35.2 Implementing Ecosystem Management: Challenges for Ecological Assessment
517
however. For instance, participation processes are
often self-selecting in the sense that the loudest,
most active interests are included in the process.
Strong evidence exists that limited segments of the
public participate in organized interests, a fact that
may well introduce social, class, ethnic, and other
types of bias into participatory processes (Verba
and Nie, 1972; Kingdon, 1984). The frequent result is that the most widely held values or perspectives are not articulated, because the majority
of unorganized, inactive segments of the public
fails to engage in the process. Including only the
squeakiest wheels can create polarized, adversarial
processes. More importantly, perhaps, failure to
identify and include the broadest cross section of
the public produces decisions lacking legitimacy
and increases the likelihood of conflict during implementation. Thus ecological assessments face the
challenge of identifying broad segments of the interested and affected public, deciding who realistically represents these interests, and then actively
facilitating their participation over the duration of
the assessment process.
Another difficulty involves the fact that membership of interest groups or segments of the public is not exclusive. Whether we recognize it or not,
we all belong to many groups, defined according
to various interests, values, and characteristics,
whose goals often are not directly compatible. For
example, the person who enjoys the outdoors may
simultaneously be a hunter, hiker, and snowmobile
enthusiast, and the organized groups representing
each of these interests may well have very different agendas. In effect, we all belong to fuzzy sets
of interests with overlapping memberships and potentially contradictory value sets. Under such circumstances, the elaboration of values and desired
future conditions can be a very messy process.
Recent advances in social assessment techniques
provide useful approaches for confronting this challenge, such as identifying "functional communities" in which people share a common perception
of their relationship to the natural resources and
ecological systems in a particular geographical area
(Jakes et aI., 1998). Still another facet of the issue
of elaborating values involves the difficulty of aggregating values from one scale to another and the
potential contradiction between values articulated
at different scales of human organization. One of
the most frequent manifestations of the disjunction
between values at different scales involves the
NIMBY ("not in my backyard") phenomenon in
which decisions embraced by the general public,
such as use of landfills or incinerators, are opposed
by individuals, groups, or communities in the face
of site-specific implementation.
Assuming that an ecological assessment is able
to identify and secure broad, representative, and equitable participation from all affected interests,
other difficulties remain. The struggle over ideas is
the essence of policy and management decision
making in a political environment (Stone, 1988).
With regard to ecosystem management, for example, the very definition of a landscape is fundamentally a function of human perceptions and values (Rapport et aI., 1998). In this regard, the
challenge involves communicating complex ecological information and overcoming closely held,
but often incorrect, conceptual models. As discussed earlier, important changes are occurring in
the way that ecological science understands the
structure and functioning of natural systems. One
significant trend involves the shift from community succession toward climax as a theoretical centerpiece of ecological science to a view in which
ecological systems are dynamic, exhibiting equilibrial and nonequilibrial phenomena depending on
the scale of observation (Fiedler et al., 1997). Such
a shift necessitates discarding the classic balance
of nature approach to conservation that has been
dominant for decades, supplying the mental model
for resource managers, environmental advocates,
conservationists, policy makers, and the public.
Perhaps more important than conceptual models,
however, are the conservation statutes, regulations,
policies, and organizational structures crafted over
decades. The existing policy, institutional, and
management framework reflects the belief that, if
properly delineated and successfully protected,
ecological systems can be cordoned off from the
surrounding landscape and maintained in a virtually perpetual steady state. This belief in welldefined and static endpoints for protected systems
is inconsistent with current understanding, which
sees ecological systems as dynamic, hierarchical,
nonlinear, and nonequilibrium and embedded in a
nested hierarchy of systems functioning at various
spatial scales (see Chapter 2).
While discovering and understanding individual
preferences and values is important, therefore, it is
equally essential to understand the influence of institutional arrangements and structures that shape
the choices and behaviors of individuals, communities, organizations, and agencies. In this sense,
ecological assessments must focus not only on
the individual, but also on institutional arrangements (e.g., land ownership patterns, jurisdictional
arrangements, legal frameworks) and social orga-
517
however. For instance, participation processes are
often self-selecting in the sense that the loudest,
most active interests are included in the process.
Strong evidence exists that limited segments of the
public participate in organized interests, a fact that
may well introduce social, class, ethnic, and other
types of bias into participatory processes (Verba
and Nie, 1972; Kingdon, 1984). The frequent result is that the most widely held values or perspectives are not articulated, because the majority
of unorganized, inactive segments of the public
fails to engage in the process. Including only the
squeakiest wheels can create polarized, adversarial
processes. More importantly, perhaps, failure to
identify and include the broadest cross section of
the public produces decisions lacking legitimacy
and increases the likelihood of conflict during implementation. Thus ecological assessments face the
challenge of identifying broad segments of the interested and affected public, deciding who realistically represents these interests, and then actively
facilitating their participation over the duration of
the assessment process.
Another difficulty involves the fact that membership of interest groups or segments of the public is not exclusive. Whether we recognize it or not,
we all belong to many groups, defined according
to various interests, values, and characteristics,
whose goals often are not directly compatible. For
example, the person who enjoys the outdoors may
simultaneously be a hunter, hiker, and snowmobile
enthusiast, and the organized groups representing
each of these interests may well have very different agendas. In effect, we all belong to fuzzy sets
of interests with overlapping memberships and potentially contradictory value sets. Under such circumstances, the elaboration of values and desired
future conditions can be a very messy process.
Recent advances in social assessment techniques
provide useful approaches for confronting this challenge, such as identifying "functional communities" in which people share a common perception
of their relationship to the natural resources and
ecological systems in a particular geographical area
(Jakes et aI., 1998). Still another facet of the issue
of elaborating values involves the difficulty of aggregating values from one scale to another and the
potential contradiction between values articulated
at different scales of human organization. One of
the most frequent manifestations of the disjunction
between values at different scales involves the
NIMBY ("not in my backyard") phenomenon in
which decisions embraced by the general public,
such as use of landfills or incinerators, are opposed
by individuals, groups, or communities in the face
of site-specific implementation.
Assuming that an ecological assessment is able
to identify and secure broad, representative, and equitable participation from all affected interests,
other difficulties remain. The struggle over ideas is
the essence of policy and management decision
making in a political environment (Stone, 1988).
With regard to ecosystem management, for example, the very definition of a landscape is fundamentally a function of human perceptions and values (Rapport et aI., 1998). In this regard, the
challenge involves communicating complex ecological information and overcoming closely held,
but often incorrect, conceptual models. As discussed earlier, important changes are occurring in
the way that ecological science understands the
structure and functioning of natural systems. One
significant trend involves the shift from community succession toward climax as a theoretical centerpiece of ecological science to a view in which
ecological systems are dynamic, exhibiting equilibrial and nonequilibrial phenomena depending on
the scale of observation (Fiedler et al., 1997). Such
a shift necessitates discarding the classic balance
of nature approach to conservation that has been
dominant for decades, supplying the mental model
for resource managers, environmental advocates,
conservationists, policy makers, and the public.
Perhaps more important than conceptual models,
however, are the conservation statutes, regulations,
policies, and organizational structures crafted over
decades. The existing policy, institutional, and
management framework reflects the belief that, if
properly delineated and successfully protected,
ecological systems can be cordoned off from the
surrounding landscape and maintained in a virtually perpetual steady state. This belief in welldefined and static endpoints for protected systems
is inconsistent with current understanding, which
sees ecological systems as dynamic, hierarchical,
nonlinear, and nonequilibrium and embedded in a
nested hierarchy of systems functioning at various
spatial scales (see Chapter 2).
While discovering and understanding individual
preferences and values is important, therefore, it is
equally essential to understand the influence of institutional arrangements and structures that shape
the choices and behaviors of individuals, communities, organizations, and agencies. In this sense,
ecological assessments must focus not only on
the individual, but also on institutional arrangements (e.g., land ownership patterns, jurisdictional
arrangements, legal frameworks) and social orga-