Applying Habermas's critical theory to public administration and policy: A case study of Florida Everglades restoration program

The foundation of Habermas's argument, a leading critical theorist, lies in the unequal distribution of wealth across society. He states that in an advanced capitalist society, the possibility of a crisis has shifted from the economic and political spheres to the legitimation system. Legitimation crises increase the more government intervenes into the economy (market) and the "simultaneous political enfranchisement of almost the entire adult population" (Holub, 1991, p. 88). The reason for this increase is because policymakers in advanced capitalist democracies are caught between conflicting imperatives: they are expected to serve the interests of their nation as a whole, but they must prop up an economic system that benefits the wealthy at the expense of most workers and the environment. Habermas argues that the driving force in history is an expectation, built into the nature of language, that norms, laws, and institutions will serve the interests of the entire population and not just those of a special group. In his view, policy makers in capitalist societies are having to fend off this expectation by simultaneously correcting some of the inequities of the market, denying that they have control over people's economic circumstances, and defending the market as an equitable allocator of income. (deHaven-Smith, 1988, p. 14). Critical theory suggests that this contradiction will be reflected in Everglades policy by communicative narratives that suppress and conceal tensions between environmental and economic priorities. Habermas’ Legitimation Crisis states that political actors use various symbols, ideologies, narratives, and language to engage the public and avoid a legitimation crisis. These influences not only manipulate the general population into desiring what has been manufactured for them, but also leave them feeling unfulfilled and alienated. Also known as false reconciliation, the public's view of society as rational, and "conductive to human freedom and happiness" is altered to become deeply irrational and an obstacle to the desired freedom and happiness (Finlayson, 2005, p. 5). These obstacles and irrationalities give rise to potential crises in the society. Government's increasing involvement in Everglades under advanced capitalism leads to Habermas's four crises: economic/environmental, rationality, legitimation, and motivation. These crises are occurring simultaneously, work in conjunction with each other, and arise when a principle of organization is challenged by increased production needs (deHaven-Smith, 1988). Habermas states that governments use narratives in an attempt to rationalize, legitimize, obscure, and conceal its actions under advanced capitalism. Although there have been many narratives told throughout the history of the Everglades (such as the Everglades was a wilderness that was valued as a wasteland in its natural state), the most recent narrative, “Everglades Restoration”, is the focus of this paper.(PDF contains 4 pages)

Science-based restoration monitoring of coastal habitats, Volume One: A framework for monitoring plans under the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000 (Public Law 160-457)

Executive Summary: The Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 (ERA), Title I of the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000, was created to promote the restoration of habitats along the coast of the United States (including the US protectorates and the Great Lakes). The NOAA National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science was charged with the development of a guidance manual for monitoring plans under this Act. This guidance manual, titled Science-Based Restoration Monitoring of Coastal Habitats, is written in two volumes. It provides technical assistance, outlines necessary steps, and provides useful tools for the development and implementation of sound scientific monitoring of coastal restoration efforts. In addition, this manual offers a means to detect early warnings that the restoration is on track or not, to gauge how well a restoration site is functioning, to coordinate projects and efforts for consistent and successful restoration, and to evaluate the ecological health of specific coastal habitats both before and after project completion (Galatowitsch et al. 1998). The following habitats have been selected for discussion in this manual: water column, rock bottom, coral reefs, oyster reefs, soft bottom, kelp and other macroalgae, rocky shoreline, soft shoreline, submerged aquatic vegetation, marshes, mangrove swamps, deepwater swamps, and riverine forests. The classification of habitats used in this document is generally based on that of Cowardin et al. (1979) in their Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, as called for in the ERA Estuary Habitat Restoration Strategy. This manual is not intended to be a restoration monitoring “cookbook” that provides templates of monitoring plans for specific habitats. The interdependence of a large number of site-specific factors causes habitat types to vary in physical and biological structure within and between regions and geographic locations (Kusler and Kentula 1990). Monitoring approaches used should be tailored to these differences. However, even with the diversity of habitats that may need to be restored and the extreme geographic range across which these habitats occur, there are consistent principles and approaches that form a common basis for effective monitoring. Volume One, titled A Framework for Monitoring Plans under the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000, begins with definitions and background information. Topics such as restoration, restoration monitoring, estuaries, and the role of socioeconomics in restoration are discussed. In addition, the habitats selected for discussion in this manual are briefly described. (PDF contains 116 pages)

Preparing for and adapting to climate change impacts: Next steps for the Washington state department of National Resources Aquatic Resources Program

In response to a growing body of research on projected climate change impacts to Washington State’s coastal areas, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) Aquatic Resources Program (the Program) initiated a climate change preparedness effort in 2009 via the development of a Climate Change Adaptation Strategy (the Strategy)i. The Strategy answers the question “What are the next steps that the Program can take to begin preparing for and adapting to climate change impacts in Washington’s coastal areas?” by considering how projected climate change impacts may effect: (1) Washington’s state-owned aquatic landsii, (2) the Program’s management activities, and (3) DNR’s statutorily established guidelines for managing Washington’s state-owned aquatic lands for the benefit of the public. The Program manages Washington’s state-owned aquatic lands according to the guidelines set forth in Revised Code of Washington 79-105-030, which stipulates that DNR must manage state-owned aquatic lands in a manner which provides a balance of the following public benefits: (1) Encouraging direct public uses and access; (2) Fostering water-dependent uses; (3) Ensuring environmental protection; (4) Utilizing renewable resources. (RCW 79-105-030) The law also stipulates that generating revenue in a manner consistent with these four benefits is a public benefit (RCW 79-105-030). Many of the next steps identified in the Strategy build off of recommendations provided by earlier climate change preparation and adaptation efforts in Washington State, most notably those provided by the Preparation and Adaptation Working Group, which were convened by Washington State Executive Order 70-02 in 2007, and those made in the Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment (Climate Impacts Group, 2009). (PDF contains 4 pages)

The development of the South Carolina Coastal Information Network and portal site: Bringing training opportunities and educational resources to coastal community officials and the public

The South Carolina Coastal Information Network (SCCIN) emerged as a result of a number of coastal outreach institutions working in partnership to enhance coordination of the coastal community outreach efforts in South Carolina. This organized effort, led by the S.C. Sea Grant Consortium and its Extension Program, includes partners from federal and state agencies, regional government agencies, and private organizations seeking to coordinate and/or jointly deliver outreach programs that target coastal community constituents. The Network was officially formed in 2006 with the original intention of fostering intra-and inter- agency communication, coordination, and cooperation. Network partners include the S.C. Sea Grant Consortium, S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control – Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management and Bureau of Water, S.C. Department of Natural Resources – ACE Basin National Estuarine Research Reserve, North Inlet-Winyah Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, Clemson University Cooperative Extension Service and Carolina Clear, Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Council of Governments, Waccamaw Regional Council of Governments, Urban Land Institute of South Carolina, S.C. Department of Archives and History, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – Coastal Services Center and Hollings Marine Laboratory, Michaux Conservancy, Ashley-Cooper Stormwater Education Consortium, the Coastal Waccamaw Stormwater Education Consortium, the S.C. Chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council, and the Lowcountry Council of Governments. (PDF contains 3 pages)

Evaluation of the economic costs and benefits of methods for reducing nutrient loads to the Gulf of Mexico: Topic 6 Report for the Integrated Assessment on Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico.

In this report we analyze the Topic 5 report’s recommendations for reducing nitrogen losses to the Gulf of Mexico (Mitsch et al. 1999). We indicate the relative costs and cost-effectiveness of different control measures, and potential benefits within the Mississippi River Basin. For major nonpoint sources, such as agriculture, we examine both national and basin costs and benefits. Based on the Topic 2 economic analysis (Diaz and Solow 1999), the direct measurable dollar benefits to Gulf fisheries of reducing nitrogen loads from the Mississippi River Basin are very limited at best. Although restoring the ecological communities in the Gulf may be significant over the long term, we do not currently have information available to estimate the benefits of such measures to restore the Gulf’s long-term health. For these reasons, we assume that measures to reduce nitrogen losses to the Gulf will ultimately prove beneficial, and we concentrate on analyzing the cost-effectiveness of alternative reduction strategies. We recognize that important public decisions are seldom made on the basis of strict benefit–cost analysis, especially when complete benefits cannot be estimated. We look at different approaches and different levels of these approaches to identify those that are cost-effective and those that have limited undesirable secondary effects, such as reduced exports, which may result in lost market share. We concentrate on the measures highlighted in the Topic 5 report, and also are guided by the source identification information in the Topic 3 report (Goolsby et al. 1999). Nonpoint sources that are responsible for the bulk of the nitrogen receive most of our attention. We consider restrictions on nitrogen fertilizer levels, and restoration of wetlands and riparian buffers for denitrification. We also examine giving more emphasis to nitrogen control in regions contributing a greater share of the nitrogen load.

Research in development: learning from the CGIAR Research Program on Aquatic Agricultural Systems

This working paper aims to synthesize and share learning from the experience of adapting and operationalizing the Research in Development(RinD) approach to agricultural research in the five hubs under the The CGIAR Research Program on Aquatic Agricultural Systems. It seeks to share learning about how the approach is working in context and to explore the outcomes it is achieving through initial implementation over 3 ½ years. This learning can inform continuation of agricultural research in the second phase of the CGIAR research programs and will be useful to others aiming to implement research programs that seek to equitably build capacity to innovate in complex social-ecological systems. Each of the chapters in this working paper have shown that RinD has produced a range of outcomes that were often unexpected and broader in scope than might result from other approaches to agricultural research. RinD also produces innovations, and there is evidence that it builds capacity to innovate.