Relation of Ecological Assessments to Adaptive Resource Planning
3
One major consequence of the hierarchical organization of ecological systems is that nonequilibrium dynamics or spatial heterogeneity at one
scale can be translated into equilibrium at a higher
level (O'Neill et al., 1986; Urban et al., 1987;
Levin, 1992). Accordingly, landscape patterns persist within a hierarchical framework because a pattern may be stable at one level and not at another
(Rahel, 1990). Therefore, ecological patterns
should be analyzed at more than one spatial scale,
and ecological assessments need to consider all appropriate levels of ecological organization (Urban
et aI., 1987; Baker, 1992; Levin, 1992).
2. System dynamics: Assessments of the spatial
relations of ecosystem patterns cannot ignore the
temporal dynamics of the processes that create
them. It may be convenient for some modeling and
planning efforts to assume equilibrium at a given
spatial scale; however, it should be recognized that
ecosystem dynamics may include succession along
multiple pathways, discontinuities, and unexpected
changes (called surprise events by Holling, 1978)
and that ecosystem patterns and processes follow
constantly changing environmental conditions
(Holling, 1986; Kay, 1991; Constanza et al., 1993).
Accordingly, ecological assessments must consider
the complexity of ecosystem dynamics, and analysis protocols should be designed to account for this
complexity.
3. Limits to predictability: Ecosystems exhibit
complex nonlinear dynamics, hierarchical structuring, and multiple optimal operating points (most far
from equilibrium), raising important questions
about the predictability of ecosystem behavior
(Costanza et aI., 1993). Furthermore, predictability
varies over spatial and temporal scales, with the
characteristics of some events being predictable at
one scale, but not at another. In some cases, a small
fluctuation in an ecosystem component can lead to
a large change in the functioning of the system as
a whole, a process known as chaos (May, 1976).
Because of the inherent limitations associated with
predicting ecosystem behavior, an adaptive management process (Walters, 1986; Walters and
Holling, 1990) should be used in implementing
ecosystem management through integrated ecological assessments (Everett et aI., 1994).
Adaptive ecosystem management assumes that
uncertainties in current and future ecological conditions and societal values and expectations limit
our ability to develop long-term ecosystem management strategies. Uncertainties arise from variability in biological and social systems, errors of
estimation, bias in projection models, and ambiguous questions (Marcot, 1986). According to Walters and Holling (1990), "not only is the science incomplete, the ecosystem itself is a moving target,
evolving because of the impacts of management,
and the progressive expansion of the scale of human influences on the planet." For example, historical changes in management emphasis of Pacific
Northwest forests-from protection of water rights
and yields, to livestock grazing, to timber harvest,
to threatened and endangered species, and, currently, to sustainable ecosystems-clearly demonstrate the transient nature of the preferences of society in the use of National Forest lands (Everett et
aI., 1994). Consequently, it is critical that an adaptive management approach be used in both ecological assessment and ultimately in land-use planning decision-making processes. A key feature of
this approach is that partnerships must be developed between society, public land managers, resource management professionals, and scientists in
the continual reshaping of management goals, objectives, and actions in response to changing socioeconomic information and evolving biological,
physical, and societal conditions.
Relation of Ecological
Assessments to Adaptive
Resource Planning
Adaptive resource planning involves four basic
components: monitoring, assessment, decisions,
and implementation (Figure 1). In this section we
present a general planning model for adaptive resource planning following the conceptual framework of Haynes et al. (1996) and principles of
ecosystem management as articulated by various
authors in Jensen and Bourgeron (1994).
Monitoring is the cornerstone of adaptive resource planning because it facilitates the identification of whether new ecological assessments, decisions, or strategies for implementation need to be
made to existing regulatory or land-use planning
documents (Figure 1). There are two distinct phases
in a monitoring and evaluation program. Traditionally, the first phase monitors and evaluates the
consequences of management actions and the progression toward desired future ecological conditions as described in land management decision
documents. Noss and Cooperrider (1994) identify
four types of monitoring that commonly fall under
3
One major consequence of the hierarchical organization of ecological systems is that nonequilibrium dynamics or spatial heterogeneity at one
scale can be translated into equilibrium at a higher
level (O'Neill et al., 1986; Urban et al., 1987;
Levin, 1992). Accordingly, landscape patterns persist within a hierarchical framework because a pattern may be stable at one level and not at another
(Rahel, 1990). Therefore, ecological patterns
should be analyzed at more than one spatial scale,
and ecological assessments need to consider all appropriate levels of ecological organization (Urban
et aI., 1987; Baker, 1992; Levin, 1992).
2. System dynamics: Assessments of the spatial
relations of ecosystem patterns cannot ignore the
temporal dynamics of the processes that create
them. It may be convenient for some modeling and
planning efforts to assume equilibrium at a given
spatial scale; however, it should be recognized that
ecosystem dynamics may include succession along
multiple pathways, discontinuities, and unexpected
changes (called surprise events by Holling, 1978)
and that ecosystem patterns and processes follow
constantly changing environmental conditions
(Holling, 1986; Kay, 1991; Constanza et al., 1993).
Accordingly, ecological assessments must consider
the complexity of ecosystem dynamics, and analysis protocols should be designed to account for this
complexity.
3. Limits to predictability: Ecosystems exhibit
complex nonlinear dynamics, hierarchical structuring, and multiple optimal operating points (most far
from equilibrium), raising important questions
about the predictability of ecosystem behavior
(Costanza et aI., 1993). Furthermore, predictability
varies over spatial and temporal scales, with the
characteristics of some events being predictable at
one scale, but not at another. In some cases, a small
fluctuation in an ecosystem component can lead to
a large change in the functioning of the system as
a whole, a process known as chaos (May, 1976).
Because of the inherent limitations associated with
predicting ecosystem behavior, an adaptive management process (Walters, 1986; Walters and
Holling, 1990) should be used in implementing
ecosystem management through integrated ecological assessments (Everett et aI., 1994).
Adaptive ecosystem management assumes that
uncertainties in current and future ecological conditions and societal values and expectations limit
our ability to develop long-term ecosystem management strategies. Uncertainties arise from variability in biological and social systems, errors of
estimation, bias in projection models, and ambiguous questions (Marcot, 1986). According to Walters and Holling (1990), "not only is the science incomplete, the ecosystem itself is a moving target,
evolving because of the impacts of management,
and the progressive expansion of the scale of human influences on the planet." For example, historical changes in management emphasis of Pacific
Northwest forests-from protection of water rights
and yields, to livestock grazing, to timber harvest,
to threatened and endangered species, and, currently, to sustainable ecosystems-clearly demonstrate the transient nature of the preferences of society in the use of National Forest lands (Everett et
aI., 1994). Consequently, it is critical that an adaptive management approach be used in both ecological assessment and ultimately in land-use planning decision-making processes. A key feature of
this approach is that partnerships must be developed between society, public land managers, resource management professionals, and scientists in
the continual reshaping of management goals, objectives, and actions in response to changing socioeconomic information and evolving biological,
physical, and societal conditions.
Relation of Ecological
Assessments to Adaptive
Resource Planning
Adaptive resource planning involves four basic
components: monitoring, assessment, decisions,
and implementation (Figure 1). In this section we
present a general planning model for adaptive resource planning following the conceptual framework of Haynes et al. (1996) and principles of
ecosystem management as articulated by various
authors in Jensen and Bourgeron (1994).
Monitoring is the cornerstone of adaptive resource planning because it facilitates the identification of whether new ecological assessments, decisions, or strategies for implementation need to be
made to existing regulatory or land-use planning
documents (Figure 1). There are two distinct phases
in a monitoring and evaluation program. Traditionally, the first phase monitors and evaluates the
consequences of management actions and the progression toward desired future ecological conditions as described in land management decision
documents. Noss and Cooperrider (1994) identify
four types of monitoring that commonly fall under