178
Decision Support for Ecosystem Management and Ecological Assessments
processes to support the practical implementation
of ecosystem management have been identified to
date and are undergoing evaluation.
The generic theory of decision support system
development and application is well established.
Numerous specific ecosystem management decision support systems have been developed and are
evolving in their capabilities. Given a well-defined
and accepted set of ecosystem management processes to support, along with adequate time and resources, effective EM-DSSs can be developed.
However, major social and political issues present
significant impediments to the efforts to make
ecosystem management operational. A sociopolitical environment in which everyone wants to
benefit and no one wants to pay incapacitates the
federal ecosystem management decision-making
process. The very laws that were adopted to solve
the problem, the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act and the 1976 National Forest Management
Act, have led to procedural paralysis at exponentially rising costs (Behan, 1990). Developing a
workable ecosystem management process and the
decision-making tools to support it is probably one
of the most complex and urgent challenges facing
forest ecosystem managers today.
To date, none of the available EM-DSSs has
been found capable of addressing the full range of
support required for ecosystem management
(Mowrer et aI., 1997). This is not surprising, because it is highly unlikely that a single DSS can
provide adequate support for ecosystem management (Grossarth and Nygren, 1993; Mowrer et aI.,
1997), meaning that a familiarity with the entire
range of available decision analysis methodology
and related modeling tools is required. Many of the
EM-DSSs introduced in this chapter hold great
promise, but this promise has not been fully realized. A major reason for this situation is that system development has been primarily driven by
technology, not by user requirements. The requirements to guide EM-DSS development are unknown
or poorly defined, because the ecosystem management decision processes themselves have been inadequately identified and described. The frequently
observed tendency to substitute technology for an
inadequate or nonexistent ecosystem management
decision-making process should be avoided because it is rarely satisfactory. Although formal
evaluation procedures are available (see Adelman,
1992), few of the current EM-DSSs have undergone an unbiased, critical evaluation of their suitability for ecosystem management decision support. Such an evaluation is long overdue. In the
final analysis, EM-DSS software should be evaluated using a simple question: Does the EM-DSS
improve the decision maker's ability to make good
decisions?
A number of more specific conclusions about the
current state of EM-DSS appear obvious:
1. The complexity of environmental dynamics
over time and space; the overwhelming amounts
of data, information, and knowledge in different forms and qualities; and the multiple, often
conflicting, management goals virtually guarantee that few individuals or groups can consistently make good decisions without adequate
support tools.
2. Ecosystem management, by definition, is concerned with both ecological and management
science. Yet much of the effort seems to concentrate on ecological issues to the detriment of
equally important management issues. Understanding and developing good decision-making
processes is as important for the success of
ecosystem management as understanding ecological structure and function (http://biology.
usgs.gov/dss/def.html).
3. Ecosystem management ought to be practiced at
many different scales: forest landscape-national
forest, ecoregion-multistate, biome-national,
and global-international. This fact has not been
as widely recognized in the United States as it
has in Europe. In the United States, we have,
however, scaled ecosystem management up to
the ecoregional scale by developing regional
ecological assessments as a management tool.
4. People play two roles in ecosystem management. First, they are part of the communities of
organisms that interact with each other and their
abiotic environment. Second, they are the risk
takers, the setters of objectives, the judges of
value; in other words, the decision makers. We
need to understand human behavior and characteristics in both roles.
5. Defining and understanding the nature of sustainable societies and the nature of sustainable
ecosystems are equally important. Human societies and ecosystems are inseparable and cannot
be understood or managed without reference to
each other.
6. The study of the management subsystem must
include understanding the dynamics of public
preferences, conflict management and resolution, and cost evaluation as it relates to ecosystem management.
In closing, it is appropriate to discuss how ecological assessments and EM-DSS may be mutually
supportive. From a decision support point of view,
ecological assessments have not been as useful as
Decision Support for Ecosystem Management and Ecological Assessments
processes to support the practical implementation
of ecosystem management have been identified to
date and are undergoing evaluation.
The generic theory of decision support system
development and application is well established.
Numerous specific ecosystem management decision support systems have been developed and are
evolving in their capabilities. Given a well-defined
and accepted set of ecosystem management processes to support, along with adequate time and resources, effective EM-DSSs can be developed.
However, major social and political issues present
significant impediments to the efforts to make
ecosystem management operational. A sociopolitical environment in which everyone wants to
benefit and no one wants to pay incapacitates the
federal ecosystem management decision-making
process. The very laws that were adopted to solve
the problem, the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act and the 1976 National Forest Management
Act, have led to procedural paralysis at exponentially rising costs (Behan, 1990). Developing a
workable ecosystem management process and the
decision-making tools to support it is probably one
of the most complex and urgent challenges facing
forest ecosystem managers today.
To date, none of the available EM-DSSs has
been found capable of addressing the full range of
support required for ecosystem management
(Mowrer et aI., 1997). This is not surprising, because it is highly unlikely that a single DSS can
provide adequate support for ecosystem management (Grossarth and Nygren, 1993; Mowrer et aI.,
1997), meaning that a familiarity with the entire
range of available decision analysis methodology
and related modeling tools is required. Many of the
EM-DSSs introduced in this chapter hold great
promise, but this promise has not been fully realized. A major reason for this situation is that system development has been primarily driven by
technology, not by user requirements. The requirements to guide EM-DSS development are unknown
or poorly defined, because the ecosystem management decision processes themselves have been inadequately identified and described. The frequently
observed tendency to substitute technology for an
inadequate or nonexistent ecosystem management
decision-making process should be avoided because it is rarely satisfactory. Although formal
evaluation procedures are available (see Adelman,
1992), few of the current EM-DSSs have undergone an unbiased, critical evaluation of their suitability for ecosystem management decision support. Such an evaluation is long overdue. In the
final analysis, EM-DSS software should be evaluated using a simple question: Does the EM-DSS
improve the decision maker's ability to make good
decisions?
A number of more specific conclusions about the
current state of EM-DSS appear obvious:
1. The complexity of environmental dynamics
over time and space; the overwhelming amounts
of data, information, and knowledge in different forms and qualities; and the multiple, often
conflicting, management goals virtually guarantee that few individuals or groups can consistently make good decisions without adequate
support tools.
2. Ecosystem management, by definition, is concerned with both ecological and management
science. Yet much of the effort seems to concentrate on ecological issues to the detriment of
equally important management issues. Understanding and developing good decision-making
processes is as important for the success of
ecosystem management as understanding ecological structure and function (http://biology.
usgs.gov/dss/def.html).
3. Ecosystem management ought to be practiced at
many different scales: forest landscape-national
forest, ecoregion-multistate, biome-national,
and global-international. This fact has not been
as widely recognized in the United States as it
has in Europe. In the United States, we have,
however, scaled ecosystem management up to
the ecoregional scale by developing regional
ecological assessments as a management tool.
4. People play two roles in ecosystem management. First, they are part of the communities of
organisms that interact with each other and their
abiotic environment. Second, they are the risk
takers, the setters of objectives, the judges of
value; in other words, the decision makers. We
need to understand human behavior and characteristics in both roles.
5. Defining and understanding the nature of sustainable societies and the nature of sustainable
ecosystems are equally important. Human societies and ecosystems are inseparable and cannot
be understood or managed without reference to
each other.
6. The study of the management subsystem must
include understanding the dynamics of public
preferences, conflict management and resolution, and cost evaluation as it relates to ecosystem management.
In closing, it is appropriate to discuss how ecological assessments and EM-DSS may be mutually
supportive. From a decision support point of view,
ecological assessments have not been as useful as