%0 Journal Article
%T Using Better Management Thinking to Improve Conservation Effectiveness
%A Simon A. Black
%A Jim J. Groombridge
%A Carl G. Jones
%J ISRN Biodiversity
%D 2013
%R 10.1155/2013/784701
%X The current paradigm for effective management in biodiversity conservation programmes is dominated by three broad streams of thinking: (i) traditional ¡°command-and-control¡± approaches which are commonly observed in, but are not exclusive to, bureaucratic government-administered conservation, (ii) more recent notions of ¡°adaptive management,¡± and (iii) emerging ¡°good practice¡± management frameworks for conservation. Other variations on these themes suggested by the literature tend to endorse additions or enhancement to one or more of these approaches. We argue that instead a more fundamental alternative approach to conservation management is required, based on ¡°systems thinking.¡± The systems thinking approach should encompass (i) an understanding of natural systems, (ii) a sense of how human behaviour is influenced, (iii) an understanding of how knowledge should inform decision-making and problem solving, and (iv) an approach based on an understanding of variation in natural systems. Our argument is that the current paradigms of conservation management fail to address these four fundamentals and therefore do not represent the most effective way to manage conservation programmes. We suggest that the challenge for the conservation community is so great that conservation managers should seriously consider better ways of designing and managing programmes, setting goals, making decisions, and encouraging learning and improvement. 1. Introduction A number of well-informed commentators have suggested that the dominant management mind-set observed in biodiversity management is one which follows a command-and-control philosophy [1¨C3]. Command-and-control management is characterised by top-down management hierarchies, functional specialism in teams, decisions made by managers rather than people doing the work, measurement by output (often against targets), and ¡°management by results¡± (a focus on managing people and budgets) [2, 4¨C6]. A number of reviews of the conservation literature and the history of conservation successes and failures have identified common shortfalls of a ¡°command-and-control¡± approach to conservation [1¨C3]. One reason for the continued widespread use of command-and-control management is that it is the common default mind-set observed in many different industrial, commercial, and public sectors [4¨C6], largely driven by underlying educational or governmental norms of thinking. This mind-set is therefore readily absorbed by managers, and those working in conservation are no exception [2, 4]. A brief summary of the difficulties with
%U http://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn.biodiversity/2013/784701/