Premium
Entendiendo las Barreras para la Implementación de un Programa Adaptativo de Gestión de Tierras
Author(s) -
JACOBSON SUSAN K.,
MORRIS JULIE K.,
SANDERS J. SCOTT,
WILEY EUGENE N.,
BROOKS MICHAEL,
BENNETTS ROBERT E.,
PERCIVAL H. FRANKLIN,
MARYNOWSKI SUSAN
Publication year - 2006
Publication title -
conservation biology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.2
H-Index - 222
eISSN - 1523-1739
pISSN - 0888-8892
DOI - 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00476.x
Subject(s) - adaptive management , agency (philosophy) , business , flexibility (engineering) , environmental resource management , wildlife , environmental planning , commission , public relations , knowledge management , geography , political science , ecology , computer science , sociology , finance , statistics , environmental science , mathematics , biology , social science
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission manages over 650,000 ha, including 26 wildlife management and environmental areas. To improve management, they developed an objective‐based vegetation management (OBVM) process that focuses on desired conditions of plant communities through an adaptive management framework. Our goals were to understand potential barriers to implementing OBVM and to recommend strategies to overcome barriers. A literature review identified 47 potential barriers in six categories to implementation of adaptive and ecosystem management: logistical, communication, attitudinal, institutional, conceptual, and educational. We explored these barriers through a bureau‐wide survey of 90 staff involved in OBVM and personal interviews with area managers, scientists, and administrators. The survey incorporated an organizational culture assessment instrument to gauge how institutional factors might influence OBVM implementation. The survey response rate was 69%. Logistics and communications were the greatest barriers to implementing OBVM. Respondents perceived that the agency had inadequate resources for implementing OBVM and provided inadequate information. About one‐third of the respondents believed OBVM would decrease their job flexibility and perceived greater institutional barriers to the approach. The 43% of respondents who believed they would have more responsibility under OBVM also had greater attitudinal barriers. A similar percentage of respondents reported OBVM would not give enough priority to wildlife. Staff believed that current agency culture was hierarchical but preferred a culture that would provide more flexibility for adaptive management and would foster learning from land management activities. In light of the barriers to OBVM, we recommend the following: (1) mitigation of logistical barriers by addressing real and perceived constraints of staff, funds, and other resources in a participatory manner; (2) mitigation of communication barriers through interpersonal and electronic communication channels; (3) development of an OBVM external advisory committee; and (4) adoption of characteristics of an organizational culture that promotes flexibility and learning.