Conservation conflict is widespread, damaging, and has proved difficult to manage using conventional conservation approaches. Conflicts are often “wicked problems,” lacking clear solutions due to divergent values of stakeholders, and being embedded within wickedly complex environments. Drawing on the concept of wicked environmental problems could lead to management strategies better suited to tackling conflict. However, it is unclear whether managers are embracing ideas from the wicked problems concept. There is currently a lack of guidance for applying strategies to tackle particular wicked problems, such as conservation conflict. We explored the suitability of wicked problems‐inspired management, using eight contemporary conflict case studies. Conservation conflict was managed predominantly using conventional approaches suited to tackling single objectives in simple environments, rather than balancing competing objectives in complex environments. To deal with different characteristics of wickedness, we recommend that managers develop strategies combining distributed decision‐making, diverse opinions, pattern‐based predictions, trade‐off‐based objectives, and reporting of failures. Recent advances in conservation conflict research have focused on improving interactions among stakeholders. We believe that such stakeholder‐focused approaches would dovetail with the whole‐system focus of a wicked problems framework, allowing conservationists to move toward a holistic strategy for managing conservation conflict.
10 February 2020 in Frontiers in Forests and Global Change
Invasive pathogens threaten the ability of forests globally to produce a range of valuable ecosystem services over time. However, the ability to detect such pathogen invasions—and thus to produce appropriate and timely management responses—is relatively low. We argue that a promising approach is to plan and manage forests in a way that increases their resilience to invasive pathogens not yet present or ubiquitous in the forest. This paper is based on a systematic search and critical review of empirical evidence of the effect of a wide range of forest management options on the primary and secondary infection rates of forest pathogens, and on subsequent forest recovery. Our goals are to inform forest management decision making to increase forest resilience, and to identify the most important evidence gaps for future research. The management options for which there is the strongest evidence that they increase forest resilience to pathogens are: reduced forest connectivity, removal or treatment of inoculum sources such as cut stumps, reduced tree density, removal of diseased trees and increased tree species diversity. In all cases the effect of these options on infection dynamics differs greatly amongst tree and pathogen species and between forest environments. However, the lack of consistent effects of silvicultural systems or of thinning, pruning or coppicing treatments is notable. There is also a lack of evidence of how the effects of treatments are influenced by the scale at which they are applied, e.g., the mixture of tree species. An overall conclusion is that forest managers often need to trade-off increased resilience to tree pathogens against other benefits obtained from forests.
Agricultural land covers a significant portion of the earths land surface. Although the predominant function of agricultural land is food production, environmental public goods, such as biodiversity or soil maintenance, are also essential for long-term sustainability. In arable farms the type of cropping system used has a major impact on delivery of these environmental goods. Low input, integrated and regenerative cropping systems aim to improve environmental outcomes of arable farming, with the goal of reducing external inputs by supporting internal regulation of system processes. However, the production of environmental goods does not have an immediate market value to the farmer, and often comes at a cost, particularly in the early stages of transition to a more sustainable system. We estimate the on-farm costs and benefits of an integrated cropping system during the first six years of transition from intensive conventional management at the Centre for Sustainable Cropping in north east Scotland. Although integrated cropping had better environmental outcomes, all crops had higher financial margins in the conventional system compared to the integrated system, which suffered a loss of over £500 per ha per year across the full rotation. This indicates that financial incentives are likely to be important to allow farmers to transition towards a more environmentally friendly cropping system.
1 September 2021 in Urban Forestry & Urban Greening