Conservation Management and Planning II
Conservation Management and Planning II CSS 386
Popular in Course
Popular in Computational Social Science
This 9 page Class Notes was uploaded by Burnice Wilkinson on Friday October 23, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to CSS 386 at University of Idaho taught by Staff in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 21 views. For similar materials see /class/227807/css-386-university-of-idaho in Computational Social Science at University of Idaho.
Reviews for Conservation Management and Planning II
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
Date Created: 10/23/15
Consensus Building Appreciative Inquiry amp Collaborative Decision Making A New A pproacn to Planning for Change Professor Ed Krurnpe Planning as Communicative Action Emphasis placed on communication in postmodern planning Communication institutional political amp power elite Collective sense of meaning is created among participants through shared discourse g Planner as Consensus Builder Mediated negotiation forging a working agreement among groups Consensus group deliberation Faceto face discussion Representative stakeholders Everyone is heard amp taken seriously Shared information available to all g Planner as Consensus Builder Informed about each other s interests Agree on facts amp create options Group develops relevant choice criteria Group makes decisions on which they can all agree Usually requires trained facilitator g Appreciative Inquiry amp Change Most change processes are based on problemsolving processes We start by asking quotwhat39s the problemquot When we do that we focus energy on what we want less of and work to quotfixquot things Appreciative Inquiry is based on a different set of assumptions 1 2 3 Assumptions Of Appreciative Inquiry You create more effective organizations by focusing on what you want more of not what you want less of Whatever you want more of already exists even if only in small quantities It39s easier to create change by amplifying the positive qualities of a group or organization than by trying to fix the negative qualities Assumptions of Appreciative Inquiry SI Appreciative Inquiry Steps 4 Through the act of inquiry we create the What is your dream social realities we are trying to understand I Silently generate your dream for what a 5 Getting people to inquire together into the perfecr fumre WOUId lock Ilka 39 39 39 best examples of what they want more of 39 Share Your dream crea s i 39s own momentum toward creating what would have m happen to get you more positive organizations 39 to this dsired condition Transactive Planning and t Collaborative Decision making Small groups Facetoi39ace dialogue Mutual learning Use Positive Approach to Identify Issues amp Set Goals NEPA has got it wrongquot scoping Don39t start by identifying issues rst It focuses on the negative A series ofsmall transactions and It P lari295 members compromises will lead to big decisions 0 It leads to stereotyping other members Mutual understanding amp support will I D0 use the I DUHd I Dbin 0f ValUESquot sult g The Round Robin of Values I The Round Robin of Values Each member silently N exteeachtpersoi u Tinst pdaves the wayt o amp si en y wri es be en a s ar eve oping goa s Wr39te 5t f What may mm ese values objectives to address the like or value about the 50 around me group problems or threes subject of discussion W Go around the group ask each member to present Q value from their list repeat until all values are displayed present one thre fro their list repeatuntil all threats are diiDlaYEd ow peop n erstand what s behind negauve reeirngs Next Steps Develop criteria to judge options Provide constant lines of feedback to constituency groups all along the way Discuss alternatives of noncompliance Agree among group to monitor the outcomes Shared decisions are 100 more likely to be implemented sh Key references David L Cooperrider and Suresh Srivastva 1986 Appreciative Inquiry in Organizational Life Research in Organizational Change and Development Vol1 pages 129169 Additional sources at http www6ppreciativerinquiry orgindexhtm Limits of Acceptable Change Planning System An Alternative Implementation of Carrying Capacity Professor Ed Krumpe Conservation Social Sciences Is LAC a Planning or a Management System Originally developed to manage Wilderness and Wild amp Scenic Rivers Focus has been on indicators sometimes just campsite impacts Unclear how LAC and NEPA planning fit together Unclear how to use LAC in other than primitive end of ROS spectrum LAC 77 Ed KlLITlDE 2 Why Not Use Recreation Carrying Capacity Carrying Capacity focuses on the wrong question Decreasing the Number of users may NOT lessen impacts We want to manage for desired resource amp social conditions The public demands to know how decisions are made LAC 77 Ed KlLITlDE 3 g First Application of LAC Flathead Wild amp Scenic River 1981 Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex 1983 Fundamental Change No magic numbers Public Participation Task Force LAC 77 Ed KlLITlDE 4 What is Limits of Acceptable Change LAC is a process to define What kind of Resource conditions amp What kind of Social conditions are acceptable Fumresoriented hence it was called a amp planning system To prescribe Actions to protect or achieve those conditions LAC 77 Ed KlLITlDE 5 Limits of Acceptable Change Planning Process Transactive Planning Incorporated Throughout Friedmann e um Small Groups Planners Citizens Face to Face Dialogue Mutual Learning between planners amp citizens technical amp personal knowledge equally valuable valuesperspectives shared LAC 77 Ed KlLITlDE a Political Science Principles 5 Caulfield Colorado State Univ Natural Resource Planning Arena Political Marketplace Veto Power Viable Political Coalitions LAC Ed Krumpe Key Ingredients Interest amp Concern Political Marketplace Equitable Power Distribution Veto Power Mutual Learning Ownership Why Use LAC LAC process focuses on maintaining Desired Future Conditions Resource conditions Social conditions Managerial conditions It provides for stability over time It is trackable and traceable LAC Ed Krumpe It usually follows a ninestep process designed by the USFS It often includes I ublic in ut and involvement at key steps It moves from broad descriptions to specific prescriptions It requires setting standards and monitoring conditions i How Does LAC Work LAC Ed Krumpe 10 Basic premise of LAC Change is a natural inevitable consequence of recreation useboth environmental amp social Instead of quotHOW much use is too much LAC asks quotHOW much Change is acceptable LAC Ed Krumpe Limits of Acceptable Change Planning Process The NineStep Process 5 LAC PLANNING SYSTEM 12 The Nine Step Process identify area concerns amp issues Select indicators ofresource at so inventory resource lit social conditions Speci f0 both id mmsawAWNH a m 1 3 m 1 m m 3 m g implement actions and monitor condmons m Edimmve De ne amp describe opportunity classes zones cial condmons enufy alternauve opportunity class aiiocauons u y e twpiemem Mzmgeme Mm Ssemmi Elements move We atAcswtabie mm m Mme WildlandVlanmnvsi tnm m Inherently negative Pits one group against anotht 39 Creates a narrow focus Hot issues may overlook longterm ecological problems m Edimmve Problems with the first step Starts by Identifying Issues amp Concerns Step 2 De ning Desired I Future Conditions Create Zones based upon the ROS classes I Hi 39t39 Semiprimitive Nonmotorized Semiprimitive Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban Pristine Rimitive Attraction Sites Portals m a Kmnve Step 2 Defining Desired g Future Conditions Define key physical attributes to be maintained undisturbed development remuhz rium ms Define key social attr Emails seineianne Ens enae information seauatiun than m I Step 2 is the MOST OVERLOOKED STEP using LAC in a planning process natural environment no permanent s i ibutes suimma isulatiu few Define key managerial attributes liuhtnhanded minimal management presents DWNLNE unis used rely we pull on in Ste Indicators p 3 9 The Heart of LAC Indicators are things we can measure which tell us if desired resource amp social conditions are mam from human use Example Indicators Exotic p nis Limits of Acceptable Change Planning Process Step 5 Standards I The Heart of LAC The point at which an indicator tells us that the change is acceptableor not Exceeding the standard should trigger ction Q Ifzt 1m tbrukerz don t x It a Management actions can be traced back to speci c problems via indicators or 54mm 9 Swimming Beach I Example Indicator of dangerous pollution I V Fecal Coli orm I Standard Drinking 0 organisms 100 ml Swimming 20 organisms100ml Management Action 1 Chlorinate 24 Lllci39sEAK Close the bmch I Example from i39 Hells Canyon LAC Planning Process or 54mm Create goals to accomplish 39 the DFCs Desired Future Condition in Hells Canyon examples The public decided that most conflicts started at the launchtakeout ramps Goals in Wild River Segment Decrease con ict among oaters and power boaters Minimize congestion on the river a We 22 Specific Objectives to I accomplish the goals Provide launchtakeout facilities to i imiZe congestion amp con ict Minimize the amount of time people must wait to r 39 launch their boats Limits of Acceptable Change Planning Process Indicator amp Standard Indicator Time spent waiting to launch Standard 80 of boating parties will have to wait no longer than 15 minutes on a Kmnve 2o 39 Monitoring Develop a systematic monitoring plan schedule protocols locations Take masurements on the ground and compare to s s Ifstandards are exceeded 1st check conditions and sampling 2nd check if standard is appropriate Then Implement Management Action m 54mm 25 g triggered by standard 0 not Ing until the standard is Management Actions drec Post signs on bulletin boards Staff launch amp takeout sites with a ranger exceeded then hierarchy I39Irdl39rectto 39 t Build more launch ramps Sc gere 39 5 I What We Have Learned Many LAC plans have focused on recreation management Few physical indicators were selected to monitnr wilderness conditions 9Step LAC process is cumbersome m 54mm 27 Disadvantages of LAC It takes a lot of time Forces you to be speci c We don39t know pest indicators to use Setting standards is dif cult Requires a lot of systematic monitnring Must be revisited and ne tuned m a Kmnve 2x El Shortcomings of LAC Transactive and Collaborative planning confused with C Confusion with how LAC ts with Forest Plan and NEPA Confusion with how the rest of the public ts in with collaborative work groups Change in legal climateFACA m 54mm Requirements for Collaborative I Planning Transactive planning requires special skills Average of 20 Task Force meetings over 2 to 4 years Lots of time required for preparation Leader must be perceived as impartial and open Sufficient baseline data seldom available m a Kmnve 2n Limits of Acceptable Change Planning Process Advantages of LAC Public input at all stages threats DF 2 a z 2 I Relevant Indicators amp Stan Management Actions address 5 ecific Trackable and TraceableI m Edlmmve Cs etc Desired Future Conditions clearly defined 5 selecte roblems amp you can evaluate effectiveness Public becomes partners in management LAC amp Recreation Carrying Capacity RCC limits numbers of people to pre vent deterioration of resource amp social conditions LAC maintains desired future resource amp social 39 tor39n amp management conditionsthrou h i I g actions targeted at speci c problems LAC is ti39ackable amp ti39aceableRCC seldom is LAC is most reasonable way to implement RCC m a Kmnve Thank you For further 5 information contact Professor Edwlrl E Krurrpe Dept of Conservation Soclal Sclerlces College of Natural Resources Urllverslty of ldaho Moscow lD 8384471139 Phone 20878857428 Errlall edkrumpe uldaho edu m Edlmmve A Positive Way to Fix the First I Step Build upon people39s positive values Silently list things they like or value Individually present their valus of threats issues on a Kmnve i Rather than Voting Voting pits winners against losers oting maks suboptimal decisions 49 may still hate the decision Voting tends to polarize groups Voting fosters politics rather than collaboration A marginal favorable vote is seldom supported on the gran s to 54mm Why Work Towards Consensus 4 Levels of Support to Reach I Consensus 1 I can easily support the action 2 I can support it but it is not my preferenc 3 I can support it if minor c positions are made fIr I agree to discuss level 3 at 4 concerns before m m a Kmnve e re made 4 I cannot support it unless major changes are made Limits of Acceptable Change Planning Process