12.2 The Decision-making Environment
tion or quasi-judicial administrative appeals. Such
contentious methods of handling disputes expend
much goodwill, energy, time, and money. These
methods produce winners and losers, may leave
fundamental differences unresolved, and potentially please few or none of the parties" (Daniels et
aI., 1993, p. 347). Decision makers need a fundamental understanding of the nature of environmental conflicts and disputes and how to use conflict-positive dispute management techniques
effectively (Daniels et aI., 1993). New approaches
to managing the social debate surrounding ecosystem management, such as alternative dispute resolution (ADR) techniques (Floyd et aI., 1996),
should be evaluated, taught, and used. Adaptive
management techniques are as applicable to the
management side of ecosystem management as
they are to the ecosystem side. They could be used
to suggest a series of operational experiments that
study actual public participation and conflict management activities to quickly determine what works
and what does not (Daniels et aI., 1993; Shindler
and Neburka, 1997).
The ability of federal land managers to avoid
gridlock is heavily dependent on stakeholder willingness to negotiate and ultimately agree on the
goals for ecosystem management (Bormann et aI.,
1993). Unfortunately, people sometimes have preferences based on core values that are so strong and
so conflicting that no solution is acceptable (Smith,
1997). To avoid societal gridlock, we must design
and implement robust strategies that encourage voluntary conflict resolution among contentious stakeholders and explore other options leading toward a
settlement if voluntary resolution is impossible.
Such options might include binding arbitration, an
agreed-upon delay in order to improve our data and
knowledge about the ecosystem, or various other
forms of conflict resolution.
Ecosystem management cost evaluation is a critical area for economists to study. As a general rule,
increases in problem complexity increase the cost
of finding satisfactory solutions (Klein and Methlie, 1990). Ecosystem management should accommodate limits on time, expertise, and money
(Smith, 1997), because sustainable forest management is impossible if there are unsustainable social
and economic costs (Craig, 1996). Documentation
of costs should be prepared and made public, because few people know or appreciate the costs of
efforts to solve complex ecosystem management
problems. For example, the USDA Forest Service
has spent approximately $2 billion, equal to 16%
annually of the entire National Forest system budget, on planning since the National Forest Man165
agement Act was passed in 1976 (Behan, 1990).
The additional costs of implementing ecosystem
management prescriptions and monitoring and
evaluating the results have not yet been estimated.
Are we willing or able to marshal the funding to
implement ecosystem management in a way that
will ensure that federal forest managers can comply with the law and satisfy public preferences? The
amount of money that could be spent on ecosystem management nationally may be extremely
large, and identifying clear benefits may be difficult (Oliver et aI., 1993).
In the last century of federal forestland management, timber harvesting has largely paid for multipleuse management activities. Many forecast that the
level of timber harvesting under ecosystem management will greatly decline, while the cost of
ecosystem management will greatly increase. Until managers evaluate the true costs and benefits, it
will be difficult to determine whether the public is
willing to pay for ecosystem management programs. In any case, a new and rational means of
capital resource allocation will be required to fund
the ecosystem management process adopted (Sample, 1990; Kennedy and Quigley, 1993; Oliver et
aI., 1993; Dombeck, 1997). Refusing to fund
ecosystem management and opting for the "do
nothing" alternative is likely to result in unacceptable future conditions. "Plant and animal species
do not stop growing, dying, and burning; and
floods, fires, and windstorms do not stop when all
management is suspended" (Botkin, 1990). Nature
does not appear to care, either about threatened and
endangered species or about humans. People care
and people must define goodness and badness. Nature will not do it for us. "Nature in the twenty-first
century will be a nature that we make; the question
is the degree to which this molding will be intentional or unintentional, desirable or undesirable"
(Botkin, 1990). Making the nature that we want
may be expensive. A good understanding of ecological economics will help society make rational
choices.
12.2.2 Regional Ecological Assessments
Viewed as a DSS
Recently, regional ecological assessments have
been used to describe the large-scale context for
ecosystem management and therefore can be considered decision support tools (Figure 12.1). Regional assessments have been large, collaborative
interagency efforts, often with public stakeholder
participation, that have taken 2 to 5 years and sev-
tion or quasi-judicial administrative appeals. Such
contentious methods of handling disputes expend
much goodwill, energy, time, and money. These
methods produce winners and losers, may leave
fundamental differences unresolved, and potentially please few or none of the parties" (Daniels et
aI., 1993, p. 347). Decision makers need a fundamental understanding of the nature of environmental conflicts and disputes and how to use conflict-positive dispute management techniques
effectively (Daniels et aI., 1993). New approaches
to managing the social debate surrounding ecosystem management, such as alternative dispute resolution (ADR) techniques (Floyd et aI., 1996),
should be evaluated, taught, and used. Adaptive
management techniques are as applicable to the
management side of ecosystem management as
they are to the ecosystem side. They could be used
to suggest a series of operational experiments that
study actual public participation and conflict management activities to quickly determine what works
and what does not (Daniels et aI., 1993; Shindler
and Neburka, 1997).
The ability of federal land managers to avoid
gridlock is heavily dependent on stakeholder willingness to negotiate and ultimately agree on the
goals for ecosystem management (Bormann et aI.,
1993). Unfortunately, people sometimes have preferences based on core values that are so strong and
so conflicting that no solution is acceptable (Smith,
1997). To avoid societal gridlock, we must design
and implement robust strategies that encourage voluntary conflict resolution among contentious stakeholders and explore other options leading toward a
settlement if voluntary resolution is impossible.
Such options might include binding arbitration, an
agreed-upon delay in order to improve our data and
knowledge about the ecosystem, or various other
forms of conflict resolution.
Ecosystem management cost evaluation is a critical area for economists to study. As a general rule,
increases in problem complexity increase the cost
of finding satisfactory solutions (Klein and Methlie, 1990). Ecosystem management should accommodate limits on time, expertise, and money
(Smith, 1997), because sustainable forest management is impossible if there are unsustainable social
and economic costs (Craig, 1996). Documentation
of costs should be prepared and made public, because few people know or appreciate the costs of
efforts to solve complex ecosystem management
problems. For example, the USDA Forest Service
has spent approximately $2 billion, equal to 16%
annually of the entire National Forest system budget, on planning since the National Forest Man165
agement Act was passed in 1976 (Behan, 1990).
The additional costs of implementing ecosystem
management prescriptions and monitoring and
evaluating the results have not yet been estimated.
Are we willing or able to marshal the funding to
implement ecosystem management in a way that
will ensure that federal forest managers can comply with the law and satisfy public preferences? The
amount of money that could be spent on ecosystem management nationally may be extremely
large, and identifying clear benefits may be difficult (Oliver et aI., 1993).
In the last century of federal forestland management, timber harvesting has largely paid for multipleuse management activities. Many forecast that the
level of timber harvesting under ecosystem management will greatly decline, while the cost of
ecosystem management will greatly increase. Until managers evaluate the true costs and benefits, it
will be difficult to determine whether the public is
willing to pay for ecosystem management programs. In any case, a new and rational means of
capital resource allocation will be required to fund
the ecosystem management process adopted (Sample, 1990; Kennedy and Quigley, 1993; Oliver et
aI., 1993; Dombeck, 1997). Refusing to fund
ecosystem management and opting for the "do
nothing" alternative is likely to result in unacceptable future conditions. "Plant and animal species
do not stop growing, dying, and burning; and
floods, fires, and windstorms do not stop when all
management is suspended" (Botkin, 1990). Nature
does not appear to care, either about threatened and
endangered species or about humans. People care
and people must define goodness and badness. Nature will not do it for us. "Nature in the twenty-first
century will be a nature that we make; the question
is the degree to which this molding will be intentional or unintentional, desirable or undesirable"
(Botkin, 1990). Making the nature that we want
may be expensive. A good understanding of ecological economics will help society make rational
choices.
12.2.2 Regional Ecological Assessments
Viewed as a DSS
Recently, regional ecological assessments have
been used to describe the large-scale context for
ecosystem management and therefore can be considered decision support tools (Figure 12.1). Regional assessments have been large, collaborative
interagency efforts, often with public stakeholder
participation, that have taken 2 to 5 years and sev-