Journal Articles

Photo from Pixabay

Graham, S., Metcalf, A. L., Gill, N., Niemiec, R., Moreno, C., Bach, T., Ikutegbe, V., Hallstrom, L., Zhao, M, Lubeck, A. (2018). Opportunities for better use of collective action theory in research and governance for invasive species management. Conservation Biology, 0(ja).

Controlling invasive species presents a public-good dilemma. Although environmental, social, and economic benefits of control accrue to society, costs are borne by only a few individuals and organizations. For decades, policy makers have used incentives and sanctions to encourage or coerce individual actors to contribute to the public good, with limited success. Diverse, subnational efforts to collectively manage invasive plants, insects, and animals provide effective alternatives to traditional command-and-control approaches. Despite this work, there has been little systematic evaluation of collective efforts to determine whether there are consistent principles underpinning success. We reviewed 32 studies to identify the extent to which collective-action theories from related agricultural and environmental fields explain collaborative invasive species management approaches; describe and differentiate emergent invasive species collective-action efforts; and provide guidance on how to enable more-collaborative approaches to invasive species management. We identified 4 types of collective action aimed at invasive species–externally led, community led, comanaged, and organizational coalitions – that provide blueprints for future invasive species management. Existing collective-action theories could explain the importance attributed to developing shared knowledge of the social-ecological system and the need for social capital. Yet, collection action on invasive species requires different types of monitoring, sanctions, and boundary definitions. We argue that future government policies can benefit from establishing flexible boundaries that encourage social learning and enable colocated individuals and organizations to identify common goals, pool resources, and coordinate efforts.

Meyers, W. H., Karasova, N., & Yatsenko, O. (2018). Highly marginal goods as source of export efficiency rise in agrarian sector. Management Theory and Studies for Rural Business and Infrastructure Development, 40(4), 577-586–586.

Having high export potential, Ukrainian agrarian sector continues to be in the agricultural commodity market periphery. One of the key problems is low export efficiency determined by raw materials domination in the structure. The study aim was to ascertain a reorientation possibility of export commodity structure in order to reduce the raw materials part and increase the highly marginal goods part. The methodology consisted in studying the character of reciprocal influence comparison of different commodity groups volumes of agricultural produce using Verhulst’s function. As a result, parameters of optimal goods correlation were designed, and a number of highly marginal goods and conceptual basis able to improve export efficiency were established.

Southcott, C., Abele, F., Natcher, D., & Parlee, B. (2018). Beyond the Berger Inquiry: Can Extractive Resource Development Help the Sustainability of Canada’s Arctic Communities? ARCTIC, 71(4), 393–406.

The four decades since the Berger Inquiry have produced a large body of research demonstrating the positive and negative impacts of resource development on northern communities. However, little independent research has aimed to yield an understanding of how best to manage the impacts of resource development and to harness its benefits in ways that can promote long-term sustainable development. This question was the impetus for the Resources and Sustainable Development in the Arctic (ReSDA) research project funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada in 2011. Representing a network of researchers, community members and organizations, ReSDA researchers conducted a series of analyses that focused on what was needed to ensure that northern communities received more benefits from resource development and potential negative impacts were mitigated. Overall, the analyses highlight the serious gaps that remain in our ability to ensure that resource development projects improve the sustainability of Arctic communities. These gaps include a proper understanding of cumulative impacts, the ability of communities to adequately participate in new regulatory processes, the non-economic aspects of well-being, the effects of impact and benefit agreements and new financial benefits, and new mitigation activities.