Advertisement

Adaptive governance and the administrative state: knowledge management for forest planning in the western United States

  • Zachary WurtzebachEmail author
  • Courtney Schultz
  • Amy E. M. Waltz
  • Bryce E. Esch
  • Tzeidle N. Wasserman
Original Article

Abstract

Scholarship on adaptive governance emphasizes the importance of institutional flexibility, collaboration, and social networks for linking knowledge to action across scales of socio-ecological organization. However, a major gap in our knowledge exists around the design of policies that can support the generation and application of knowledge across levels of decision-making in natural resource management agencies such as the US Forest Service. To address this gap, we conducted a qualitative study, consisting of interviews with Forest Service staff and external partners, to investigate challenges and opportunities for improved knowledge management in the context of ecological monitoring for federal forest planning in the western United States. We found that decentralized decision-making structures, limited formalization for knowledge management processes, and scarce institutional resources interact to create barriers for effective knowledge management and adaptive decision-making. However, we also found there are opportunities for improving knowledge management through administrative policy tools such as partnerships, centralized budgetary authority and coordination, formal administrative and collaborative processes, and investment in administrative knowledge brokers at different levels of the agency. Our findings underscore the importance of bureaucratic organization and research on administrative policy design for operationalizing elements of adaptive governance in state institutions.

Keywords

Knowledge management Adaptation Governance Scale Policy design 

Notes

References

  1. Abrams JB, Huber-Stearns HR, Bone C, et al (2017) Adaptation to a landscape-scale mountain pine beetle epidemic in the era of networked governance: the enduring importance of bureaucratic institutions. Ecol Soc 22. doi:  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09717-220422
  2. Alavi M, Leidner DE (2001) Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Q 25:107.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3250961 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Archie KM, Dilling L, Milford JB, Pampel FC (2014) Unpacking the “information barrier”: comparing perspectives on information as a barrier to climate change adaptation in the interior mountain West. J Environ Manag 133:397–410.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.12.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berends H, Boersma K, Weggeman M (2003) The structuration of organizational learning. Hum Relat 56:1035–1056.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726703569001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berglund D, Bush R, Barber J, Manning M (2009) R1 Multi-level vegetation classification, mapping, inventory, and analysis system. USFS Region 1, Missoula, MT. Available online at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5363894.pdf
  6. Biber E (2013) The challenge of collecting and using environmental monitoring data. Ecol Soc 18:art68.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06117-180468 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Biesbroek R, Peters BG (2018) Public bureaucracy and climate change adaptation. 35:776–791. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12316 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bolson J, Broad K (2013) Early adoption of climate information: lessons learned from South Florida Water Resource Management. Weather Clim Soc 5:266–281.  https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-12-00002.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown MM, Brudney JL (2003) Learning organizations in the public sector? A study of police agencies employing information and technology to advance knowledge. Public Adm Rev 63:30–43.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00262 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bruckmeier K (2014) Problems of cross-scale coastal management in Scandinavia. Reg Environ Chang 14:2151–2160.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-012-0378-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burgess N, Currie G (2013) The knowledge brokering role of the hybrid middle level manager: the case of healthcare. Br J Manag 24:132–143.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cash DW, Moser SC (2000) Linking global and local scales: designing dynamic assessment and management processes. Glob Environ Chang 10:109–120.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(00)00017-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F et al (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100:8086–8091.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231332100 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cash DW, Adger W, Berkes F, Garden P, Lebel L, Olsson P, Pritchard L, Young O (2006) Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecol Soc 11(2):8 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art8/ CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chaffin BC, Gosnell H, Cosens BA (2014) A decade of adaptive governance scholarship: synthesis and future directions. Ecol Soc 19:art56.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06824-190356 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clark WC, Van Kerkhoff L, Lebel L, Gallopin GC (2016) Crafting usable knowledge for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113:4570–4578.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1601266113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cleaver F, Whaley L (2018) Understanding process, power, and meaning in adaptive governance: a critical institutional reading. Ecol Soc 23: . doi:  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10212-230249
  18. Contandriopoulos D, Lemire M, Denis JL, Tremblay É (2010) Knowledge exchange processes in organizations and policy arenas: a narrative systematic review of the literature. Milbank Q 88:444–483.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2010.00608.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Craig RK, Garmestani AS, Allen CR, et al (2017) Balancing stability and flexibility in adaptive governance : the new challenges and a review of tools available. 22:1–31. doi:  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08983-220203
  20. Creswell JW (2009) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA. ISBN 9781412965569, 9781412965576Google Scholar
  21. Cvitanovic C, Hobday AJ, van Kerkhoff L et al (2015) Improving knowledge exchange among scientists and decision-makers to facilitate the adaptive governance of marine resources: a review of knowledge and research needs. Ocean Coast Manag 112:25–35.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.05.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dawes SS, Cresswell AM, Pardo TA (2009) From “need to know” to “need to share”: tangled problems, information boundaries, and the building of public sector knowledge networks. Public Adm Rev 69:392–402.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2009.01987_2.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Decaro D, Chaffin BC, Schlager E et al (2017) Legal and institutional foundations of adaptive environmental governance. Ecol Soc 22:1689–1699.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dilling L, Lemos MC, Carmen M et al (2011) Creating usable science: opportunities and constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for science policy. Glob Environ Chang 21:680–689.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.11.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Doremus H (2008) Data gaps in natural resource management: sniffing for leaks along the information pipeline. Indiana Law J 83:407–463Google Scholar
  26. Edelenbos J, van Buuren A, van Schie N (2011) Co-producing knowledge: joint knowledge production between experts, bureaucrats and stakeholders in Dutch water management projects. Environ Sci Pol 14:675–684.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2011.04.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fancy SG, Bennetts RE (2012) Institutionalizing an effective long-term monitoring program in the U.S. National Park Service. In: Gitzen et al. (eds) Design and analysis of long-term ecological monitoring studies. Cambridge University Press, pp 481–487Google Scholar
  28. Fancy SG, Gross JE, Carter SL (2009) Monitoring the condition of natural resources in US national parks. Environ Monit Assess 151:161–174.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-008-0257-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fazey I, Evely AC, Reed MS et al (2013) Knowledge exchange: a review and research agenda for environmental management. Environ Conserv 40:19–36.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S037689291200029X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J (2005) Adaptive governance of social ecological systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30:441–473.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fraser EDG, Dougill AJ, Mabee WE et al (2006) Bottom up and top down: analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator identification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environmental management. J Environ Manag 78:114–127.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.04.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Garmestani AS, Allen CR, Benson MH (2013) Can law foster social-ecological resilience? Ecol Soc 18:. doi:  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05927-180237
  33. Gibson CC, Ostrom E, Ahn TK (2000) The concept of scale and the human dimensions of global change: A survey. Ecol Econ 32:217–239.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00092-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Golding JD, Schwartz MK, McKelvey KS, et al (2018) Multispecies mesocarnivore monitoring: USDA Forest Service multiregional monitoring approach. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-388. Fort Collins, CO.Google Scholar
  35. Gregory R, Failing L, Ohlson D, Mcdaniels TL (2006) Some pitfalls of an overemphasis on science in environmental risk management decisions. J Risk Res 9:717–735.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870600799895 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hill R, Davies J, Bohnet IC et al (2015) Collaboration mobilises institutions with scale-dependent comparative advantage in landscape-scale biodiversity conservation. Environ Sci Pol 51:267–277.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.04.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Howlett M (2009) Governance modes, policy regimes and operational plans: a multi-level nested model of policy instrument choice and policy design. Policy Sci 42:73–89.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-009-9079-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hutto RL, Belote RT (2013) Distinguishing four types of monitoring based on the questions they address. For Ecol Manag 289:183–189.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.10.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Isaak DJ, Wenger SJ, Peterson EE, et al (2017) The NorWeST summer stream temperature model and scenarios for the western U.S.: a crowd-sourced database and new geospatial tools foster a user-community and predict broad climate warming of rivers and streams. Water Resour Res 1–25 . doi:  https://doi.org/10.1002/2017WR020969 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Karpouzoglou T, Dewulf A, Clark J (2016) Advancing adaptive governance of social-ecological systems through theoretical multiplicity. Environ Sci Pol 57:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.11.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kershner JL, Roper BB (2010) An evaluation of management objectives used to assess stream habitat conditions on federal lands within the interior Columbia Basin. Fisheries 35:269–278.  https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8446-35.6.269 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kim S, Lee H (2006) The impact of organizational context and information technology on employee knowledge-sharing capabilities. Public Adm Rev 66:370–385.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00595.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lindenmayer DB, Likens GE (2010) The science and application of ecological monitoring. Biol Conserv 143:1317–1328.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.02.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lovett GM, Burns DA, Driscoll CT et al (2007) Who needs environmental monitoring ? Front Ecol Environ 5:253–260.  https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2007)5[253:WNEM]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lowi TJ (1986) Two roads to serfdom: liberalism, conservatism and administrative power. Am Univ Law Rev 36:295–322Google Scholar
  46. May PJ (2012) Policy design and implementation. In: Peters BG, Pierre P (eds) The Sage handbook of public administration. Sage Publication Inc, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  47. McGuire M, Agranoff R (2011) The limitations of public management networks. Public Administration 89 (2):265-284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McNie EC (2007) Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environ Sci Pol 10:17–38.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2006.10.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Moynihan DP (2005) Goal-based learning and the future of performance management. Public Adm Rev 65:203–216.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00445.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Moynihan DP, Landuyt N (2009) How do public organizations learn? Bridging cultural and structural perspectives. Public Adm Rev 69:1097–1105.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2009.02067.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nguyen VM, Young N, Cooke SJ (2016) A roadmap for knowledge exchange and mobilization research in conservation and natural resource management. Conserv Biol 00:n/a-n/a. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12857 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nguyen VM, Young N, Cooke SJ (2017) A roadmap for knowledge exchange and mobilization research in conservation and natural resource management. Conservation Biology 31 (4):789-798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nylen NG (2011) To achieve biodiversity goals, the new Forest Service Planning Rule needs effective mandates for best available science and adaptive management. Ecol Law Q 38:241–229.  https://doi.org/10.15779/Z384Z8B CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Niemi GJ, McDonald ME (2004) Application of Ecological Indicators. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 35 (1):89-111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pavlacky DC, Lukacs PM, Blakesley JA et al (2017) A statistically rigorous sampling design to integrate avian monitoring and management within Bird Conservation Regions. PLoS One 12:e0185924.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185924 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pee LG, Kankanhalli A (2016) Interactions among factors influencing knowledge management in public-sector organizations: a resource-based view. Gov Inf Q 33:188–199.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.06.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pollitt C (2009) Bureaucracies remember, post-bureaucratic organizations forget? Public Adm 87:198–218.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2008.01738.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rashman L, Withers E, Hartley J (2009) Organizational learning and knowledge in public service organizations: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Manag Rev 11:463–494.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00257 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ray CT, Williamson MA, Zachmann LJ, Wang O, Dickson BG (2012) Rapid plot monitoring design for the Kaibab National Forest. Interim report to the Kaibab National Forest. Lab of Landscape Ecology and Conservation Biology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZGoogle Scholar
  60. Raymond CM, Fazey I, Reed MS et al (2010) Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. J Environ Manag 91:1766–1777.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.03.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation 141 (10):2417-2431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Reed MS, Fazey I, Stringer LC et al (2013) Knowledge management for land degradation monitoring and assessment : an analysis of contemporary thinking. L Degrad Dev 24:307–322.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.1124 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ringold PL, Mulder B, Alegria J, Czaplewski RL, Tolle T, Burnett K (1999) Establishing a Regional Monitoring Strategy: The Pacific Northwest Forest Plan. Environmental Management 23 (2):179-192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sabatier PA, Loomis J, McCarthy C (1995) Hierarchical controls, professional norms, local constituencies, and budget maximization: an analysis of U.S. Forest Service Planning Decisions. Am J Polit Sci 39:204–242.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2111764 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Saldana J (2005) The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage Publication Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA. ISBN 9781446247365, 9781446247372Google Scholar
  66. Schneider A, Ingram H (1990) Behavioral assumptions of policy tools. J Polit 52:510.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2131904 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Schultz CA, Moseley C, Mattor K (2015) Striking the balance between budgetary discretion and performance accountability: the case of the US Forest Service’s approach to integrated restoration. J Nat Resour Policy Res 37–41. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1080/19390459.2015.1027533 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sharma-Wallace L, Velarde SJ, Wreford A (2018) Adaptive governance good practice: show me the evidence! J Environ Manag 222:174–184.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.05.067 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Stankey GH, BormannBT RC, Shindler B, Sturtevant V, Clark RN, Philpot C (2003) Adaptive management and the Northwest Forest Plan: rhetoric and reality. J For 101:40–46Google Scholar
  70. Sutherland WJ, Shackelford G, Rose DC (2017) Collaborating with communities: co-production or co-assessment? Oryx 51:569–570.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605317001296 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Timmerman JG, Beinat E, Termeer K, Cofino W (2010) Analyzing the data-rich-but-information-poor syndrome in dutch water management in historical perspective. Environ Manag 45:1231–1242.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9459-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tinkham WT, Mahoney PR, Hudak AT, Domke GM, Falkowski MJ, Woodall CW, Smith A.M.S. (2018) Applications of the United States Forest Inventory and Analysis dataset: a review and future directions. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 48 (11):1251-1268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Toevs GR, Karl JW, Taylor JJ et al (2011) Consistent indicators and methods and a scalable sample design to meet assessment, inventory, and monitoring information needs across scales. Rangelands 33:14–20.  https://doi.org/10.2111/1551-501X-33.4.14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tsai W (2002) Social structure of “coopetition” within a multiunit organization: coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing. Organ Sci 13:179–190.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.2.179.536 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Tsoukas H, Vladimirou E (2001) What is organizational knowledge? J Manag Stud 38:973–993.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00268 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Tulloch A, Possingham HP, Wilson K (2011) Wise selection of an indicator for monitoring the success of management actions. Biol Conserv 144:141–154.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.08.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Turnhout E, Stuiver M, Judith J (2013) New roles of science in society: different repertoires of knowledge brokering. Sci Public Policy 40:354–365.  https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. U.S. Forest Service (2015) FSH 1909.12. Land management planning handbook, chapter 30—monitoring. Available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/planningrule/home/?cid=stelprd3828310.
  79. van Kerkhoff L, Pilbeam V (2017) Understanding socio-cultural dimensions of environmental decision-making: a knowledge governance approach. Environ Sci Pol 73:29–37.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.03.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Veblen KE, Pyke DA, Aldridge CL et al (2014) Monitoring of livestock grazing effects on Bureau of Land Management land. Rangel Ecol Manag 67:68–7768.  https://doi.org/10.2111/REM-D-12-00178.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Waltz A, Wurtzebach Z, Esch B, Wasserman T, Schultz C (2017) Developing a framework for the U.S. Forest Service Broader-Scale Monitoring Strategy: processes and outcomes. Northern Arizona University Ecological Restoration Institute. Flagstaff, AZGoogle Scholar
  82. Waylen KA, Blackstock KL, van Hulst FJ et al (2019) Policy-driven monitoring and evaluation: does it support adaptive management of socio-ecological systems? Sci Total Environ 662:373–384.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.462 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Weiss CH (2016) The Interface between Evaluation and Public Policy. Evaluation 5 (4):468-486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wurtzebach Z, Schultz C (2016) Measuring ecological integrity: history, practical applications, and research opportunities. Bioscience 66:446–457.  https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wyborn C (2015) Co-productive governance: a relational framework for adaptive governance. Glob Environ Chang 30:56–67.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.10.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wyborn C, Dovers S (2014) Prescribing adaptiveness in agencies of the state. Glob Environ Chang 24:5–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.11.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Yang TM, Maxwell TA (2011) Information-sharing in public organizations: a literature review of interpersonal, intra-organizational and inter-organizational success factors. Gov Inf Q 28:164–175.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.06.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forest and Rangeland StewardshipColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  2. 2.Ecological Restoration InstituteNorthern Arizona UniversityFlagstaffUSA

Personalised recommendations