Missing the trees for the forest? Bottom-up policy implementation and adaptive management in the US natural resource bureaucracy

Abstract

For decades, natural resource agencies in the United States have attempted to restore ecosystems using adaptive management, a process that emphasizes experimental learning to reduce uncertainty. Most studies show that it rarely occurs in practice and explain implementation failures as organizational issues. This study draws on policy implementation theory to suggest that behaviors and attitudes of individuals may better explain implementation gaps. This comparative case study finds differences between experts implementing adaptive management in the Fish and Wildlife Service and the United States Geological Survey. These include differences in attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors aimed at promoting individual autonomy, performance standards, and defending individual interests on the job. Policy implications are twofold: first, that individual behaviors impact adaptive management implementation and intrinsic motivation to perform such functions. Second, regardless of agency, experts view their work as a social good. This suggests that a devolved planning process may remedy implementation obstacles.

Keywords:

• adaptive management
• ecological restorations
• policy implementation
• bureaucracy

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Larry Susskind, Michael Piore, and Judy Layzer for comments on this paper. Additional thanks to the two anonymous referees who contributed much thought and substance to the final version of this manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. A restoration is a process where natural resource managers administer treatments to an ecosystem with hopes that it will return to a healthy state.

2. Learning is the process of increasing information that we know about a system's response to treatments. Learning can inform decisions on what future treatments a resource requires.

3. Individual practitioners within the US Fish and Wildlife and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) work to implement adaptive management but it is important to note that the USGS is the science agency of the Department of the Interior (DOI) and as such holds no land. Other agencies within the DOI such as US Fish and Wildlife or the Bureau of Land Management can invite the USGS to cooperate on projects where practitioners implement adaptive management on these land holdings.

4. According to The Adaptive Management Technical Guide, adaptive management is a, “decision process that promotes flexible decision making that can be adjusted in the face of uncertainties […] It is not a ‘trial and error’ process, but rather emphasizes learning by while doing. Adaptive management does not represent an end in itself but rather a means to more effective decisions and enhanced benefits” (Williams, Szaro, and Shapiro 2007, vii).