516
Ecological Assessments and Implementing Ecosystem Management
search strategy with reasonable expectations of fulfilling the goals. In the face of tight budgets, however, such projects are often doomed to failure.
35.2.2 Sociopolitical Challenges to
Ecological Assessments
One of the most significant barriers for assessment
and implementation stems from the fact that, while
scientific information is essential, land-use and
management decisions are firmly embedded in a
sociopolitical context. As Cortner and Shannon
(1993) observe, "planning is an inherently political
exercise." By extension, ecological assessments
take place in such a context as well. The sociopolitical context for decision making is characterized
by individual preferences and values and the institutional arrangements and organizational structures
that shape individual choice. In regard to individual preferences, one key task for ecological assessments entails the delineation of ideas, perceptions, and values as they pertain to ecological
systems. In this area, the most important sociopolitical challenge for ecological assessment involves
the creation of mechanisms to facilitate broad public participation in defining human ecological systems, elaborating desired future conditions, and establishing broad goals and specific objectives for
ecosystem management (Slocombe, 1998).
Debate over public participation in environmental decision making extends back over the last two
to three decades (Reich, 1985), with many observers critical of traditional public participation
processes (Shannon, 1992). Common criticisms include the failure to provide an adequate forum for
representing public interests, exclusion of the general public in favor of activists, and faulty mechanisms to enable information exchange between the
public and professional staff or decision makers
(Moote et al., 1997). The consequences frequently
include conflict, litigation, policy and management
gridlock, and failure to address serious environmental and natural resource management issues.
For example, an analysis of public involvement in
comprehensive planning processes for 13 national
forests undertaken in the mid-1980s found that the
process failed to develop a partnership between
forests and the public, instead creating latent adversarial relationships (Blahna and Yonts-Shepard,
1989). The lesson from years of conflict has been
that decisions lacking legitimacy-meaning public
acceptability-are decisions that will not stand.
Deficiencies in traditional mechanisms used to
solicit public input into land-use and management
decisions prompted calls for new approaches to include the public in decision making, referred to by
labels such as "stakeholder involvement" (Peelle,
1995), "consensus building" (Innes, 1996), and
"participatory democracy" (Moote et aI., 1997). An
essential task of such processes involves differentiating between categories of motivation driving
human actions: needs, or motivations that are universal in all humans; values, consisting of ideas,
habits, customs, and beliefs characteristic of particular social groups; and interests, or the occupational, social, political, and economic aspirations of
individual members of the public (Burton, 1990).
These categories of human motivation differ in
their malleability, with needs being least changeable and interests the most malleable, and play a
central role in defining public perceptions of desired future conditions for any ecological system.
Significant hallmarks of consensus building or participatory democracy processes include the following (RTEEC, 1993; Innes, 1996; Moote et al.,
1997):
1. Inclusive, wide representation of diverse stakeholders and viewpoints.
2. Public interest is jointly discovered and willed.
3. Groups are self-organizing.
4. Participants move toward strategy for action in
qualitative, discursive manner.
5. Group deliberation and choice determine appropriate ends and actions.
6. Process relies on experiential knowledge of
stakeholders.
7. Coordination is horizontal and self-managing,
rather than a top-down exercise of power.
8. Decision-making authority is shared among all
participants.
9. Groups create social, intellectual, and political
capital.
Of course, the creation and successful use of
such processes to elicit broad stakeholder participation is fraught with difficulties. At the most basic level, questions arise as to representation. Who
represents the public, and how can we be certain
that participation processes actually tap the broadest current of public perceptions and values? On
one level, the challenge involves defining the set
of interested publics or stakeholders that may be
affected by a policy or management decision.
Novel ways have been proposed to deal with this
question; for example, the Malpai Borderlands project used the historic fire regime to define geographically the set of affected stakeholders. The issue of representation has more subtle dimensions,
Ecological Assessments and Implementing Ecosystem Management
search strategy with reasonable expectations of fulfilling the goals. In the face of tight budgets, however, such projects are often doomed to failure.
35.2.2 Sociopolitical Challenges to
Ecological Assessments
One of the most significant barriers for assessment
and implementation stems from the fact that, while
scientific information is essential, land-use and
management decisions are firmly embedded in a
sociopolitical context. As Cortner and Shannon
(1993) observe, "planning is an inherently political
exercise." By extension, ecological assessments
take place in such a context as well. The sociopolitical context for decision making is characterized
by individual preferences and values and the institutional arrangements and organizational structures
that shape individual choice. In regard to individual preferences, one key task for ecological assessments entails the delineation of ideas, perceptions, and values as they pertain to ecological
systems. In this area, the most important sociopolitical challenge for ecological assessment involves
the creation of mechanisms to facilitate broad public participation in defining human ecological systems, elaborating desired future conditions, and establishing broad goals and specific objectives for
ecosystem management (Slocombe, 1998).
Debate over public participation in environmental decision making extends back over the last two
to three decades (Reich, 1985), with many observers critical of traditional public participation
processes (Shannon, 1992). Common criticisms include the failure to provide an adequate forum for
representing public interests, exclusion of the general public in favor of activists, and faulty mechanisms to enable information exchange between the
public and professional staff or decision makers
(Moote et al., 1997). The consequences frequently
include conflict, litigation, policy and management
gridlock, and failure to address serious environmental and natural resource management issues.
For example, an analysis of public involvement in
comprehensive planning processes for 13 national
forests undertaken in the mid-1980s found that the
process failed to develop a partnership between
forests and the public, instead creating latent adversarial relationships (Blahna and Yonts-Shepard,
1989). The lesson from years of conflict has been
that decisions lacking legitimacy-meaning public
acceptability-are decisions that will not stand.
Deficiencies in traditional mechanisms used to
solicit public input into land-use and management
decisions prompted calls for new approaches to include the public in decision making, referred to by
labels such as "stakeholder involvement" (Peelle,
1995), "consensus building" (Innes, 1996), and
"participatory democracy" (Moote et aI., 1997). An
essential task of such processes involves differentiating between categories of motivation driving
human actions: needs, or motivations that are universal in all humans; values, consisting of ideas,
habits, customs, and beliefs characteristic of particular social groups; and interests, or the occupational, social, political, and economic aspirations of
individual members of the public (Burton, 1990).
These categories of human motivation differ in
their malleability, with needs being least changeable and interests the most malleable, and play a
central role in defining public perceptions of desired future conditions for any ecological system.
Significant hallmarks of consensus building or participatory democracy processes include the following (RTEEC, 1993; Innes, 1996; Moote et al.,
1997):
1. Inclusive, wide representation of diverse stakeholders and viewpoints.
2. Public interest is jointly discovered and willed.
3. Groups are self-organizing.
4. Participants move toward strategy for action in
qualitative, discursive manner.
5. Group deliberation and choice determine appropriate ends and actions.
6. Process relies on experiential knowledge of
stakeholders.
7. Coordination is horizontal and self-managing,
rather than a top-down exercise of power.
8. Decision-making authority is shared among all
participants.
9. Groups create social, intellectual, and political
capital.
Of course, the creation and successful use of
such processes to elicit broad stakeholder participation is fraught with difficulties. At the most basic level, questions arise as to representation. Who
represents the public, and how can we be certain
that participation processes actually tap the broadest current of public perceptions and values? On
one level, the challenge involves defining the set
of interested publics or stakeholders that may be
affected by a policy or management decision.
Novel ways have been proposed to deal with this
question; for example, the Malpai Borderlands project used the historic fire regime to define geographically the set of affected stakeholders. The issue of representation has more subtle dimensions,