4.6 The Assessment and Management Challenge
process by which forest ecosystems grow and
change in four distinct stages:
1. Exploitation: pioneer species rapidly colonize
recently disturbed areas;
2. Conservation: growth of the forest through slow
accumulation and storage of energy and matter
(climax condition).
3. Creative destruction: fires in the forest consume
biomass and release the nutrients.
4. Reorganization: soil processes prepare for the
next generation of exploitation.
The model also attempts to capture the pace of
change. From exploitation to conservation, the pace
of change is slow; forests can take decades or centuries to mature. From conservation through release
and renewal, however, the pace of change is very
rapid; in hours a fire can undo a forest community
that has been decades in the making.
"The secret of well being is simplicity, but the
key to evolution is the continual emergence of complexity." This statement by Arthur (1990) describes
the paradox of evolution and complexity that
Holling has captured in the adaptive cycle. As
forests grow, the interconnections become more
tightly linked. But, just as the simple bifurcation
diagram illustrates (Figure 4.2), dynamic systems
evolve to points at which they become structurally
unstable, or brittle, and a breakpoint is reached
from which rapid change (creative destruction
through renewal) in new directions occurs. The new
forest that emerges may retain aspects of the old
system, with new components thrown into the mix
during reorganization, or it may be that no forest
emerges at all. If nutrients are carried away and soil
fertility is low, the next period of exploitation might
tend for a time toward a grassland system. In answer to Arthur's riddle then, natural systems over
time weave together both simplicity and complexity in an evolutionary dance.
Fire, floods, and storms are dynamic processes
that are central to natural system renewal. Experience has shown that when these are eliminated
long-term adverse ecological consequences are inevitable (Regier and Baskerville, 1986). The adaptive cycle helps to deepen our understanding of patterns of change, but does not necessarily promise
to help us to predict how systems far from equilibrium will behave at any given time. Light et al.
(1995) have demonstrated how ecosystems and institutions coevolve (Figure 4.4). This work suggests
that this new understanding of institutions and
ecosystems may help us rise above the crisisresponse treadmill of the past to construct man63
agement systems that fit more adaptively within the
constraints set by a cyclical, evolving nature.
The power of the adaptive cycle heuristic transcends the discipline of ecology. Analogs to the forest story containing components of the adaptive cycle can be found in many other fields of inquiry,
for example, physics (Capra, 1975; Bohm, 1978,
1980), economics (Schumpeter, 1934; Arthur,
1990), business management (Mintzberg, 1978;
Morgan, 1986; Hurst, 1995), anthropology (Douglas, 1986), literature (Goldstone, 1991; Fischer,
1996), psychology (Wilbur, 1995; Dorner, 1997),
and religion (I Ching, Tielhard de Chardin, 1959).
While this comes as no surprise-after all, the
problems of time, evolution, and complexity are not
confined to the science of ecology-the reductionist, positivist methods of traditional science and
management continue to ignore these fundamental
insights.
4.6 The Assessment and
Management Challenge
Although scientific understanding of how ecological systems behave has advanced considerably,
changes in management practice have lagged far
behind (Holling, 1978; Clark and Munn, 1986;
Walters, 1986; Gunderson et al., 1995). Economic
success has been so convincing that, in many instances, the need and motivation to search for alternative ways of assessing and managing have
been ignored, considered unnecessary. When apparent successes faltered, the principal option was
to continue as before, only more rigorously (selfsealing beliefs). In the process, ecosystems have
been driven further into less productive states and
closer to potential irreversibilities (Regier and
Baskerville, 1986). In addition, a new class of problems has become more apparent (Holling, 1995
paraphrased below). The new problems and their
implications for assessment and management can
be described as follows:
1. There are no simple cause and effect relationships. The problems are essentially systems
problems in which aspects of behavior are complex and unpredictable and causes, although at
times simple (when finally understood), are always multiple. Understanding of patterns of behavior, not "golden numbers," and integrated
modes of understanding are needed to form new
policies.
2. There are no universal stability regimes. The
problems are fundamentally nonlinear in causa-
process by which forest ecosystems grow and
change in four distinct stages:
1. Exploitation: pioneer species rapidly colonize
recently disturbed areas;
2. Conservation: growth of the forest through slow
accumulation and storage of energy and matter
(climax condition).
3. Creative destruction: fires in the forest consume
biomass and release the nutrients.
4. Reorganization: soil processes prepare for the
next generation of exploitation.
The model also attempts to capture the pace of
change. From exploitation to conservation, the pace
of change is slow; forests can take decades or centuries to mature. From conservation through release
and renewal, however, the pace of change is very
rapid; in hours a fire can undo a forest community
that has been decades in the making.
"The secret of well being is simplicity, but the
key to evolution is the continual emergence of complexity." This statement by Arthur (1990) describes
the paradox of evolution and complexity that
Holling has captured in the adaptive cycle. As
forests grow, the interconnections become more
tightly linked. But, just as the simple bifurcation
diagram illustrates (Figure 4.2), dynamic systems
evolve to points at which they become structurally
unstable, or brittle, and a breakpoint is reached
from which rapid change (creative destruction
through renewal) in new directions occurs. The new
forest that emerges may retain aspects of the old
system, with new components thrown into the mix
during reorganization, or it may be that no forest
emerges at all. If nutrients are carried away and soil
fertility is low, the next period of exploitation might
tend for a time toward a grassland system. In answer to Arthur's riddle then, natural systems over
time weave together both simplicity and complexity in an evolutionary dance.
Fire, floods, and storms are dynamic processes
that are central to natural system renewal. Experience has shown that when these are eliminated
long-term adverse ecological consequences are inevitable (Regier and Baskerville, 1986). The adaptive cycle helps to deepen our understanding of patterns of change, but does not necessarily promise
to help us to predict how systems far from equilibrium will behave at any given time. Light et al.
(1995) have demonstrated how ecosystems and institutions coevolve (Figure 4.4). This work suggests
that this new understanding of institutions and
ecosystems may help us rise above the crisisresponse treadmill of the past to construct man63
agement systems that fit more adaptively within the
constraints set by a cyclical, evolving nature.
The power of the adaptive cycle heuristic transcends the discipline of ecology. Analogs to the forest story containing components of the adaptive cycle can be found in many other fields of inquiry,
for example, physics (Capra, 1975; Bohm, 1978,
1980), economics (Schumpeter, 1934; Arthur,
1990), business management (Mintzberg, 1978;
Morgan, 1986; Hurst, 1995), anthropology (Douglas, 1986), literature (Goldstone, 1991; Fischer,
1996), psychology (Wilbur, 1995; Dorner, 1997),
and religion (I Ching, Tielhard de Chardin, 1959).
While this comes as no surprise-after all, the
problems of time, evolution, and complexity are not
confined to the science of ecology-the reductionist, positivist methods of traditional science and
management continue to ignore these fundamental
insights.
4.6 The Assessment and
Management Challenge
Although scientific understanding of how ecological systems behave has advanced considerably,
changes in management practice have lagged far
behind (Holling, 1978; Clark and Munn, 1986;
Walters, 1986; Gunderson et al., 1995). Economic
success has been so convincing that, in many instances, the need and motivation to search for alternative ways of assessing and managing have
been ignored, considered unnecessary. When apparent successes faltered, the principal option was
to continue as before, only more rigorously (selfsealing beliefs). In the process, ecosystems have
been driven further into less productive states and
closer to potential irreversibilities (Regier and
Baskerville, 1986). In addition, a new class of problems has become more apparent (Holling, 1995
paraphrased below). The new problems and their
implications for assessment and management can
be described as follows:
1. There are no simple cause and effect relationships. The problems are essentially systems
problems in which aspects of behavior are complex and unpredictable and causes, although at
times simple (when finally understood), are always multiple. Understanding of patterns of behavior, not "golden numbers," and integrated
modes of understanding are needed to form new
policies.
2. There are no universal stability regimes. The
problems are fundamentally nonlinear in causa-