IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/fan/aimaim/vhtml10.3280-aim2014-002004.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cooperative Federalism in Biscayne National Park

Author

Listed:
  • Ryan B. Stoa

Abstract

Biscayne National Park is the largest marine national park in the United States. It contains four distinct ecosystems, encompasses 173,000 acres (only 5% of which are land), and is located within densely populated Miami-Dade County. The bay has a rich history of natural resource exploitation, but aggressive residential and industrial development schemes prompted Congress to create Biscayne National Monument in 1968, followed by the designation of Biscayne National Park in 1980. When the dust settled the state of Florida retained key management powers over the park, including joint authority over fishery management. States and the federal government occasionally share responsibility for regulating natural resources, but Biscayne National Park represents a unique case study in cooperative federalism. This article explores these cooperative federalism contours in order to assess whether the park?s management paradigm provides a model worthy of replication. A diverse range of materials were reviewed for this project, including literature and jurisprudence on traditional models of cooperative federalism, federal natural resources laws, national park regulations and policy, Biscayne National Park?s statutory frameworks and legislative history, state and federal management plans, inter-agency communications, and direct stakeholder interviews. They combine to tell a story of cooperative federalism that has been frustrating and, at times, incoherent. But the story also shows that shared responsibility over fishery management has produced beneficial results for the park and its stakeholders by forcing state and federal officials to work together on planning and enforcement, diversifying human and financial resources, and incorporating federal, state, and local interests into park management and policy. The research suggests that future applications of the Biscayne National Park model of cooperative federalism, in which states and the federal government share joint authority over marine resources in some capacity, may enjoy similar success.

Suggested Citation

  • Ryan B. Stoa, 2014. "Cooperative Federalism in Biscayne National Park," AGRICOLTURA ISTITUZIONI MERCATI, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2014(2), pages 56-100.
    • Handle: RePEc:fan:aimaim:v:html10.3280/aim2014-002004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.francoangeli.it/riviste/Scheda_Rivista.aspx?IDArticolo=55489&Tipo=ArticoloPDF
    Download Restriction: Single articles can be downloaded buying download credits, for info: https://www.francoangeli.it/DownloadCredit
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gopnik, Morgan & Fieseler, Clare & Cantral, Laura & McClellan, Kate & Pendleton, Linwood & Crowder, Larry, 2012. "Coming to the table: Early stakeholder engagement in marine spatial planning," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 1139-1149.
    2. Pomeroy, Robert & Douvere, Fanny, 2008. "The engagement of stakeholders in the marine spatial planning process," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 816-822, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ralph V Tafon, 2018. "Taking power to sea: Towards a post-structuralist discourse theoretical critique of marine spatial planning," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(2), pages 258-273, March.
    2. Brennan, Jonathon & Fitzsimmons, Clare & Gray, Tim & Raggatt, Laura, 2014. "EU marine strategy framework directive (MSFD) and marine spatial planning (MSP): Which is the more dominant and practicable contributor to maritime policy in the UK?," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 359-366.
    3. Scarff, Gavin & Fitzsimmons, Clare & Gray, Tim, 2015. "The new mode of marine planning in the UK: Aspirations and challenges," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 96-102.
    4. Wehner, Nicholas & Day, Jon C., 2017. "Effective public participation is fundamental for marine conservation - lessons from a large scale MPA," MarXiv 9jk7v, Center for Open Science.
    5. Emma McKinley & Oscar Aller-Rojas & Caroline Hattam & Celine Germond-Duret & Inés Vicuña San Martín & Charlotte Rachael Hopkins & Héctor Aponte & Tavis Potts, 2019. "Charting the course for a blue economy in Peru: a research agenda," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(5), pages 2253-2275, October.
    6. Ranger, S. & Kenter, J.O. & Bryce, R. & Cumming, G. & Dapling, T. & Lawes, E. & Richardson, P.B., 2016. "Forming shared values in conservation management: An interpretive-deliberative-democratic approach to including community voices," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 344-357.
    7. Hiroaki Sugino & Tatsuya Sekiguchi & Yuuki Terada & Naoki Hayashi, 2023. "“Future Compass”, a Tool That Allows Us to See the Right Horizon—Integration of Topic Modeling and Multiple-Factor Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-20, June.
    8. Peter Arbo & Thuy Pham Thi Thanh, 2014. "The missing link in marine ecosystem-based management," ERSA conference papers ersa14p248, European Regional Science Association.
    9. Ramírez, Alejandro & Ortiz, Marco & Steenbeek, Jeroen & Christensen, Villy, 2015. "Evaluation of the effects on rockfish and kelp artisanal fisheries of the proposed Mejillones Peninsula marine protected area (northern Chile, SE Pacific coast)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 297(C), pages 141-153.
    10. Namatama, Nathan, 2020. "An assessment of stakeholders’ participation in land use planning process of Luapula Province Planning Authority," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    11. Röckmann, Christine & van Leeuwen, Judith & Goldsborough, David & Kraan, Marloes & Piet, Gerjan, 2015. "The interaction triangle as a tool for understanding stakeholder interactions in marine ecosystem based management," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 155-162.
    12. Ardron, Jeff A. & Clark, Malcolm R. & Penney, Andrew J. & Hourigan, Thomas F. & Rowden, Ashley A. & Dunstan, Piers K. & Watling, Les & Shank, Timothy M. & Tracey, Di M. & Dunn, Mathew R. & Parker, Ste, 2014. "A systematic approach towards the identification and protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 146-154.
    13. Hynes, Stephen & Norton, Danny & Corless, Rebecca, 2013. "Public Perceptions of the Irish Marine Environment," Working Papers 160056, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    14. Quero García, Pablo & Chica Ruiz, Juan Adolfo & García Sanabria, Javier, 2020. "Blue energy and marine spatial planning in Southern Europe," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    15. Sander Van den Burg & Marian Stuiver & Jenny Norrman & Rita Garção & Tore Söderqvist & Christine Röckmann & Jan-Joost Schouten & Ole Petersen & Raul Guanche García & Pedro Diaz-Simal & Mark De Bel & L, 2016. "Participatory Design of Multi-Use Platforms at Sea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-17, January.
    16. Edison D. Macusi & Andre Chagas da Costa-Neves & Christian Dave Tipudan & Ricardo P. Babaran, 2023. "Closed Season and the Distribution of Small-Scale Fisheries Fishing Effort in Davao Gulf, Philippines," World, MDPI, vol. 4(1), pages 1-16, January.
    17. Wright, Glen & O’Hagan, Anne Marie & de Groot, Jiska & Leroy, Yannick & Soininen, Niko & Salcido, Rachael & Castelos, Montserrat Abad & Jude, Simon & Rochette, Julien & Kerr, Sandy, 2016. "Establishing a legal research agenda for ocean energy," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 126-134.
    18. Jeremy Horowitz & Robert L. Pressey & Georgina G. Gurney & Amelia S. Wenger & Kristina A. Pahang, 2018. "Investigating Stakeholder Perceptions of Fish Decline: Making Sense of Multiple Mental Models," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-26, April.
    19. Héloïse Berkowitz & Larry B. Crowder & Cassandra M Brooks, 2020. "Organizational Perspectives On Oceans Governance: Meta-Organizations And Cross-Sectoral Collective Action," Post-Print hal-02872175, HAL.
    20. Marian Stuiver & Sander van den Burg & Wenting Chen & Claire Haggett & David Rudolph & Phoebe Koundouri, 2020. "Stakeholder involvement in technological design: Lessons learned from the MERMAID and TROPOS projects," DEOS Working Papers 2019, Athens University of Economics and Business.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fan:aimaim:v:html10.3280/aim2014-002004. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Stefania Rosato (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.francoangeli.it/riviste/sommario.aspx?IDRivista=122 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.