60
Adaptive Ecosystem Assessment and Management: The Path of Last Resort?
tended to treat surprises as temporary digressions
from business as usual. Were the 1988 fires ofYellowstone, the failures of stocking hatchery salmon
in the Pacific Northwest, the outbreaks of spruce
budworm in the Canadian boreal forests, and the algal blooms of Lake Okeechobee temporary digressions? Only the pursuit of what is unknown, uncertain, or fundamentally foreign to conventional
wisdom will yield deeper understanding and reveal
the pattern of change on which events and trends
are based. While such an assertion may seem selfevident, even fatuous, this fundamental management pathology-the fixes that backfire--continues
to be denied, overlooked, or ignored in hundreds,
perhaps thousands, of resource settings. The structural barriers to overcoming the prevailing pathology are formidable and are discussed later in the
chapter. Despite the obstacles, for those who are
willing to traverse the treacherous terrain there is a
clear alternative-adaptive ecosystem assessment
and management-an alternative designed to recouple man and nature in ways that enhance resilience and knit futures that are economically productive and earth-honoring as well.
4.4 The Taproot: The Boundarycentered View
The philosophy of adaptive management is rooted
in a radically new perspective of how ecosystems
behave and are viewed (Holling, 1973). Holling
reasoned that if ecosystems are profoundly affected
by outside changes and continually confronted with
the unexpected, the constancy of system behavior
becomes less important than the persistence of relationships. Holling contrasted two very distinct
views of natural systems:
1. An equilibrium-centered view (stability) based
on the ability of systems to return to equilibrium
state after a temporary disturbance.
2. A boundary-centered view (resiliency) based on
the ability of a system to persist in the face of
extremes disturbance to state variables, driving
variables, and parameters.
Stability is used in the narrow sense of elasticity, the property that resists departure from equilibrium and maximizes the speed of return to equilibrium due to small disturbances. Stability deals
with negative feedback and near steady states,
while resilience focuses on the role of positive feedback, internally generated variability, and far-fromequilibrium behavior. At the heart of the equilibriumcentered view of the world, there is an assumption
that all things can be explained and predicted. The
implications of a boundary-centered view for management are profoundly different. Whereas stability emphasizes constancy and predictability and the
prospect of regulation (control) to achieve maximum sustainable yield, a resilience perspective presumes the unexpected in the face of considerable
ignorance about the consequences of future events
and actions. Humility, not hubris, takes precedence.
The resilience viewpoint of ecosystems challenges the conventional wisdom on which traditional resource policy and economics have been
based-economic efficiency, other things being
equal, and steady-state conditions. As Holling
wrote in 1973, "Strategies based upon these two
different views of the world might well be antagonistic .... It is at least conceivable that the effective and responsible effort to provide maximum
sustainable yield from a fish population or a nonfluctuating supply of water from a watershed (both
equilibrium-centered views) might paradoxically
increase the chance of extinctions."
For example, the concept of resilience differs
significantly from the school of thought that emphasizes ecological health, stress, and endpoints.
Ecosystems are moving targets; even when endpoints are initially conceptualized as a tool for serving short- and midterm management objectives, it
is the nature of bureaucracy to canonize them
rigidly over time. Health is an anthropocentric
term. Dynamic processes such as fire, wind, flood,
drought, and pestilence are only stressors when
seen from a human perspective. Resilience instead
focuses on the ecological functioning of such
processes over temporal and spatial scales. It focuses on the capacity of all living systems to renew themselves not just in spite of, but because of,
such processes. A resilience perspective thus shifts
the emphasis from desired future conditions to desired future behaviors.
4.4.1 Far from Equilibrium Behavior
Since 1973, scientific advances in the disciplines
of physics and chemistry, molecular biology, and
ecology have amassed considerable support for the
boundary-centered view based on greater understanding of behavior far from equilibrium in biotic
and abiotic systems. "The dialogue between man
and nature could be described as going from the
concept of being in a static sense to the concept of
being as becoming" (Prigogine, 1984). The shift to
a boundary-centered view has focused greater attention on time, evolution, and complexity.
Adaptive Ecosystem Assessment and Management: The Path of Last Resort?
tended to treat surprises as temporary digressions
from business as usual. Were the 1988 fires ofYellowstone, the failures of stocking hatchery salmon
in the Pacific Northwest, the outbreaks of spruce
budworm in the Canadian boreal forests, and the algal blooms of Lake Okeechobee temporary digressions? Only the pursuit of what is unknown, uncertain, or fundamentally foreign to conventional
wisdom will yield deeper understanding and reveal
the pattern of change on which events and trends
are based. While such an assertion may seem selfevident, even fatuous, this fundamental management pathology-the fixes that backfire--continues
to be denied, overlooked, or ignored in hundreds,
perhaps thousands, of resource settings. The structural barriers to overcoming the prevailing pathology are formidable and are discussed later in the
chapter. Despite the obstacles, for those who are
willing to traverse the treacherous terrain there is a
clear alternative-adaptive ecosystem assessment
and management-an alternative designed to recouple man and nature in ways that enhance resilience and knit futures that are economically productive and earth-honoring as well.
4.4 The Taproot: The Boundarycentered View
The philosophy of adaptive management is rooted
in a radically new perspective of how ecosystems
behave and are viewed (Holling, 1973). Holling
reasoned that if ecosystems are profoundly affected
by outside changes and continually confronted with
the unexpected, the constancy of system behavior
becomes less important than the persistence of relationships. Holling contrasted two very distinct
views of natural systems:
1. An equilibrium-centered view (stability) based
on the ability of systems to return to equilibrium
state after a temporary disturbance.
2. A boundary-centered view (resiliency) based on
the ability of a system to persist in the face of
extremes disturbance to state variables, driving
variables, and parameters.
Stability is used in the narrow sense of elasticity, the property that resists departure from equilibrium and maximizes the speed of return to equilibrium due to small disturbances. Stability deals
with negative feedback and near steady states,
while resilience focuses on the role of positive feedback, internally generated variability, and far-fromequilibrium behavior. At the heart of the equilibriumcentered view of the world, there is an assumption
that all things can be explained and predicted. The
implications of a boundary-centered view for management are profoundly different. Whereas stability emphasizes constancy and predictability and the
prospect of regulation (control) to achieve maximum sustainable yield, a resilience perspective presumes the unexpected in the face of considerable
ignorance about the consequences of future events
and actions. Humility, not hubris, takes precedence.
The resilience viewpoint of ecosystems challenges the conventional wisdom on which traditional resource policy and economics have been
based-economic efficiency, other things being
equal, and steady-state conditions. As Holling
wrote in 1973, "Strategies based upon these two
different views of the world might well be antagonistic .... It is at least conceivable that the effective and responsible effort to provide maximum
sustainable yield from a fish population or a nonfluctuating supply of water from a watershed (both
equilibrium-centered views) might paradoxically
increase the chance of extinctions."
For example, the concept of resilience differs
significantly from the school of thought that emphasizes ecological health, stress, and endpoints.
Ecosystems are moving targets; even when endpoints are initially conceptualized as a tool for serving short- and midterm management objectives, it
is the nature of bureaucracy to canonize them
rigidly over time. Health is an anthropocentric
term. Dynamic processes such as fire, wind, flood,
drought, and pestilence are only stressors when
seen from a human perspective. Resilience instead
focuses on the ecological functioning of such
processes over temporal and spatial scales. It focuses on the capacity of all living systems to renew themselves not just in spite of, but because of,
such processes. A resilience perspective thus shifts
the emphasis from desired future conditions to desired future behaviors.
4.4.1 Far from Equilibrium Behavior
Since 1973, scientific advances in the disciplines
of physics and chemistry, molecular biology, and
ecology have amassed considerable support for the
boundary-centered view based on greater understanding of behavior far from equilibrium in biotic
and abiotic systems. "The dialogue between man
and nature could be described as going from the
concept of being in a static sense to the concept of
being as becoming" (Prigogine, 1984). The shift to
a boundary-centered view has focused greater attention on time, evolution, and complexity.