The Wicked Problem of Forest Policy A Multidisciplinary Approach to Sustainability in Forest Landscapes
1 - The Wicked Problem of Forest Policy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 July 2020
Summary
There is a global consensus that stopping deforestation is crucial for planetary health. Global efforts to curb deforestation, such as the Paris Agreement, the United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD) programme, and the aspirational New York Declaration of Forests, involve significant international and cross-sectoral coordination. They also involve the creation of new institutions and governance mechanisms to accomplish the goals set out in these instruments. At the same time, national-level efforts to support human development, reflected in the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, 2016a, 2016b), aim to increase the welfare and wellbeing of populations living in poverty. Meeting these development goals will inevitably have cross-cutting effects on initiatives to address deforestation. In balancing these goals, policy-makers are confronted with wicked problems – or problems where there are moral considerations and where limited information is available for policy-makers. This book is focused on how wicked forest policy problems have been, and can be, addressed.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Wicked Problem of Forest PolicyA Multidisciplinary Approach to Sustainability in Forest Landscapes, pp. 1 - 30Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Allen, G. M. and Gould, E. M. Jr. 1986. Complexity, wickedness, and public forests. Journal of Forestry 84(4):20–23.Google Scholar
Angelsen, A. and Kaimowitz, D.. 1999. Rethinking the causes of deforestation: lessons from economic models. The World Bank Research Observer 14(1):73–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ansell, C. and Gash, A.. 2008. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18(4):543–571.Google Scholar
Arts, B. 2014. Assessing forest governance from a ‘Triple G’ perspective: government, governance, governmentality. Forest Policy and Economics 49:17–22.Google Scholar
Arts, B. and Van Tatenhove, J.. 2004. Policy and power: a conceptual framework between the ‘old’ and ‘new’ policy idioms. Policy Sciences 37(3–4):339–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balint, P. J., Stewart, R. E., Desai, A. and Walters, L. C.. 2011. Wicked Environmental Problems: Managing Uncertainty and Conflict. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Buchanan, R. 1992. Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues 8(2):5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, M. S., Blatner, K. A., Cohn, P. J. and Morgan, T.. 2007. Managing fire danger in the forests of the US inland Northwest: a classic “wicked problem” in public land policy. Journal of Forestry 105(5):239–244.Google Scholar
Cashore, B. 2002. Legitimacy and the privatization of environmental governance: how non–state market–driven (NSMD) governance systems gain rule–making authority. Governance 15(4):503–529.Google Scholar
Cashore, B., Auld, G., Bernstein, S. and McDermott, C.. 2007. Can non-state governance ‘ratchet up’ global environmental standards? Lessons from the forest sector. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law 16(2):158–172.Google Scholar
Cook, K. S. and Hegtvedt, K. A.. 1983. Distributive justice, equity, and equality. Annual Review of Sociology 9(1):217–241.Google Scholar
Ferlie, E., Fitzgerald, L., McGivern, G., Dopson, S. and Bennett, C.. 2011. Public policy networks and ‘wicked problems’: a nascent solution? Public Administration 89(2):307–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filotas, E., Parrott, L., Burton, P. J., et al. 2014. Viewing forests through the lens of complex systems science. Ecosphere 5(1):1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forrester, J. W. 1987. Lessons from system dynamics modeling. System Dynamics Review 3(2):136–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fung, A. 2015. Putting the public back into governance: the challenges of citizen participation and its future. Public Administration Review 75(4):513–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giessen, L., Burns, S., Sahide, M. A. K. and Wibowo, A.. 2016. From governance to government: the strengthened role of state bureaucracies in forest and agricultural certification. Policy and Society 35(1):71–89.Google Scholar
Gray, B. 1989. Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
Gross, K. 2008. Framing persuasive appeals: episodic and thematic framing, emotional response, and policy opinion. Political Psychology 29(2):169–192.Google Scholar
Grint, K. 2008. Wicked problems and clumsy solutions: the role of leadership. Pages 169–186 in Brookes, S. and Grint, K., editors. The New Public Leadership Challenge. London: Palgrave McMillan.Google Scholar
Grint, K. 2010. The cuckoo clock syndrome: addicted to command, allergic to leadership. European Management Journal 28:306–313.Google Scholar
Guston, D. H. 2007. Between Politics and Science: Assuring the Integrity and Productivity of Research. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Head, B. and Alford, J.. 2008. Wicked problems: implications for policy and management. Presentation delivered to the Australasian Political Studies Association Conference, Brisbane, Australia, 2008.Google Scholar
Head, B. W. and Alford, J.. 2015. Wicked problems: implications for public policy and management. Administration & Society 47(6):711–739.Google Scholar
Head, B. W. and Xiang, W. N.. 2016. Why is an APT approach to wicked problems important? Landscape and Urban Planning 154:4–7.Google Scholar
Head, B. W., Ross, H. and Bellamy, J.. 2016. Managing wicked natural resource problems: the collaborative challenge at regional scales in Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning 154:81–92.Google Scholar
Howlett, M., Rayner, J. and Tollefson, C.. 2009. From government to governance in forest planning? Lessons from the case of the British Columbia Great Bear Rainforest initiative. Forest Policy and Economics 11(5–6):383–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Innes, J. E. and Booher, D.E.. 2016. Collaborative rationality as a strategy for working with wicked problems. Landscape and Urban Planning 154:8–10.Google Scholar
Juntti, M., Russel, D. and Turnpenny, J.. 2009. Evidence, politics and power in public policy for the environment. Environmental Science & Policy 12(3):207–215.Google Scholar
Lockwood, M., Davidson, J., Curtis, A., Stratford, E. and Griffith, R.. 2010. Governance principles for natural resource management. Society & Natural Resources 23(10):986–1001.Google Scholar
Lynn, L. E. Jr, Heinrich, C. J. and Hill, C. J.. 2001. Improving Governance: A New Logic for Empirical Research. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
McDermott, C. L., Irland, L. C. and Pacheco, P.. 2015. Forest certification and legality initiatives in the Brazilian Amazon: lessons for effective and equitable forest governance. Forest Policy and Economics 50:134–142.Google Scholar
Messier, C., Puettmann, K., Chazdon, R., et al. 2015. From management to stewardship: viewing forests as complex adaptive systems in an uncertain world. Conservation Letters 8(5):368–377.Google Scholar
Nepstad, D., McGrath, D., Stickler, C., et al. 2014. Slowing Amazon deforestation through public policy and interventions in beef and soy supply chains. Science 344(6188):1118–1123.Google Scholar
Nikolakis, W. and Grafton, R. Q.. 2014. Fairness and justice in indigenous water allocations: insights from Northern Australia. Water Policy 16(S2):19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikolakis, W. and Hotte, N.. 2019. How law shapes collaborative forest governance: A focus on Indigenous Peoples in Canada and India. Society & Natural Resources, 33(1):46–64.Google Scholar
Nikolakis, W. and Innes, J. L.. 2017. Evaluating incentive-based programs to support forest ecosystem services. Environmental Conservation 44(1):1–4.Google Scholar
Nikolakis, W., Akter, S. and Nelson, H. W.. 2016a. The effect of communication on individual preferences for common property resources: a case study from two Canadian First Nations. Land Use Policy 58:70–82.Google Scholar
Nikolakis, W., Grafton, Q. and Nygaard, A.. 2016b. Indigenous communities and climate change: a Recognition, Empowerment and Devolution (RED) framework in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Journal of Water and Climate Change 7(1):169–183.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. 1999. Self-Governance and Forest Resources. Center for International Forestry (CIFOR), Occasional Paper No. 20. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, P. 2000. Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review 94(2):251–267.Google Scholar
Pülzl, H. and Rametsteiner, E.. 2002. Grounding international modes of governance into National Forest Programmes. Forest Policy and Economics 4(4):259–268.Google Scholar
Rhodes, R. A. W. 1996. The new governance: governing without government. Political Studies 44(4):652–667.Google Scholar
Ringius, L., Torvanger, A. and Underdal, A.. 2002. Burden sharing and fairness principles in international climate policy. International Environmental Agreements 2(1):1–22.Google Scholar
Rittel, H. W. and Webber, M. M.. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4(2):155–169.Google Scholar
Roberts, N. 2000.Wicked problems and network approaches to resolution. International Public Management Review 1(1):1–19.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P. A. 1988. An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences 21(2–3):129–168.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P. A. and Weible, C. M., editors. 2014. Theories of the Policy Process. Colorado: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Satterfield, T. 2002. Anatomy of a Conflict: Identity, Knowledge and Emotion in Old-Growth Forests. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Senge, P. M. 1990. The leader's new work: building learning organizations. MIT Sloan Management Review 32(1):7–33.Google Scholar
Senge, P. M. and Sterman, J. D.. 1992. Systems thinking and organizational learning: acting locally and thinking globally in the organization of the future. European Journal of Operational Research 59(1):137–150.Google Scholar
Sterman, J. D. 1994. Learning in and about complex systems. System Dynamics Review 10(2–3):291–330.Google Scholar
Stewart, J. 2009. Value conflict and policy change. Pages 33–46 in Stewart, J., editor. Public Policy Values. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Stoker, G. 1998. Governance as theory: five propositions. International Social Science Journal 50(155):17–28.Google Scholar
Termeer, C. J. A. M., Dewulf, A., Breeman, G. and Stiller, S. J.. 2012. Governance capabilities for dealing wisely with wicked problems. Administration & Society 47(6):680–710.Google Scholar
United Nations. 2016a. Sustainable Development Goals. New York City: United Nations. Available at: www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/Google Scholar
United Nations. 2016b. Sustainable Development Goals, Biodiversity. New York City: United Nations. Available at: www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/biodiversity/Google Scholar
Waddock, S., Meszoely, G. M., Waddell, S. and Dentoni, D.. 2015. The complexity of wicked problems in large scale change. Journal of Organizational Change Management 28(6):993–1012.Google Scholar
Weber, E. P. and Khademian, A. M.. 2008. Wicked problems, knowledge challenges, and collaborative capacity builders in network settings. Public Administration Review 68(2):334–349.Google Scholar
Wexler, M. N. 2009. Exploring the moral dimension of wicked problems. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 29(9–10):531–542.Google Scholar
Wondolleck, J. M. and Yaffee, S. L.. 2000. Making Collaboration Work: Lessons from Innovation in Natural Resource Management. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar