12.2 The Decision-making Environment
whelming amounts of data, infonnation, and
knowledge in different fonns and qualities, and
multiple, often conflicting, management goals virtually guarantee that few individuals or groups of
people can consistently make good decisions without powerful decision support tools (Janssen, 1992).
Both the ecosystem and the management subsystems of ecosystem management are part of an
interlocking, nested hierarchy (Bonnicksen, 1991;
Forest Ecosystem Management and Assessment
Team, 1993; Kaufmann et al., 1994). Local management of ecosystems occurs within and is influenced by national and international socialeconomic-political systems. Similarly, local ecosystems operate within and are influenced by larger
biophysical systems, such as ecoregions or biomes.
Ecosystem management can and should occur at
many scales: global-international, biome-national,
ecoregion-multistate, or forest landscape-National
Forest (GAO, 1994, p. 62). At the regional, national, and international scales, the ecosystem management decision process should render the mosaic
of environmental issues manageable by (1) identifying and labeling the issues, (2) defining the problems, and (3) identifying who is causing the problems, who has responsibility for solving the
problems, who are the stakeholders associated with
the problems, and who will pay for finding and implementing solutions (Hannigan, 1995). The decision process at this macro scale should also coordinate solution efforts and supervise social and
ecological system sustainability (Tonn et aI., 1998).
Decision support systems that operate on the multistate and national scale have been developed and
tested in Europe and can serve as illustrations of
what is needed for United States federal forest management (Van den Berg, 1996). There is as much
work to be done in ecosystem management at the
larger scales as there is at the local scale. At present, no one agency, committee, or other organized
body in the United States manages ecosystems at
the scale suggested by Bonnicksen (1991) and
Tonn et al. (1998). It is not obvious that our society has addressed the need to manage ecosystems
at the biome-national and ecoregional-multistate
scale to cope with the complex environmental problems that we have created for ourselves at these
scales (Caldwell, 1996). It seems reasonable that
we should try.
For the purposes of this chapter, we consider
three spatial scales for which clear, precise, practical ecosystem management processes are needed:
(1) the regional assessment scale, (2) the forest
landscape management scale, and (3) the project
implementation scale. These three scales are con163
nected by complex infonnation linkages that make
it difficult to treat them separately. Indeed, decision support systems (DSS) have been developed
to operate at each of these scales, with special attention given to what is needed from the higher
scale and what needs to be supplied to the lower
one. This chapter reviews the state of ecosystem
management decision support across all three
scales. Although most of the examples are drawn
from experiences with USDA Forest Service research and management, the principles discussed
are generally applicable to all federal land management agencies.
12.2 The Decision-making
Environment
The decision-making environment consists of the
social, economic, political, and legal context in
which any agency charged with ecosystem management operates. Ecosystem management itself is
composed of two parts: an ecological subsystem
and a management subsystem (Figure 12.1) (Bonnicksen, 1991). The ecological subsystem contains
physical or conceptual objects such as trees, birds,
deer, rivers, smells, sights, and sounds. Each object can be a resource if it has positive value in the
minds of people or a pest if it has negative value.
Otherwise, it is value neutral (Behan, 1997). A critical feature of this view is that, as goals change,
objects can change in status from resource to value
neutral or even to pest (Bonnicksen, 1991). For example, the white-tailed deer, once regarded as a
sought-after resource, is now considered a pest in
some forest ecosystems of the eastern United
States. People need to be considered as part of the
community of organisms that inhabit, use, or directly influence an ecosystem (Behan, 1997). Thus
people, in their role as users, are part of the ecological subsystem, like trees, soil, and wildlife.
The management subsystem is defined as making decisions about and controlling ecosystems to
achieve desired ends. People in the management
role participate in ecosystem management in a very
different manner. They are the risk takers, the setters of objectives, the judges of value, the substituters, in other words, the decision makers. It is useful to keep this distinction clearly in mind.
Nonnally, many people participate in the management subprocess of ecosystem management. The
specific values, goals, and constraints that characterize public preferences and needs may be identified through a group negotiation process involving
whelming amounts of data, infonnation, and
knowledge in different fonns and qualities, and
multiple, often conflicting, management goals virtually guarantee that few individuals or groups of
people can consistently make good decisions without powerful decision support tools (Janssen, 1992).
Both the ecosystem and the management subsystems of ecosystem management are part of an
interlocking, nested hierarchy (Bonnicksen, 1991;
Forest Ecosystem Management and Assessment
Team, 1993; Kaufmann et al., 1994). Local management of ecosystems occurs within and is influenced by national and international socialeconomic-political systems. Similarly, local ecosystems operate within and are influenced by larger
biophysical systems, such as ecoregions or biomes.
Ecosystem management can and should occur at
many scales: global-international, biome-national,
ecoregion-multistate, or forest landscape-National
Forest (GAO, 1994, p. 62). At the regional, national, and international scales, the ecosystem management decision process should render the mosaic
of environmental issues manageable by (1) identifying and labeling the issues, (2) defining the problems, and (3) identifying who is causing the problems, who has responsibility for solving the
problems, who are the stakeholders associated with
the problems, and who will pay for finding and implementing solutions (Hannigan, 1995). The decision process at this macro scale should also coordinate solution efforts and supervise social and
ecological system sustainability (Tonn et aI., 1998).
Decision support systems that operate on the multistate and national scale have been developed and
tested in Europe and can serve as illustrations of
what is needed for United States federal forest management (Van den Berg, 1996). There is as much
work to be done in ecosystem management at the
larger scales as there is at the local scale. At present, no one agency, committee, or other organized
body in the United States manages ecosystems at
the scale suggested by Bonnicksen (1991) and
Tonn et al. (1998). It is not obvious that our society has addressed the need to manage ecosystems
at the biome-national and ecoregional-multistate
scale to cope with the complex environmental problems that we have created for ourselves at these
scales (Caldwell, 1996). It seems reasonable that
we should try.
For the purposes of this chapter, we consider
three spatial scales for which clear, precise, practical ecosystem management processes are needed:
(1) the regional assessment scale, (2) the forest
landscape management scale, and (3) the project
implementation scale. These three scales are con163
nected by complex infonnation linkages that make
it difficult to treat them separately. Indeed, decision support systems (DSS) have been developed
to operate at each of these scales, with special attention given to what is needed from the higher
scale and what needs to be supplied to the lower
one. This chapter reviews the state of ecosystem
management decision support across all three
scales. Although most of the examples are drawn
from experiences with USDA Forest Service research and management, the principles discussed
are generally applicable to all federal land management agencies.
12.2 The Decision-making
Environment
The decision-making environment consists of the
social, economic, political, and legal context in
which any agency charged with ecosystem management operates. Ecosystem management itself is
composed of two parts: an ecological subsystem
and a management subsystem (Figure 12.1) (Bonnicksen, 1991). The ecological subsystem contains
physical or conceptual objects such as trees, birds,
deer, rivers, smells, sights, and sounds. Each object can be a resource if it has positive value in the
minds of people or a pest if it has negative value.
Otherwise, it is value neutral (Behan, 1997). A critical feature of this view is that, as goals change,
objects can change in status from resource to value
neutral or even to pest (Bonnicksen, 1991). For example, the white-tailed deer, once regarded as a
sought-after resource, is now considered a pest in
some forest ecosystems of the eastern United
States. People need to be considered as part of the
community of organisms that inhabit, use, or directly influence an ecosystem (Behan, 1997). Thus
people, in their role as users, are part of the ecological subsystem, like trees, soil, and wildlife.
The management subsystem is defined as making decisions about and controlling ecosystems to
achieve desired ends. People in the management
role participate in ecosystem management in a very
different manner. They are the risk takers, the setters of objectives, the judges of value, the substituters, in other words, the decision makers. It is useful to keep this distinction clearly in mind.
Nonnally, many people participate in the management subprocess of ecosystem management. The
specific values, goals, and constraints that characterize public preferences and needs may be identified through a group negotiation process involving