Risk tradeoffs in adaptive ecosystem management: The case of the U.S. forest service

Environmental Management

Volumn 53, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 1095-1108

  Stern, Marc J ^a   Martin, Caysie A ^a   Predmore, S Andrew ^b   Morse, Wayde C ^c  

^a VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT SPRINGFIELD   (United States)

^c AUBURN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Adaptive ecosystem management; Decision making; National Environmental Policy Act; Organizational learning; Planning; Project risk

Indexed keywords

COMMERCE; ECOSYSTEMS; FORESTRY; PLANNING;

ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT; MULTIPLE FACTORS; NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT; ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING; ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE; PROJECT RISK; RESOURCE PLANNING; U.S. FOREST SERVICE;

DECISION MAKING;

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT; DECISION MAKING; ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; NATURAL RESOURCE; ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK; RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; RISK ASSESSMENT; TRADE-OFF;

ADAPTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; ARTICLE; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; FOREST MANAGEMENT; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; LEADERSHIP; NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT; PERSONNEL; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT; UNITED STATES;

COMMERCE; DECISION MAKING; ECOSYSTEMS; FORESTRY; MANAGEMENT; PLANNING;

UNITED STATES;

CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; DECISION MAKING; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; FORESTRY; TREES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84902266256     PISSN: 0364152X     EISSN: 14321009     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00267-014-0267-1     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Adler PS, Borys B (1996) Two faces of bureaucracy: enabling and coercive. Admin Sci Q 41:61-89
2. Bjorkland R (2013) Monitoring: the missing piece a critique of NEPA monitoring. Environ Impact Assess 43:129-134
3. Brown GG, Squirrel T (2010) Organizational leadership and the fate of adaptive management in the US Forest Service. J For 108(8):379-388
4. Butler KF, Koontz TM (2005) Theory into practice: implementing ecosystem management objectives in the USDA Forest Service. Environ Manag 35(2):138-150
5. Carbone TA, Tippett DD (2004) Project risk management using the project risk FMEA. Eng Manag J 16(4):28-35 (Pubitemid 40377491)
6. Cerveny L, Blahna D, Stern MJ, Mortimer MJ, Freeman J (2011) Interdisciplinary teams in the U.S. Forest Service: an examination of team structure for NEPA assessments. J For 109(4):201-207
7. Charmaz K (2006) Constructing grounded theory. Sage, Thousand Oaks
8. Christensen NL, Bartuska AM, Brown JH et al (1996) The report of the Ecological Society of America committee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecol Appl 6(3):665-691
9. Committee of Scientists (1999) Sustaining the people's lands. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
10. Cortner HJ, Moote MA (1999) The politics of ecosystem management. Island Press, Washington, DC
11. Cundill G, Fabricius C (2009) Monitoring in adaptive co-management: toward a learning based approach. J Environ Manag 90(11):3205-3211
12. Cundill G, Rodela R (2012) A review of assertions about the processes and outcomes of social learning in natural resource management. J Environ Manag 113:7-14
13. Cyert RM, March JG (1963) A behavioral theory of the firm. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River
14. Daniels SE, Walker GB (1996) Collaborative learning: improving public deliberation in ecosystem-based management. Environ Impact Assess 16(2):71-102
15. Datta S, Mukherjee S (2001) Developing a risk management matrix for effective project planning-an empirical study. Proj Manag J 32(2):45-57 (Pubitemid 33285387)
16. Dey PK (2001) Decision support system for risk management: a case study. Manag Decis 39(8):634-649
17. Dreyfus DA, Ingram HM (1976) The national environmental policy act: a view of intent and practice. Nat Resour J 16:243-262
18. Eisenhardt KM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Acad Manag Rev 14(4):532-550
19. Fan M, Lin N, Sheu C (2008) Choosing a project risk-handling strategy: an analytical model. Int J Prod Econ 112:700-713 (Pubitemid 351289065)
20. Fitzsimmons AK (1999) Defending illusions: federal protection of ecosystems. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham
21. Freeman J, Stern MJ, Mortimer MJ, Blahna D, Cerveny L (2011) Collaboration and leadership in interdisciplinary planning teams in the U.S. Forest Service. J Environ Plann Manag 54(5):597-615
22. Gordon GG, DiTomaso N (1992) Predicting corporate performance from organizational culture. J Manag Stud 29(6):78-798
23. Gouldner A (1954) Patterns of industrial bureaucracy. Free Press, New York
24. Grumbine ER (1994) What is ecosystem management? Conserv Biol 8(1):27-38
25. Hoover KN, Stern MJ (2014) Constraints to public influence in U.S. Forest Service NEPA processes. J Environ Plan Manag 57(2):173-189
26. Innes JE, Booher DE (2004) Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st Century. Plan Theory Pract 5(4):419-436 (Pubitemid 40098741)
27. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263-292
28. Kahneman D, Tversky A (2000) Choices, values, and frames. In: Kahneman D, Tversky A (eds) Choices, values, and frames. Russell Sage Foundation, New York, pp 1-16
29. Kaufman, H (1960) The forest ranger: a study in administrative behavior. Resources for the Future, Inc., Washington, DC
30. Keele DM, Malmsheimer RW, Floyd DW, Perez JE (2006) Forest Service landmanagement litigation 1989-2002. J For 104:196-202 (Pubitemid 44165045)
31. Kutsch E, Hall M (2005) Intervening conditions on the management of project risk: dealing with uncertainty in information technology projects. Int J Proj Manag 23(8):591-599 (Pubitemid 41671384)
32. Kutsch E, Hall M (2010) Deliberate ignorance in project risk management. Int J Proj Manag 28(3):245-255
33. Laband DN, Gonzalez-Caban A, Hussain A (2006) Factors that influence administrative appeals of proposed USDA Forest Service fuels reduction actions. For Sci 52(5):477-488
34. Landau M, Stoudt R Jr (1979) To manage is not to control: of the folly of type II errors. Public Adm Rev 39:148-156
35. Leach WD (2006) Public involvement in USDA Forest Service policymaking: a literature review. J For 104(1):43-49
36. Lewicki RJ, Gray B, Elliot M (2002) Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts. Island Press, Washington, DC
37. Lindblom (1959) The science of "muddling through". Public Adm Rev 19(2):79-88
38. Lindstrom MJ, Smith ZA (2008) The National Environmental Policy Act: judicial misconstruction, legislative indifference, and executive neglect. Texas A&M, College Station
39. Lipsky M (1980) Street-level bureaucracy: the dilemmas of individuals in public service. Russell Sage Foundation, New York
40. MacGregor DG, Seesholtz DN (2008) Factors influencing line officers' decisions about National Environmental Policy Act project design and development. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-766, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.
41. Malmsheimer RW, Keele D, Floyd DW (2004) National Forest litigation in the US Court of Appeals. J For 102(2):20-25 (Pubitemid 38381899)
42. Martin CA (2012) Risk management in United States Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act planning processes. Master's Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
43. McCool SF, Guthrie K (2001) Mapping the social dimensions of successful public participation in messy natural resources management situations. Soc Nat Resour 14(4):309-323 (Pubitemid 32325162)
44. Merton RK (1940) Bureaucratic structure and personality. Soc Forces 18:560-568
45. Molnar E, Mulvihill P (2003) Sustainability-focused organizational learning: recent experiences and new challenges. J Environ Plan Manag 46(2):167-176 (Pubitemid 36624175)
46. Mortimer MJ, Stern MJ, Malmsheimer R, Blahna D, Cerveny L, Seesholtz D (2011) Environmental and social risks: defensive National Environmental Policy Act in the U.S. Forest Service. J For 109(1):27-33
47. Nie MA, Schultz CA (2012) Decision-making triggers in adaptive management. Conserv Biol 26(6):1137-1144
48. Predmore SA, Copenheaver CA, Mortimer MJ (2008) Ecosystem management in the U.S. Forest Service: a persistent process but dying discourse. J Forest 106(6):339-345
49. Predmore SA, Stern MJ, Mortimer MJ, Seesholtz D (2011a) Perceptions of legally mandated public involvement processes in the U.S. Forest Service. Soc Nat Resour 24(12):1286-1303
50. Predmore SA, Stern MJ, Mortimer MJ (2011b) Constructing the Public: the substantive sieve and personal norms in U.S. Forest Service planning. J Environ Plan Manag 54(3):403-419
51. Pritchard CL (1999) Risk management: concepts and guidelines. ESI International, Arlington
52. Project Management Institute (2004) A guide to the project management body of knowledge, 3rd edn. Project Management Institute, Upper Darby
53. Reed A, Knight L (2010) Project risk differences between virtual and co-located teams. J Comput Inf Syst 51(1):19-30
54. Royer P (2000) Risk management: the undiscovered dimension of project management. Proj Manag J 31(1):6-13
55. Schein EH (2010) Organizational culture and leadership, 4th edn. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
56. Stankey GH, Clark RN, Bormann BT (2005) Adaptive management of natural resources theory, concepts, and management institutions. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-654. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.
57. Stern, MJ (2008) The power of trust: toward a theory of local opposition to neighboring protected areas. Soc Natur Resour 21(10):859-875
58. Stern MJ, Mortimer MJ (2009). Exploring NEPA processes across federal land management agencies. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-799, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.
59. Stern MJ, Predmore SA (2011) Decision making, procedural compliance, and outcomes definition in U.S. Forest Service planning processes. Environ Impact Asses 31(3):271-278
60. Stern MJ, Predmore SA (2012) The importance of team functioning to natural resource planning outcomes. J Environ Manag 106:30-39
61. Stern MJ, Blahna DJ, Cerveny LK, Mortimer MJ (2009) Visions of success and achievement in recreation-related USDA Forest Service NEPA processes. Environ Impact Assess 29(4):220-228
62. Stern MJ, Predmore SA, Mortimer MJ, Seesholtz D (2010a) The meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act within the U.S. Forest Service. J Environ Manag 91(6):1371-1379
63. Stern MJ, Predmore SA, Mortimer MJ, Seesholtz D (2010b) From the office to the field: areas of consensus and tension in the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act within the U.S. Forest Service. J Environ Manag 91(6):1350-1356
64. Stern MJ, Predmore SA, Morse WC, Seesholtz D (2013) Project risk in U.S. Forest Service environmental impact assessment: factors predicting appeals and their outcomes. Environ Impact Assess 42:95-104
65. Tesch D, Kloppenborg T, Frolick M (2007) IT project risk factors: the project management professional's perspective. J Comput Inform Syst 47(4):61-69
66. USDA Forest Service (2002) The process predicament: how statutory, regulatory, and administrative factors affect national forest management. USDA, Washington, DC
67. Ward S (1999) Requirements for an effective project risk management process. Proj Manag J 30(3):37-43
68. Wilson JQ (1989) Bureaucracy: what government agencies do and why they do it. Basic Books, New York
69. Wondolleck JM, Yaffee SL (2000) Making collaboration work: lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Island Press, Washington, DC