12.8 References
they might be. The ecological assessments undertaken so far have concentrated mostly on providing (1) a description of current and historic ecosystem composition, structure, and function and (2) a
description of the biotic (including human) and abiotic processes that contributed to the development
of the current ecosystem conditions. Although such
descriptive emphasis on the ecological foundations
of the region is necessary, it is not sufficient. This
is another example of how the management side of
ecosystem management is often all but ignored.
We suggest that ecological assessments can be
more effective decision support tools if some or all
of the following items are included in their scope:
1. Clarify, label, and define the major regional issues that concern people.
2. Explicitly identify and define the major sociopolitical-biological problems facing the region.
3. Identify what or who is causing the problems,
who has responsibility for solving them, who
the stakeholders are that are associated with the
problem, and who will pay for finding and implementing solutions.
4. Clarify how ecosystem management efforts are
to be coordinated at the regional scale and how
progress in social and ecological sustainability
is going to be identified and tracked.
5. Develop a set of regional-scale goals and desired future conditions to measure these goals in
terms of regionally appropriate variables.
6. Describe probable future scenarios that might
exist under different types of regional-scale
management strategies.
Including such management-oriented items in an
ecological assessment is likely to make it politically more sensitive. However, the resultant document would help to organize the entire ecosystem
management process at lower scales, set the tone
and parameters of the public and professional debate, and explicitly state the problems as well as
the desired solutions for examination by everyone
concerned. It would help to diffuse the impact of
purely emotional points of view and bring the debate back to a more reasonable, rational arena.
More specifically, such a regional assessment
would provide solid direction, through the regional
goals and desired future conditions, to forest-level
ecosystem management planning and implementation.
12.8 References
Adelman, L. 1992. Evaluating decision support and expert systems. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
179
Ager, A 1997. UTOOLSIUVIEW. In: Mowrer, H. T.;
Barber, K.; Campbell, J.; Crookston, N.; Dahms, C.;
Day, J.; Laacke, J.; Merzenich, J.; Mighton, S.;
Rauscher, M.; Reynolds, K.; Thompson, J.; Trenchi,
P.; Twery, M., eds. Decision support systems for
ecosystem management: an evaluation of existing systems. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-296. U.S. Dept. Agric., For.
Serv., Rocky Mountain Res. Sta.: 144-148.
Allen, G. M.; Gould, E. M., Jr. 1986. Complexity,
wickedness, and public forests. J. For. 84:20-23.
Argonne National Laboratory. 1995a. The dynamic information architecture system: A high level architecture for modeling and simulation. Chicago: Argonne
National Laboratory, University of Chicago (http://
www.dis.anl.gov:80IDEEMlDIAS/diaswp.html).
Argonne National Laboratory. 1995b. DEEM high level
architecture. Chicago: Argonne National Laboratory,
University of Chicago (http://www.dis.anl.gov:80/
DEEMIhla.html).
Barber, K. H.; Rodman, S. A 1990. FORPLAN: the marvelous toy. J. For. 88:26--30.
Baskerville, G. 1985. Adaptive management-wood
availability and habitat availability. For. Chron. 61:
171-175.
Behan, R W. 1990. The RPAlNFMA: solution to a
nonexistent problem. J. For. 91:20-25.
Behan, R. W. 1994. Multiresource management and
planning with EZ-IMPACT. J. For. 92:32-36.
Behan, R. W. 1997. Scarcity, simplicity, separatism, science-and systems. In: Kohm. K. A; Franklin, J. F.,
eds. Creating a forestry for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Island Press: 411-417.
Bennett, A J. 1996. Sustainable land use: interdependence between forestry and agriculture. In: Caring for
the forest: research in a changing world, Congress Report, Volume I, IUFRO XX World Congress, August
6--12 1995, Tampere, Finland: 144-152.
Berry, M. W.; Flamm, RO.; Hazen, B. C.; Macintyre,
R M. 1996. The land-use change and analysis
(LUCAS) for evaluating landscape management decisions. IEEE Comput. Sci. Eng. 3:24-35.
Bonnicksen, T. M. 1991. Managing biosocial systems: a
framework to organize society-environment relationships. J. For. 89:10-15.
Bormann, B. T.; Brooks, M. H.; Ford, E. D.; Kiester,
A R; Oliver, C. D.; Weigand, J. F. 1993. A framework for sustainable ecosystem management. Gen.
Tech. Rep. PNW-331. Portland, OR: U.S. Dept.
Agric., For. Serv., Pacific Northw. Res. Sta.
Botkin, D. B. 1990. Discordant harmonies. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Brown, T. C. 1984. The concept of value in resource allocation. Land Econ. 60:231-246.
Caldwell, L. K. 1996. Science assumptions and misplaced certainty in natural resources and environmental problem solving. In: Lemons, J., ed. Scientific
uncertainty and environmental problem solving, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Science, Inc.: 394-421.
Canham, H. O. 1990. Decision matrices and weighting
summation valuation in forest planning. No. J. Appl.
For. 7:77-79.
they might be. The ecological assessments undertaken so far have concentrated mostly on providing (1) a description of current and historic ecosystem composition, structure, and function and (2) a
description of the biotic (including human) and abiotic processes that contributed to the development
of the current ecosystem conditions. Although such
descriptive emphasis on the ecological foundations
of the region is necessary, it is not sufficient. This
is another example of how the management side of
ecosystem management is often all but ignored.
We suggest that ecological assessments can be
more effective decision support tools if some or all
of the following items are included in their scope:
1. Clarify, label, and define the major regional issues that concern people.
2. Explicitly identify and define the major sociopolitical-biological problems facing the region.
3. Identify what or who is causing the problems,
who has responsibility for solving them, who
the stakeholders are that are associated with the
problem, and who will pay for finding and implementing solutions.
4. Clarify how ecosystem management efforts are
to be coordinated at the regional scale and how
progress in social and ecological sustainability
is going to be identified and tracked.
5. Develop a set of regional-scale goals and desired future conditions to measure these goals in
terms of regionally appropriate variables.
6. Describe probable future scenarios that might
exist under different types of regional-scale
management strategies.
Including such management-oriented items in an
ecological assessment is likely to make it politically more sensitive. However, the resultant document would help to organize the entire ecosystem
management process at lower scales, set the tone
and parameters of the public and professional debate, and explicitly state the problems as well as
the desired solutions for examination by everyone
concerned. It would help to diffuse the impact of
purely emotional points of view and bring the debate back to a more reasonable, rational arena.
More specifically, such a regional assessment
would provide solid direction, through the regional
goals and desired future conditions, to forest-level
ecosystem management planning and implementation.
12.8 References
Adelman, L. 1992. Evaluating decision support and expert systems. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
179
Ager, A 1997. UTOOLSIUVIEW. In: Mowrer, H. T.;
Barber, K.; Campbell, J.; Crookston, N.; Dahms, C.;
Day, J.; Laacke, J.; Merzenich, J.; Mighton, S.;
Rauscher, M.; Reynolds, K.; Thompson, J.; Trenchi,
P.; Twery, M., eds. Decision support systems for
ecosystem management: an evaluation of existing systems. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-296. U.S. Dept. Agric., For.
Serv., Rocky Mountain Res. Sta.: 144-148.
Allen, G. M.; Gould, E. M., Jr. 1986. Complexity,
wickedness, and public forests. J. For. 84:20-23.
Argonne National Laboratory. 1995a. The dynamic information architecture system: A high level architecture for modeling and simulation. Chicago: Argonne
National Laboratory, University of Chicago (http://
www.dis.anl.gov:80IDEEMlDIAS/diaswp.html).
Argonne National Laboratory. 1995b. DEEM high level
architecture. Chicago: Argonne National Laboratory,
University of Chicago (http://www.dis.anl.gov:80/
DEEMIhla.html).
Barber, K. H.; Rodman, S. A 1990. FORPLAN: the marvelous toy. J. For. 88:26--30.
Baskerville, G. 1985. Adaptive management-wood
availability and habitat availability. For. Chron. 61:
171-175.
Behan, R W. 1990. The RPAlNFMA: solution to a
nonexistent problem. J. For. 91:20-25.
Behan, R. W. 1994. Multiresource management and
planning with EZ-IMPACT. J. For. 92:32-36.
Behan, R. W. 1997. Scarcity, simplicity, separatism, science-and systems. In: Kohm. K. A; Franklin, J. F.,
eds. Creating a forestry for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Island Press: 411-417.
Bennett, A J. 1996. Sustainable land use: interdependence between forestry and agriculture. In: Caring for
the forest: research in a changing world, Congress Report, Volume I, IUFRO XX World Congress, August
6--12 1995, Tampere, Finland: 144-152.
Berry, M. W.; Flamm, RO.; Hazen, B. C.; Macintyre,
R M. 1996. The land-use change and analysis
(LUCAS) for evaluating landscape management decisions. IEEE Comput. Sci. Eng. 3:24-35.
Bonnicksen, T. M. 1991. Managing biosocial systems: a
framework to organize society-environment relationships. J. For. 89:10-15.
Bormann, B. T.; Brooks, M. H.; Ford, E. D.; Kiester,
A R; Oliver, C. D.; Weigand, J. F. 1993. A framework for sustainable ecosystem management. Gen.
Tech. Rep. PNW-331. Portland, OR: U.S. Dept.
Agric., For. Serv., Pacific Northw. Res. Sta.
Botkin, D. B. 1990. Discordant harmonies. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Brown, T. C. 1984. The concept of value in resource allocation. Land Econ. 60:231-246.
Caldwell, L. K. 1996. Science assumptions and misplaced certainty in natural resources and environmental problem solving. In: Lemons, J., ed. Scientific
uncertainty and environmental problem solving, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Science, Inc.: 394-421.
Canham, H. O. 1990. Decision matrices and weighting
summation valuation in forest planning. No. J. Appl.
For. 7:77-79.