Short-Term Projects versus Adaptive Governance: Conflicting Demands in the Management of Ecological Restoration
Drawing on a survey of large-scale ecological restoration initiatives, we find that managers face contradictory demands. On the one hand, they have to raise funds from a variety of sources through competitive procedures for individual projects. These projects require the specification of deliverable...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2016-11-01
|
| Series: | Land |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/5/4/39 |
| _version_ | 1818619131733213184 |
|---|---|
| author | Ian Hodge William M. Adams |
| author_facet | Ian Hodge William M. Adams |
| author_sort | Ian Hodge |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Drawing on a survey of large-scale ecological restoration initiatives, we find that managers face contradictory demands. On the one hand, they have to raise funds from a variety of sources through competitive procedures for individual projects. These projects require the specification of deliverable outputs within a relatively short project period. On the other hand, ecologists argue that the complexity of ecosystem processes means that it is not possible to know how to deliver predetermined outcomes and that governance should be adaptive, long-term and implemented through networks of stakeholders. This debate parallels a debate in public administration between New Public Management and more recent proposals for a new approach, sometimes termed Public Value Management. Both of these approaches have strengths. Projectification provides control and accountability to funders. Adaptive governance recognises complexity and provides for long-term learning, building networks and adaptive responses. We suggest an institutional architecture that aims to capture the major benefits of each approach based on public support dedicated to ecological restoration and long-term funding programmes. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-16T17:32:37Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-d3339cf7b0684ca8b02275d3500bd2b5 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2073-445X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-16T17:32:37Z |
| publishDate | 2016-11-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Land |
| spelling | doaj.art-d3339cf7b0684ca8b02275d3500bd2b52022-12-21T22:22:53ZengMDPI AGLand2073-445X2016-11-01543910.3390/land5040039land5040039Short-Term Projects versus Adaptive Governance: Conflicting Demands in the Management of Ecological RestorationIan Hodge0William M. Adams1Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge, 19 Silver Street, Cambridge CB3 9EP, UKDepartment of Geography, University of Cambridge, Downing Place, Cambridge CB2 3EN, UKDrawing on a survey of large-scale ecological restoration initiatives, we find that managers face contradictory demands. On the one hand, they have to raise funds from a variety of sources through competitive procedures for individual projects. These projects require the specification of deliverable outputs within a relatively short project period. On the other hand, ecologists argue that the complexity of ecosystem processes means that it is not possible to know how to deliver predetermined outcomes and that governance should be adaptive, long-term and implemented through networks of stakeholders. This debate parallels a debate in public administration between New Public Management and more recent proposals for a new approach, sometimes termed Public Value Management. Both of these approaches have strengths. Projectification provides control and accountability to funders. Adaptive governance recognises complexity and provides for long-term learning, building networks and adaptive responses. We suggest an institutional architecture that aims to capture the major benefits of each approach based on public support dedicated to ecological restoration and long-term funding programmes.http://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/5/4/39ecological restorationbiodiversity conservationadaptive governanceprojectificationNew Public ManagementPublic Value Management |
| spellingShingle | Ian Hodge William M. Adams Short-Term Projects versus Adaptive Governance: Conflicting Demands in the Management of Ecological Restoration Land ecological restoration biodiversity conservation adaptive governance projectification New Public Management Public Value Management |
| title | Short-Term Projects versus Adaptive Governance: Conflicting Demands in the Management of Ecological Restoration |
| title_full | Short-Term Projects versus Adaptive Governance: Conflicting Demands in the Management of Ecological Restoration |
| title_fullStr | Short-Term Projects versus Adaptive Governance: Conflicting Demands in the Management of Ecological Restoration |
| title_full_unstemmed | Short-Term Projects versus Adaptive Governance: Conflicting Demands in the Management of Ecological Restoration |
| title_short | Short-Term Projects versus Adaptive Governance: Conflicting Demands in the Management of Ecological Restoration |
| title_sort | short term projects versus adaptive governance conflicting demands in the management of ecological restoration |
| topic | ecological restoration biodiversity conservation adaptive governance projectification New Public Management Public Value Management |
| url | http://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/5/4/39 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT ianhodge shorttermprojectsversusadaptivegovernanceconflictingdemandsinthemanagementofecologicalrestoration AT williammadams shorttermprojectsversusadaptivegovernanceconflictingdemandsinthemanagementofecologicalrestoration |