Knowledge management for adaptive planning and decision-making in federal land management agencies

Abstract

Scholarship on environmental governance emphasizes the importance of institutions with the capacity to integrate scientific knowledge from multiple scales of assessment into decision-making processes at multiple levels of governance. A major gap in our knowledge exists around the design of policies and administrative strategies that can support knowledge management and address scalar challenges for adaptive governance in public organizations such as land management agencies. This research examines challenges and opportunities for improving knowledge management for multiscale monitoring, which is a fundamental component of public land planning and decision-making for the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the National Park Service (NPS). My objective is to expand our understanding of the governance institutions that support improved knowledge management, looking specifically at the legal and administrative variables that impede and promote improved knowledge generation and application in a hierarchical public bureaucracy. In the U.S. Forest Service, I found that limited capacity, decentralized decision-making structures, and organizational culture are critical barriers for implementing forest and broader-scale monitoring associated with recent regulations for National Forest planning under the National Forest Management Act of 1976. However, there are opportunities for addressing these challenges through partnerships, investment in "administrative knowledge brokers," and formalized collaborative processes. While these policies and practices can generate efficiencies and address scalar challenges for knowledge management, leadership commitment and capacity are needed for implementation. Both the BLM and NPS used similar policy tools to address capacity and commitment challenges for effective knowledge management among administrative actors, including: clear goals linked to agency mission and mandates; funding and specialized staffing positions dedicated to inventory and monitoring at multiple levels of administration; centralized authority for implementation, coordination, and budgetary allocation; and structured collaborative processes. However, there are also differences in tools that reflect the unique administrative context and constraints faced by each agency. Collectively, my findings highlight several important considerations for future research on environmental governance. Rather than characterizing institutional actors as knowledge users, producers, and intermediaries, I argue that it is more appropriate to evaluate the specific capabilities and multiple roles of diverse actors in different knowledge management processes. Given the complexity of today's management challenges, administrative structures dedicated to knowledge management and embedded in public organizations are needed to link knowledge to action across scales of governance. I also highlight the problematic assumption that decentralization and flexibility are essential for adaptive practice; the critical barrier in my findings is not limited flexibility, but limited administrative capacity. My research suggests that hierarchical governance structures and a diverse mix of policy tools are essential for addressing mismatches between the temporal and spatial scales of assessment and decision-making, realizing efficiencies for implementation, and linking knowledge to action across levels of governance.