2005). Mortality of grizzly bears in the Bow River Watershed. In S. Herrero (Ed.), Biology, demography, ecology, and management of grizzly bears in and around Banff National Park and Kananaskis Country: The final report of the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project (pp. 61–62). Calgary, AB: University of Calgary.
Gibeau, M. L., & Stevens, S. (2005). Study areas. In S. Herrero (Ed.), Biology, demography, ecology, and management of grizzly bears in and around Banff National Park and Kananaskis Country: The final report of the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project (pp. 11–16). Calgary, AB: University of Calgary.
Helling, A., & Thomas, J. C. (2001). Encouraging community dialogue: Approach, promise and tensions. International Journal of Public Administration, 24(7&8), 749–770.CrossRef
Herrero, S. (2005). The eastern slopes grizzly bear project and science-based grizzly bear conservation. In S. Herrero (Ed.), Biology, demography, ecology, and management of grizzly bears in and around Banff National Park and Kananaskis Country: The final report of the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project (pp. 2–10). Calgary, AB: University of Calgary.
Herrero, S., Roulet, J., & Gibeau, M. (2001). Banff National Park: Science and policy in grizzly bear management. Ursus, 12, 161–168.
Jager, E., & Sanche, A. (2010). Setting the stage for visitor experiences in Canada’s National Heritage Places. The George Wright Forum, 27(2), 180–190.
Jamal, T., & Eyre, M. (2003). Legitimation struggles in national park spaces: The Banff Bow Valley Round Table. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 46(3), 417–441.CrossRef
Kallis, G., Kiparsky, M., & Norgaard, R. (2009). Collaborative governance and adaptive management: Lessons from California’s CALFED Water Program. Environmental Science & Policy, 12, 631–643.CrossRef
Kellert, S. R., Black, M., Rush, C. R., & Bath, A. J. (1996). Human culture and large carnivore conservation in North America. Conservation Biology, 10, 977–990.CrossRef
Kelman, H. C. (2006). Interests, relationships, identities: Three central issues for individuals and groups in negotiating their social environment. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 1–26.CrossRef
Kleiman, D. G., Reading, R. P., Miller, B. J., Clark, T. W., Scott, J. M., Robinson, J., et al. (2000). Improving the evaluation of conservation programs. Conservation Biology, 14(2), 356–365.CrossRef
Lasswell, H. D. (1971a). A pre-view of the policy sciences. New York: American Elsevier.
Lasswell, H. D. (1971b). The continuing decision seminar as a technique of instruction. Policy Sciences, 2, 43–57.CrossRef
Lasswell, H. D., & McDougal, M. S. (1992). Jurisprudence for a free society: Studies in law, science and policy. New Haven: New Haven Press.
Manzo, L. C., & Perkins, D. D. (2006). Finding common ground: The importance of place attachment to community participation and planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 20(4), 335–350.CrossRef
Mattson, D. J., Byrd, K. L., Rutherford, M. B., Brown, S. R., & Clark, T. W. (2006). Finding common ground in large carnivore conservation: Mapping contending perspectives. Environmental Science & Policy, 9(4), 392–405.CrossRef
Mattson, D. J., & Chambers, N. (2009). Human-provided waters for desert wildlife: What is the problem? Policy Sciences, 42, 113–135.CrossRef
May, B., & Plummer, R. (2011). Accommodating the challenges of climate change adaptation and governance in conventional risk management: Adaptive Collaborative Risk Management (ACRM). Ecology and Society, 16(1), 47.
McBeth, M. K., Shanahan, E. A., Hathaway, P. L., Tigert, L. E., & Sampson, L. J. (2010). Buffalo tales: Interest group policy stories in Greater Yellowstone. Policy Sciences, 43, 391–409.CrossRef
McDougal, M. S., Reisman, W. M., & Willard, A. W. (1988). The world community: A planetary social process. University of California Law Review, 21, 808–971.
McFarlane, B. L., Watson, D. O., & Strumpf-Allen, R. C. G. (2007). Public perceptions of conservation of grizzly bears in the Foothills Model Forest: A survey of local and Edmonton residents. Edmonton, AB: Canadian Forestry Service.
Merrey, D. J., & De Lange, M. (2003). Boundaries of consent: Stakeholder representation in river basing management in Mexico and South Africa. World Development, 31(5), 797–812.CrossRef
Muth, R., & Boland, J. M. (1983). Social context: A key to effective problem-solving. Planning & Changing, 14(4), 214–225.
Nelson, F., Nshala, R., & Rogers, W. A. (2007). The evolution and reform of Tanzanian wildlife management. Conservation and Society, 5(2), 232–261.
Oppenheimer, J. D., & Richie, L. (in press). Collaborative grizzly bear management in Banff National Park: Learning from a prototype.
Primm, S. A. (1996). A pragmatic approach to grizzly bear conservation. Conservation Biology, 10(4), 1026–1035.CrossRef
Proctor, M. (2005). East slopes grizzly bear fragmentation based on genetic analyses. In S. Herrero (Ed.), Biology, demography, ecology, and management of grizzly bears in and around Banff National Park and Kananaskis Country: The final report of the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project (pp. 126–132). Calgary, AB: University of Calgary.
Prohansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K., & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place-identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 57–83.CrossRef
Reading, R. P., Clark, T. W., McCain, L., & Miller, B. J. (2002). Black-tailed prairie dog conservation: A new approach for a 21st century challenge. Endangered Species Update, 19(4), 162–170.
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.CrossRef
Rutherford, M. B., Gibeau, M. L., Clark, S. G., & Chamberlain, E. C. (2009). Interdisciplinary problem solving workshops for grizzly bear conservation in Banff National Park, Canada. Policy Sciences, 42, 163–187.CrossRef
Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 117–166). Boulder: Westview Press.
Simon, H. (1985). Human nature in politics: The dialogue of psychology with political science. The American Political Science Review, 79, 293–304.CrossRef
Steelman, T. A., & DuMond, M. E. (2009). Serving the common interest in U.S. forest policy: A case study of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. Environmental Management, 43, 396–410.CrossRef
Susskind, L., Camacho, A. E., & Schenk, T. (2010). Collaborative planning and adaptive management in Glen Canyon: A cautionary tale. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 35(1), 1–54.
Tuan, Y.-F. (1974). Topophilia. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Wallace, R. L., & Clark, T. W. (1999). Understanding and solving problems in endangered species conservation: An introduction to problem orientation. Endangered Species Update, 16(2), 28–34.
Walters, L. C., Aydelotte, J., & Miller, J. (2000). Putting more public in policy analysis. Public Administration Review, 60(4), 349–359.CrossRef
Weeks, E. C. (2000). The practice of deliberative democracy: Results from four large-scale trials. Public Administration Review, 60(4), 360–372.CrossRef
Weiss, J. A. (1989). The powers of problem definition: The case of government paperwork. Policy Sciences, 22, 97–121.CrossRef
Willard, A. R., & Norchi, C. H. (1993). The decision seminar as an instrument of power and enlightenment. Political Psychology, 14(4), 575–606.CrossRef
Wilshusen, P. R. (2009). Social process as everyday practice: The micro politics of community-based conservation and development in southeastern Mexico. Policy Sciences, 42, 137–162.CrossRef
Wilson, S., & Clark, S. G. (2007). Resolving human-grizzly bear conflict: An integrated approach in the common interest. In K. S. Hanna & D. S. Slocombe (Eds.), Integrated resource and environmental management: Concepts and practice (pp. 137–163). Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.
Metadaten
Titel
Social process in grizzly bear management: lessons for collaborative governance and natural resource policy
verfasst von
Lauren Richie
J. Daniel Oppenheimer
Susan G. Clark
Publikationsdatum
01.09.2012
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Policy Sciences / Ausgabe 3/2012
Print ISSN: 0032-2687
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0891
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-012-9160-z