56
Adaptive Ecosystem Assessment and Management: The Path of Last Resort?
broadly enough, problems would go away. But the
success that seemed assured has gradually proved
unsettling, illusory. Competencies became traps,
and would-be solutions have generated more unanticipated adverse social and ecological consequences. As the proliferation of agencies and
programs accelerates, management institutions become increasingly disassociated from the health
and resilience of natural systems and the vitality of
human communities that they were charged with
managing and serving, respectively.
Where once resource decisions enjoyed placid,
straightforward decision environments, managing
resources has grown fractious, turbulent, and congested. Instead of tackling the problems of changing the way that people think and act, society has
opted for the path of least resistance-control technologies and subsequent add-on innovations that
have left us in the long run bereft of constructive
change. Indeed, resource management has slipped
into an era of no easy answers, from which incremental and piecemeal attempts to get out only lead
back in, only deeper into trouble. Instead of attempting to live with and profit from natural variability, we have chosen to rely on the science and
technology of control and prediction instead.
Complexity encumbered with avarice, arrogance, and overreaching government programs has
manifested itself in three distinct but interrelated
ways: science, management, and policy formation.
While management considerations relative to objectives and scales (temporal and spatial) were few,
links among science, management, and policy appeared perfunctory and tractable. As the collapse
of the "control at all costs" myth became undeniable, the shift to management of multiple objectives and scales became unavoidable, making the
gaps between disciplines, constituencies, institutions, policy development, and implementation
more striking and unruly. It would appear that we
have reached the limits to control complexity
through scientific reductionism, government bureaucracy, and special interests. In the words of
Arthur (1990), "Complexity is a marvel when it
evolves naturally and delivers powerful performance. But when we ... allow it to go unchecked,
it merely hampers. It is then that we need to discover new modes, the bold strokes that bring fresh
simplicity to our organizations, or technology, or
government, or lives."
Dealing with just the consequences of human action, the symptoms, will no longer do. The future
lies in discovering new ways to work through the
differences that separate people and nature and in
learning new ways of thinking and acting, or the
path of last resort. Focus must shift from just resource productivity to include sustainability as
well. The leading edge of this transformation is already visible, and the profound change that it will
exact from science, management, and public policy is substantial.
4.1.1 Science
To paraphrase Havel (1990), science has become
adept at telling society about the many ways that
we are destroying ourselves or abusing the planet,
but utterly incapable of helping civilization avoid
the disasters that threaten us. While our resource
institutions excel in the science of parts (reductionism), the science of the integration of partsdealing with the complex dynamic systems-is
barely visible. The current generation of resource
managers and scientists learned to consider "what
is true, absolutely?" This classical view of science
is dominated by "objectivism" and is conceptualized as the search for external truths associated
with reality. Causation is seen as single and separable. The structure of inquiry focuses on fixed environment at a single scale and tries to eliminate
uncertainty. So conceived, such an approach to science by definition appears beyond passion and
governed by strict disciplinary perspectives. This
is the type of scientific inquiry in which almost all
our resource mangers and scientists frame their
practice.
This is a rigorous science that offers volumes of
information and fragments of insight, but limited
relevance to the complex and conflicted situations
in which our most stubborn resource issues exist.
What is missing is science that serves citizens and
community in the search to make sense of their
world-a science of the integration of parts that can
address the complex chaotic macro- and microsystem within the realm of human experience. Integrative science asks how we can make great sense
of our world-where people's imaginations, intuitions, feelings, values, and beliefs are welcome, a
science that is value variable and tailored to discovering ways to bring about greater harmony between people and nature, where humans learn to
live and profit from natural variability.
When we looked for answers to relatively simple systems, reductionism worked well, especially
in the laboratory. But in the messy real-world
settings of natural resource management, where
change occurs faster than we can comprehend, creating collaboratories-platforms for collective resource inquiry, use, and negotiation-seems better
suited for building the commitment and local
knowledge base needed to manage ecological complexity and uncertainty. A diversity of perspective
Adaptive Ecosystem Assessment and Management: The Path of Last Resort?
broadly enough, problems would go away. But the
success that seemed assured has gradually proved
unsettling, illusory. Competencies became traps,
and would-be solutions have generated more unanticipated adverse social and ecological consequences. As the proliferation of agencies and
programs accelerates, management institutions become increasingly disassociated from the health
and resilience of natural systems and the vitality of
human communities that they were charged with
managing and serving, respectively.
Where once resource decisions enjoyed placid,
straightforward decision environments, managing
resources has grown fractious, turbulent, and congested. Instead of tackling the problems of changing the way that people think and act, society has
opted for the path of least resistance-control technologies and subsequent add-on innovations that
have left us in the long run bereft of constructive
change. Indeed, resource management has slipped
into an era of no easy answers, from which incremental and piecemeal attempts to get out only lead
back in, only deeper into trouble. Instead of attempting to live with and profit from natural variability, we have chosen to rely on the science and
technology of control and prediction instead.
Complexity encumbered with avarice, arrogance, and overreaching government programs has
manifested itself in three distinct but interrelated
ways: science, management, and policy formation.
While management considerations relative to objectives and scales (temporal and spatial) were few,
links among science, management, and policy appeared perfunctory and tractable. As the collapse
of the "control at all costs" myth became undeniable, the shift to management of multiple objectives and scales became unavoidable, making the
gaps between disciplines, constituencies, institutions, policy development, and implementation
more striking and unruly. It would appear that we
have reached the limits to control complexity
through scientific reductionism, government bureaucracy, and special interests. In the words of
Arthur (1990), "Complexity is a marvel when it
evolves naturally and delivers powerful performance. But when we ... allow it to go unchecked,
it merely hampers. It is then that we need to discover new modes, the bold strokes that bring fresh
simplicity to our organizations, or technology, or
government, or lives."
Dealing with just the consequences of human action, the symptoms, will no longer do. The future
lies in discovering new ways to work through the
differences that separate people and nature and in
learning new ways of thinking and acting, or the
path of last resort. Focus must shift from just resource productivity to include sustainability as
well. The leading edge of this transformation is already visible, and the profound change that it will
exact from science, management, and public policy is substantial.
4.1.1 Science
To paraphrase Havel (1990), science has become
adept at telling society about the many ways that
we are destroying ourselves or abusing the planet,
but utterly incapable of helping civilization avoid
the disasters that threaten us. While our resource
institutions excel in the science of parts (reductionism), the science of the integration of partsdealing with the complex dynamic systems-is
barely visible. The current generation of resource
managers and scientists learned to consider "what
is true, absolutely?" This classical view of science
is dominated by "objectivism" and is conceptualized as the search for external truths associated
with reality. Causation is seen as single and separable. The structure of inquiry focuses on fixed environment at a single scale and tries to eliminate
uncertainty. So conceived, such an approach to science by definition appears beyond passion and
governed by strict disciplinary perspectives. This
is the type of scientific inquiry in which almost all
our resource mangers and scientists frame their
practice.
This is a rigorous science that offers volumes of
information and fragments of insight, but limited
relevance to the complex and conflicted situations
in which our most stubborn resource issues exist.
What is missing is science that serves citizens and
community in the search to make sense of their
world-a science of the integration of parts that can
address the complex chaotic macro- and microsystem within the realm of human experience. Integrative science asks how we can make great sense
of our world-where people's imaginations, intuitions, feelings, values, and beliefs are welcome, a
science that is value variable and tailored to discovering ways to bring about greater harmony between people and nature, where humans learn to
live and profit from natural variability.
When we looked for answers to relatively simple systems, reductionism worked well, especially
in the laboratory. But in the messy real-world
settings of natural resource management, where
change occurs faster than we can comprehend, creating collaboratories-platforms for collective resource inquiry, use, and negotiation-seems better
suited for building the commitment and local
knowledge base needed to manage ecological complexity and uncertainty. A diversity of perspective