172
Decision Support for Ecosystem Management and Ecological Assessments
tify the power of specific variables to change the
ranking of alternatives, and for recording the decisions made and their rationale. Many facets or dimensions influence the decision-making process.
The rational-technical dimension, which concerns
itself with the mathematical formulation of the
methods of choice and their uses, is the one most
often encountered in the decision science literature
(Klein and Methlie, 1990; Rauscher, 1996). But
there are others, including the political-power dimension (French and Raven, 1959; O'Reilly, 1983)
and the value--ethical dimension (Brown, 1984;
Klein and Methlie, 1990, p. 108; Rue and Byars,
1992, p. 61).
Decision makers might find themselves at any
point along the political-power dimension bounded
by a dictatorship (one person decides) on the one
extreme and by anarchy (no one can decide) on the
other. Intermediate positions are democracy (majority decides), republicanism (selected representatives decide), and technocracy-aristocracy (experts
or members of a ruling class decide). Currently,
three approaches seem to be in use at multiple societal temporal and spatial scales: management by
experts (technocracy), management by legal prescription (republicanism), and management by collaboration (democracy) (Bormann et aI., 1993). No
one approach predominates. In fact, the sharing of
power among these three approaches creates tensions that help to make ecosystem management a
very difficult problem. In the context of ecosystem
management, the value--ethical dimension might be
defined on the one extreme by the preservationist
ethic (reduce consumption and let nature take its
course) and on the other by the exploitation ethic
(maximum yield now and let future generations
take care of themselves). Various forms of the conservation ethic (use resources, but use them wisely)
could be defined between these two extremes. The
rational-technological dimension is defined by normative-rational methods on the one hand and expert-intuitive methods on the other. Numerous intermediate methods also have been described and
used (Janssen, 1992; Rauscher, 1996). The formal
relationships among these dimensions affecting the
decision process have not been worked out.
Informally, it is easy to observe decisionmaking situations where the political-power or
value--ethical dimensions dominate the rationaltechnical dimension. Choosing an appropriate decision-making method is itself a formidable task
(Silver, 1991; Turban, 1993) that influences both
the design of alternatives and the final choice.
Many EM-DSSs do not offer a decision method
subsystem due to the complexity and sensitivity of
the subject matter. Unfortunately, providing no formal support in EM-DSS for choosing among alternatives simply places all the burden on the users
and may make them more vulnerable to challenges
of their process and choice mechanisms.
12.5 Comparison of Existing
Ecosystem Management DSS
Mowrer et aI. (1997) surveyed 24 of the leading
EM-DSSs developed in the government, academic,
and private sectors in the United States. Their report identified five general trends: (1) while at least
one EM-DSS fulfilled each criteria in the questionnaire used, no single system successfully addressed all important considerations; (2) ecological
and management interactions across mUltiple scales
were not comprehensively addressed by any of the
systems evaluated; (3) the ability of the current generation EM-DSSs to address social and economic
issues lags far behind biophysical issues; (4) the
ability to simultaneously consider social, economic, and biophysical issues is entirely missing
from current systems; and (5) group consensusbuilding support was missing from all but one system, a system that was highly dependent on trained
facilitation personnel (Mowrer et aI., 1997). In addition, systems that offered explicit support for
choosing among alternatives provided decision
makers with only one choice of methodology. The
reviewers noted that little or no coordination had
occurred between the 24 development teams, resulting in large, monolithic, stand-alone systems,
each with a substantially different concept of the
ecosystem management process and how to support it.
Different EM-DSSs appear to support different
parts of the ecosystem management process. Table
12.1 lists 33 EM-DSSs, the 24 systems surveyed
by Mowrer et aI. (1997) plus 9 DSSs not included
in that study. Nineteen of the 33 are labeled fullservice EM-DSSs at their scale of operation because they attempt to be comprehensive EM-DSSs,
offering or planning to offer support for a complete
ecosystem management process. These EM-DSSs
can be further classified by the scale of support that
is their primary focus: regional assessments, forest
planning, or project-level planning. The remainders, labeled functional service modules, provide
specialized support for one or a few phases of the
entire ecosystem management process. These service modules can be organized according to the
type of functional support that they provide group
Decision Support for Ecosystem Management and Ecological Assessments
tify the power of specific variables to change the
ranking of alternatives, and for recording the decisions made and their rationale. Many facets or dimensions influence the decision-making process.
The rational-technical dimension, which concerns
itself with the mathematical formulation of the
methods of choice and their uses, is the one most
often encountered in the decision science literature
(Klein and Methlie, 1990; Rauscher, 1996). But
there are others, including the political-power dimension (French and Raven, 1959; O'Reilly, 1983)
and the value--ethical dimension (Brown, 1984;
Klein and Methlie, 1990, p. 108; Rue and Byars,
1992, p. 61).
Decision makers might find themselves at any
point along the political-power dimension bounded
by a dictatorship (one person decides) on the one
extreme and by anarchy (no one can decide) on the
other. Intermediate positions are democracy (majority decides), republicanism (selected representatives decide), and technocracy-aristocracy (experts
or members of a ruling class decide). Currently,
three approaches seem to be in use at multiple societal temporal and spatial scales: management by
experts (technocracy), management by legal prescription (republicanism), and management by collaboration (democracy) (Bormann et aI., 1993). No
one approach predominates. In fact, the sharing of
power among these three approaches creates tensions that help to make ecosystem management a
very difficult problem. In the context of ecosystem
management, the value--ethical dimension might be
defined on the one extreme by the preservationist
ethic (reduce consumption and let nature take its
course) and on the other by the exploitation ethic
(maximum yield now and let future generations
take care of themselves). Various forms of the conservation ethic (use resources, but use them wisely)
could be defined between these two extremes. The
rational-technological dimension is defined by normative-rational methods on the one hand and expert-intuitive methods on the other. Numerous intermediate methods also have been described and
used (Janssen, 1992; Rauscher, 1996). The formal
relationships among these dimensions affecting the
decision process have not been worked out.
Informally, it is easy to observe decisionmaking situations where the political-power or
value--ethical dimensions dominate the rationaltechnical dimension. Choosing an appropriate decision-making method is itself a formidable task
(Silver, 1991; Turban, 1993) that influences both
the design of alternatives and the final choice.
Many EM-DSSs do not offer a decision method
subsystem due to the complexity and sensitivity of
the subject matter. Unfortunately, providing no formal support in EM-DSS for choosing among alternatives simply places all the burden on the users
and may make them more vulnerable to challenges
of their process and choice mechanisms.
12.5 Comparison of Existing
Ecosystem Management DSS
Mowrer et aI. (1997) surveyed 24 of the leading
EM-DSSs developed in the government, academic,
and private sectors in the United States. Their report identified five general trends: (1) while at least
one EM-DSS fulfilled each criteria in the questionnaire used, no single system successfully addressed all important considerations; (2) ecological
and management interactions across mUltiple scales
were not comprehensively addressed by any of the
systems evaluated; (3) the ability of the current generation EM-DSSs to address social and economic
issues lags far behind biophysical issues; (4) the
ability to simultaneously consider social, economic, and biophysical issues is entirely missing
from current systems; and (5) group consensusbuilding support was missing from all but one system, a system that was highly dependent on trained
facilitation personnel (Mowrer et aI., 1997). In addition, systems that offered explicit support for
choosing among alternatives provided decision
makers with only one choice of methodology. The
reviewers noted that little or no coordination had
occurred between the 24 development teams, resulting in large, monolithic, stand-alone systems,
each with a substantially different concept of the
ecosystem management process and how to support it.
Different EM-DSSs appear to support different
parts of the ecosystem management process. Table
12.1 lists 33 EM-DSSs, the 24 systems surveyed
by Mowrer et aI. (1997) plus 9 DSSs not included
in that study. Nineteen of the 33 are labeled fullservice EM-DSSs at their scale of operation because they attempt to be comprehensive EM-DSSs,
offering or planning to offer support for a complete
ecosystem management process. These EM-DSSs
can be further classified by the scale of support that
is their primary focus: regional assessments, forest
planning, or project-level planning. The remainders, labeled functional service modules, provide
specialized support for one or a few phases of the
entire ecosystem management process. These service modules can be organized according to the
type of functional support that they provide group