Towards improving the practice of adaptive management in the New Zealand conservation context

Abstract

Adaptive management has been proposed as a learning-oriented approach to environmental management where uncertainty exists. While the approach appears scientifically sound, it remains challenging to implement, with few successful examples in practice. In Aotearoa-New Zealand, the approach is relatively new, especially within conservation management. The goal of this research was to develop an understanding about the ways in which to support its adoption and practice in this context.

Through synthesis of the international literature, I argue that the resolution of practice-based concerns about adaptive management requires a focus on practice context, rather than serving to emphasise differences in discipline-derived discourse. A context focus is enabled in this research by the use of reflection building approaches, including formative evaluation, joint inquiry and individual reflection on group process.

The usefulness of these approaches for addressing the research goal is assessed using action research. Action research is an inductive research methodology involving an iterative and cyclical process of action and critical reflection on action. Subsequent research cycles enable substantive theory (about practice) to be developed. Five research cycles were undertaken. Three cycles were dedicated to the development and testing of a formative evaluation framework. The value of this framework for building reflection is evidenced in a multi-case analysis of the practice of adaptive management. Further, the value of alternative approaches to building reflection is also demonstrated.

This research has shown that the practice of adaptive management in New Zealand is typically specialist driven. I argue that this is, in part, due to the use of adaptive management as a model of science-based problem solving. The successful practice of adaptive management is therefore dependent on practitioners' ability to attend to tensions caused by interests other than those of improving the ability to confront complexity at the localised management level. This research has proven that supporting practitioners in making explicit the underlying reasons for decisions about how to confront complexity can only serve to improve the likelihood of learning from them.