培养对社会和生态变化的协作恢复力:美国协作森林恢复团体的适应能力、行动和障碍评估

Tyler A Beeton, A. Cheng, Melanie M. Colavito
{"title":"培养对社会和生态变化的协作恢复力:美国协作森林恢复团体的适应能力、行动和障碍评估","authors":"Tyler A Beeton, A. Cheng, Melanie M. Colavito","doi":"10.1093/jofore/fvab064","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n Collaboration is increasingly emphasized as a tool to realize national-level policy goals in public lands management. Yet, collaborative governance regimes (CGRs) are nested within traditional bureaucracies and are affected by internal and external disruptions. The extent to which CGRs adapt and remain resilient to these disruptions remains under-explored. Here, we distill insights from an assessment of the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) projects and other CGRs. We asked (1) how do CGRs adapt to disruptions? and (2) what barriers constrained CGR resilience? Our analysis is informed by a synthesis of the literature, case examples and exemplars from focus groups, and a national CFLRP survey. CGRs demonstrated the ability to mobilize social capital, learning, resources, and flexibility to respond to disruptions. Yet authority, accountability, and capacity complicated collaborative resilience. We conclude with policy and practice recommendations to cultivate collaborative resilience moving forward.\n \n \n \n Collaborative approaches between public lands management agencies and nongovernment organizations have become common in forest restoration. Yet collaborative progress may be affected by turnover, wildfire disturbances, or legal or policy changes. We assessed how forest collaboratives in the United States adapted to changes that affected their performance and documented the factors that constrained response. We found that forest collaboratives developed myriad strategies to adapt to these changes, although limited authority, capacity, and accountability constrain adaptation options. We offer policy and practice recommendations to overcome these constraints, increase adaptation options, and enhance the sustainability of forest collaboratives.\n","PeriodicalId":23386,"journal":{"name":"Turkish Journal of Forestry","volume":"145 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cultivating Collaborative Resilience to Social and Ecological Change: An Assessment of Adaptive Capacity, Actions, and Barriers Among Collaborative Forest Restoration Groups in the United States\",\"authors\":\"Tyler A Beeton, A. Cheng, Melanie M. Colavito\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jofore/fvab064\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n \\n Collaboration is increasingly emphasized as a tool to realize national-level policy goals in public lands management. Yet, collaborative governance regimes (CGRs) are nested within traditional bureaucracies and are affected by internal and external disruptions. The extent to which CGRs adapt and remain resilient to these disruptions remains under-explored. Here, we distill insights from an assessment of the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) projects and other CGRs. We asked (1) how do CGRs adapt to disruptions? and (2) what barriers constrained CGR resilience? Our analysis is informed by a synthesis of the literature, case examples and exemplars from focus groups, and a national CFLRP survey. CGRs demonstrated the ability to mobilize social capital, learning, resources, and flexibility to respond to disruptions. Yet authority, accountability, and capacity complicated collaborative resilience. We conclude with policy and practice recommendations to cultivate collaborative resilience moving forward.\\n \\n \\n \\n Collaborative approaches between public lands management agencies and nongovernment organizations have become common in forest restoration. Yet collaborative progress may be affected by turnover, wildfire disturbances, or legal or policy changes. We assessed how forest collaboratives in the United States adapted to changes that affected their performance and documented the factors that constrained response. We found that forest collaboratives developed myriad strategies to adapt to these changes, although limited authority, capacity, and accountability constrain adaptation options. We offer policy and practice recommendations to overcome these constraints, increase adaptation options, and enhance the sustainability of forest collaboratives.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":23386,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Turkish Journal of Forestry\",\"volume\":\"145 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Turkish Journal of Forestry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvab064\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish Journal of Forestry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvab064","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

作为实现国家一级公共土地管理政策目标的工具,合作日益受到重视。然而,协作治理制度(cgr)嵌套在传统的官僚机构中,并受到内部和外部干扰的影响。cgr在多大程度上适应并保持对这些破坏的弹性仍未得到充分探索。在此,我们从合作森林景观恢复计划(CFLRP)项目和其他cgr项目的评估中提取了一些见解。我们问(1)cgr如何适应中断?(2)制约CGR恢复能力的障碍是什么?我们的分析综合了文献、案例和焦点小组的范例,以及全国CFLRP调查。cgr展示了动员社会资本、学习、资源和灵活性以应对中断的能力。然而,权威、责任和能力使协作弹性变得复杂。最后,我们提出了政策和实践建议,以培养未来的协作弹性。公共土地管理机构和非政府组织之间的合作方式在森林恢复中已经变得普遍。然而,合作进程可能受到人员更替、野火干扰或法律或政策变化的影响。我们评估了美国的森林合作者如何适应影响其绩效的变化,并记录了制约其反应的因素。我们发现,森林合作组织制定了无数适应这些变化的战略,尽管有限的权力、能力和问责制限制了适应选择。我们提出了政策和实践建议,以克服这些制约因素,增加适应选择,并增强森林合作的可持续性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Cultivating Collaborative Resilience to Social and Ecological Change: An Assessment of Adaptive Capacity, Actions, and Barriers Among Collaborative Forest Restoration Groups in the United States
Collaboration is increasingly emphasized as a tool to realize national-level policy goals in public lands management. Yet, collaborative governance regimes (CGRs) are nested within traditional bureaucracies and are affected by internal and external disruptions. The extent to which CGRs adapt and remain resilient to these disruptions remains under-explored. Here, we distill insights from an assessment of the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) projects and other CGRs. We asked (1) how do CGRs adapt to disruptions? and (2) what barriers constrained CGR resilience? Our analysis is informed by a synthesis of the literature, case examples and exemplars from focus groups, and a national CFLRP survey. CGRs demonstrated the ability to mobilize social capital, learning, resources, and flexibility to respond to disruptions. Yet authority, accountability, and capacity complicated collaborative resilience. We conclude with policy and practice recommendations to cultivate collaborative resilience moving forward. Collaborative approaches between public lands management agencies and nongovernment organizations have become common in forest restoration. Yet collaborative progress may be affected by turnover, wildfire disturbances, or legal or policy changes. We assessed how forest collaboratives in the United States adapted to changes that affected their performance and documented the factors that constrained response. We found that forest collaboratives developed myriad strategies to adapt to these changes, although limited authority, capacity, and accountability constrain adaptation options. We offer policy and practice recommendations to overcome these constraints, increase adaptation options, and enhance the sustainability of forest collaboratives.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信