518
Ecological Assessments and Implementing Ecosystem Management
nization (e.g., demographic patterns and trends,
community capacity). Focusing attention on this
level of analysis is essential, because many opportunities for change may be found in the structure
of incentives and rules governing institutional
arrangements and organizations. Changing the understanding of groups and individuals, as well as
the legal, policy, and administrative framework underpinning conservation in the United States, entails a sociopolitical struggle over ideas and perceptions. Because the ultimate goal of all ecological
assessments is the elaboration of technically, ecologically, and socially viable options, as well as the
costs and trade-offs involved in selecting one option over another, assessments are a central tool in
the struggle over ideas and perceptions.
35.2.3 Institutional Challenges to
Ecological Assessments
Broadly defined, institutions are "constellations of
rights, rules, and relationships that define social
practices and guide interactions among those who
participate in them" (Young and Underdal, 1997).
Institutions can be formal prescriptions or constraints, such as constitutions, statutes, and regulations, or they may affect behavior informally
through norms, customs, and traditions. The mechanism for imposing behavioral constraints may be
an individual organization, a network of organizations, or a group of individuals defining themselves
as a community through a set of shared values or
interests. Institutions are the cement that binds societies, defining how individuals act toward one another and the groups of which they are a part. Institutions also determine how individuals and
groups define their relations with their physical and
biological surroundings, linking society and nature.
Implementing ecosystem management and successfully employing ecological assessments as a
tool in this endeavor necessitates far-reaching
changes in the institutional framework within
which conservation is undertaken in this country.
The institutional challenges include addressing the
mismatch between existing institutions and conservation needs, promoting evolution of current institutions to better implement ecosystem management, and creating new institutions that are flexible,
adaptive, and inclusive.
The discussion of scales earlier in this chapter
highlights a set of general mismatches between
ecosystems and institutions that commonly creates
difficulties for conservation and resource management. Fundamental differences exist between the
scale of resource issues and the institutions designed to manage them (Meidinger, 1997; Folke et
aI., 1998). Spatial scale issues are among the most
frequently cited problems. For example, regionalscale ecological systems cross established administrative and jurisdictional boundaries, but must
be managed in the context of a governance system
that seldom empowers regional-scale institutions
(Wuichet, 1995). Regarding temporal scales, mismatches between resources and institutions are frequently described as a function of the short-term
time horizons of planners and politicians. However,
a more basic temporal mismatch involves the underlying foundation of traditional resource management philosophies, which aim to reduce variability in natural systems over short time frames.
Recent experiences with both fire and flooding illustrate that reduction of variability through suppression of endogenous disturbances leads to intense long-term disruptions of natural and social
systems (Holling and Meffe, 1996; Haeuber and
Michener, 1998). The spatial and temporal incongruities between organizations, institutions, and
ecological systems are as problematic for assessment efforts as they are for management initiatives.
Consideration of specific institutions for understanding and managing ecological systems usually
focuses on governmental organizations, particularly federal natural resource or environmental protection agencies. For various reasons, government
agencies at all levels appear ill-prepared to design
and implement successful ecosystem management
strategies. For example, the fundamental incentives
driving organizations within bureaucratic systems
are budgets (money) and turf (power), making it
difficult to create functional inter- and intraagency
ecosystem management institutional relationships.
Such organizational imperatives are diametrically
opposed to the qualities required for successful
ecosystem management, such as compromise, cooperation, and sharing of financial and human resources.
An exemplary consequence of this mismatch involves the human resources dedicated to ecosystem
management efforts. The staff detailed to ecosystem management initiatives frequently is of uneven
quality; most often, they are assigned simply to represent their home agency in a situation that is expected to be either very contentious or entirely
meaningless. Agency representatives that successfully integrate within an ecosystem management
"team" may find that the transition severs connections to their home agency support base, either due
to changes within themselves or political fallout
from decisions by the ecosystem management pro-
Ecological Assessments and Implementing Ecosystem Management
nization (e.g., demographic patterns and trends,
community capacity). Focusing attention on this
level of analysis is essential, because many opportunities for change may be found in the structure
of incentives and rules governing institutional
arrangements and organizations. Changing the understanding of groups and individuals, as well as
the legal, policy, and administrative framework underpinning conservation in the United States, entails a sociopolitical struggle over ideas and perceptions. Because the ultimate goal of all ecological
assessments is the elaboration of technically, ecologically, and socially viable options, as well as the
costs and trade-offs involved in selecting one option over another, assessments are a central tool in
the struggle over ideas and perceptions.
35.2.3 Institutional Challenges to
Ecological Assessments
Broadly defined, institutions are "constellations of
rights, rules, and relationships that define social
practices and guide interactions among those who
participate in them" (Young and Underdal, 1997).
Institutions can be formal prescriptions or constraints, such as constitutions, statutes, and regulations, or they may affect behavior informally
through norms, customs, and traditions. The mechanism for imposing behavioral constraints may be
an individual organization, a network of organizations, or a group of individuals defining themselves
as a community through a set of shared values or
interests. Institutions are the cement that binds societies, defining how individuals act toward one another and the groups of which they are a part. Institutions also determine how individuals and
groups define their relations with their physical and
biological surroundings, linking society and nature.
Implementing ecosystem management and successfully employing ecological assessments as a
tool in this endeavor necessitates far-reaching
changes in the institutional framework within
which conservation is undertaken in this country.
The institutional challenges include addressing the
mismatch between existing institutions and conservation needs, promoting evolution of current institutions to better implement ecosystem management, and creating new institutions that are flexible,
adaptive, and inclusive.
The discussion of scales earlier in this chapter
highlights a set of general mismatches between
ecosystems and institutions that commonly creates
difficulties for conservation and resource management. Fundamental differences exist between the
scale of resource issues and the institutions designed to manage them (Meidinger, 1997; Folke et
aI., 1998). Spatial scale issues are among the most
frequently cited problems. For example, regionalscale ecological systems cross established administrative and jurisdictional boundaries, but must
be managed in the context of a governance system
that seldom empowers regional-scale institutions
(Wuichet, 1995). Regarding temporal scales, mismatches between resources and institutions are frequently described as a function of the short-term
time horizons of planners and politicians. However,
a more basic temporal mismatch involves the underlying foundation of traditional resource management philosophies, which aim to reduce variability in natural systems over short time frames.
Recent experiences with both fire and flooding illustrate that reduction of variability through suppression of endogenous disturbances leads to intense long-term disruptions of natural and social
systems (Holling and Meffe, 1996; Haeuber and
Michener, 1998). The spatial and temporal incongruities between organizations, institutions, and
ecological systems are as problematic for assessment efforts as they are for management initiatives.
Consideration of specific institutions for understanding and managing ecological systems usually
focuses on governmental organizations, particularly federal natural resource or environmental protection agencies. For various reasons, government
agencies at all levels appear ill-prepared to design
and implement successful ecosystem management
strategies. For example, the fundamental incentives
driving organizations within bureaucratic systems
are budgets (money) and turf (power), making it
difficult to create functional inter- and intraagency
ecosystem management institutional relationships.
Such organizational imperatives are diametrically
opposed to the qualities required for successful
ecosystem management, such as compromise, cooperation, and sharing of financial and human resources.
An exemplary consequence of this mismatch involves the human resources dedicated to ecosystem
management efforts. The staff detailed to ecosystem management initiatives frequently is of uneven
quality; most often, they are assigned simply to represent their home agency in a situation that is expected to be either very contentious or entirely
meaningless. Agency representatives that successfully integrate within an ecosystem management
"team" may find that the transition severs connections to their home agency support base, either due
to changes within themselves or political fallout
from decisions by the ecosystem management pro-