Next Article in Journal / Special Issue
Accounting for the Drivers that Degrade and Restore Landscape Functions in Australia
Previous Article in Journal / Special Issue
Evidence for Biodiversity Conservation in Protected Landscapes
Article Menu

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Land 2016, 5(4), 39; doi:10.3390/land5040039

Short-Term Projects versus Adaptive Governance: Conflicting Demands in the Management of Ecological Restoration

1
Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge, 19 Silver Street, Cambridge CB3 9EP, UK
2
Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Downing Place, Cambridge CB2 3EN, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editors: Jeffrey Sayer and Chris Margules
Received: 2 August 2016 / Revised: 25 October 2016 / Accepted: 2 November 2016 / Published: 10 November 2016
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biodiversity in Locally Managed Lands)
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [634 KB, uploaded 10 November 2016]   |  

Abstract

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. View Full-Text
Keywords: ecological restoration; biodiversity conservation; adaptive governance; projectification; New Public Management; Public Value Management ecological restoration; biodiversity conservation; adaptive governance; projectification; New Public Management; Public Value Management
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).

Scifeed alert for new publications

Never miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
  • Get alerts for new papers matching your research
  • Find out the new papers from selected authors
  • Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
  • Define your Scifeed now

SciFeed Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Hodge, I.; Adams, W.M. Short-Term Projects versus Adaptive Governance: Conflicting Demands in the Management of Ecological Restoration. Land 2016, 5, 39.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Land EISSN 2073-445X Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top