12.3 Ecosystem Management Processes
adaptive experimental results should be compiled
periodically and forwarded to the next higher planning level for corrective change leading to new actions.
Adaptive management, when implemented as
defined by Walters and Holling (1990), FEMAT
(1993), and Lee (1993), is a complex and challenging process. The adaptive management process
is not a license to manipulate ecosystems haphazardly simply to relieve immediate sociopolitical
pressure (Everett et aI., 1993). Adaptive management must be applied correctly and rigorously as
management by experiment if we are to achieve our
stated goals. "Managing to learn entails implementing an array of practices, then taking a scientific approach in describing anticipated outcomes
and comparing them to actual outcomes. These
comparisons are part of the foundation of knowledge of ecosystem management" (FEMAT, 1993,
p. II-87). The whole point of adaptive management
is to generate change in the way ecosystem management is applied.
A number of institutional challenges must be addressed before adaptive management can make its
expected positive contribution to the ecosystem
management process (Lee, 1993). Adaptive management requires a greater level of expertise in statistical experimental design and analysis than other
competing decision processes. Kessler et aI. (1992)
suggested that adaptive management requires close
collaboration between forest managers and scientists. "Finding creative ways of conducting powerful tests without forcing staffs to do things they
think are wrong or foolish is of central importance
to the human part of adaptive management" (Lee,
1993, p. 113). Managers and the interested stakeholders must accept that adaptive management
means making small, controlled mistakes to avoid
making big ones. Keeping adaptive management
unbiased may be difficult; research that has consequences is research with which managers or stakeholders may try to tamper or prevent altogether
(Lee, 1993). The costs of properly monitoring
results and documenting the entire managerial
experiment are unknown (Smith, 1997). Nonetheless, adaptive management, supplemented by the
Mintzberg et aI. (1976) planning process, is an attractive candidate for an ecosystem management
process at several operational scales. Despite much
supportive rhetoric, the institutional and. funding
changes needed to implement adaptive management as an ecosystem management process for federal forestland management have not yet been
widely accomplished.
169
Although the adaptive management concept appears to be the most well developed candidate for
an operational ecosystem management process,
others also should be investigated. Lindblom
(1990), cited by Smith (1997), advocated a concept
called probing as a candidate for an ecosystem
management decision process. Probing is an informal process of observation, hypothesis formulation, and data comparison in which people of all
backgrounds can engage. Jensen and Everett (1993)
pointed to a method called a land evaluation system as another candidate for an ecosystem management process. The land evaluation system (Zonnefeld, 1988) has been used by the United Nations
Food and Agricultural Organization and by the International Society for Soil Sciences in forestry
land-use planning. Howitt (1978), cited by Allen
and Gould (1986), offered a "simple" approach to
dealing with decision processes for wicked problems that might be useful for ecosystem management. Rittel (1972) advocated a "second generation
systems approach" to wicked problem solution
based on the logic of arguments (Conklin and Begeman, 1987; Hashim, 1990). Problems and their consequences can be made understandable to individuals and groups by asking and answering crucial
questions while diagramming the process using the
formal logic of argumentation. Vroom and Jago
(1988), cited in Sample (1993), suggested their
contingent decision process may be used for problems like ecosystem management. Of course, any
decision-making process used to implement
ecosystem management in the United States must
satisfy the requirements of the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the 1976 National Forest Management Act (NFMA).
Several formal, well-described candidates for an
ecosystem management decision process have been
introduced here. In addition, numerous local, adhoc decision processes have been developed and
tested under fire in every ranger district in the U.S.
National Forest System. Few case studies (e.g.,
Steelman, 1996) have been published, and not
many evaluations (e.g., Shindler and Neburka,
1997) of the strengths and weaknesses of these informal decision-making processes have been conducted. Surely a concerted effort to study the existing formal and informal ecosystem management
processes would result in some powerful candidates
to implement ecosystem management. Because the
adaptive management concept can also be used to
improve our management systems, it may not be
overly important which particular ecosystem management decision processes we choose. It is, how-
adaptive experimental results should be compiled
periodically and forwarded to the next higher planning level for corrective change leading to new actions.
Adaptive management, when implemented as
defined by Walters and Holling (1990), FEMAT
(1993), and Lee (1993), is a complex and challenging process. The adaptive management process
is not a license to manipulate ecosystems haphazardly simply to relieve immediate sociopolitical
pressure (Everett et aI., 1993). Adaptive management must be applied correctly and rigorously as
management by experiment if we are to achieve our
stated goals. "Managing to learn entails implementing an array of practices, then taking a scientific approach in describing anticipated outcomes
and comparing them to actual outcomes. These
comparisons are part of the foundation of knowledge of ecosystem management" (FEMAT, 1993,
p. II-87). The whole point of adaptive management
is to generate change in the way ecosystem management is applied.
A number of institutional challenges must be addressed before adaptive management can make its
expected positive contribution to the ecosystem
management process (Lee, 1993). Adaptive management requires a greater level of expertise in statistical experimental design and analysis than other
competing decision processes. Kessler et aI. (1992)
suggested that adaptive management requires close
collaboration between forest managers and scientists. "Finding creative ways of conducting powerful tests without forcing staffs to do things they
think are wrong or foolish is of central importance
to the human part of adaptive management" (Lee,
1993, p. 113). Managers and the interested stakeholders must accept that adaptive management
means making small, controlled mistakes to avoid
making big ones. Keeping adaptive management
unbiased may be difficult; research that has consequences is research with which managers or stakeholders may try to tamper or prevent altogether
(Lee, 1993). The costs of properly monitoring
results and documenting the entire managerial
experiment are unknown (Smith, 1997). Nonetheless, adaptive management, supplemented by the
Mintzberg et aI. (1976) planning process, is an attractive candidate for an ecosystem management
process at several operational scales. Despite much
supportive rhetoric, the institutional and. funding
changes needed to implement adaptive management as an ecosystem management process for federal forestland management have not yet been
widely accomplished.
169
Although the adaptive management concept appears to be the most well developed candidate for
an operational ecosystem management process,
others also should be investigated. Lindblom
(1990), cited by Smith (1997), advocated a concept
called probing as a candidate for an ecosystem
management decision process. Probing is an informal process of observation, hypothesis formulation, and data comparison in which people of all
backgrounds can engage. Jensen and Everett (1993)
pointed to a method called a land evaluation system as another candidate for an ecosystem management process. The land evaluation system (Zonnefeld, 1988) has been used by the United Nations
Food and Agricultural Organization and by the International Society for Soil Sciences in forestry
land-use planning. Howitt (1978), cited by Allen
and Gould (1986), offered a "simple" approach to
dealing with decision processes for wicked problems that might be useful for ecosystem management. Rittel (1972) advocated a "second generation
systems approach" to wicked problem solution
based on the logic of arguments (Conklin and Begeman, 1987; Hashim, 1990). Problems and their consequences can be made understandable to individuals and groups by asking and answering crucial
questions while diagramming the process using the
formal logic of argumentation. Vroom and Jago
(1988), cited in Sample (1993), suggested their
contingent decision process may be used for problems like ecosystem management. Of course, any
decision-making process used to implement
ecosystem management in the United States must
satisfy the requirements of the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the 1976 National Forest Management Act (NFMA).
Several formal, well-described candidates for an
ecosystem management decision process have been
introduced here. In addition, numerous local, adhoc decision processes have been developed and
tested under fire in every ranger district in the U.S.
National Forest System. Few case studies (e.g.,
Steelman, 1996) have been published, and not
many evaluations (e.g., Shindler and Neburka,
1997) of the strengths and weaknesses of these informal decision-making processes have been conducted. Surely a concerted effort to study the existing formal and informal ecosystem management
processes would result in some powerful candidates
to implement ecosystem management. Because the
adaptive management concept can also be used to
improve our management systems, it may not be
overly important which particular ecosystem management decision processes we choose. It is, how-