In this example, managers have instituted several notable
strategies that characterize the marine EBM ideal. First,
authorities established no-take zones throughout the area,
endeavoring to represent a diversity of key habitat types.
In addition, managers were aware that land use decisions
and activities have a significant impact on the Great Barrier Reef system and therefore created mechanisms for
the regulation of some of these activities.
The authors note, however, that even in these rare cases
of partial EBM implementation, there is considerable
room for improvement. For example, in the case of the
Great Barrier Reef, many of the social science questions
(such as the economic impacts of the EBM approach) have
not been researched and integrated into the plan. In addition, scientists acknowledged that the impacts of landbased inputs of sediment and nutrients from development
are still poorly understood.
Challenges to application
Readers will not be surprised that those who study EBM
implementation universally mention how challenging it
is to actually accomplish even some of the EBM principles, let alone all of them. At the heart of EBM is the
injunction to think much more broadly – both ecologically
and operationally – about the management of ecosystems.
Broader efforts are, by definition, more complicated than
narrower ones as they increase the sheer number of factors
to consider as well as the number of factor types, requiring
higher numbers of disciplines and perspectives. However,
researchers also point out more specific and less obvious
reasons why EBM implementation is so challenging.
Slocombe (1998) notes that many obstacles to EBM are
also obstacles to other endeavors (e.g., integrated resource
management). Slocombe’s list of obstacles includes
(1) too much fragmentation in the administration and
research sectors, (2) too much competition for resources
within/between various agencies, and (3) obscurely articulated objectives (e.g., “sustainability”) in the planning
process.
Boesch (2006) uses two case studies (Chesapeake Bay
Estuary and Coastal Louisiana) to focus on the scientific
requirements and challenges of EBM. He suggests several
challenges that must be overcome in order for scientific
contributions to better impact resource management of
ecosystems. Two of these challenges are discussed here.
First, scientific organizations must increase the emphasis
on using science to guide and test solutions, rather than
simply continuing to characterize the state of ecosystems.
Boesch is careful to state that curiosity-driven research
should be continued, but he makes it clear that the balance
needs to be adjusted so that greater priority is given to
solution-oriented science. Secondly, society needs to
invest in more bridge organizations and bridge activities.
The intent is not, Boesch stresses, to merge the science
world with the decision-making world; rather, society
needs more institutions and people who can act as effective bridges between the two worlds. For this to happen,
Boesch asserts that the financial incentives will have to
change so that integrative work becomes valued more in
the same way that specialization work is currently valued,
both in the science and nonscience sectors.
At this point, it is important to take a step back and
reassess the role of science in managing natural resources.
Boesch’s work begins by noting that both the Pew Ocean
Commission and the US Commission on Ocean Policy
urged modifications in the way science is done in light
of the EBM approach. However, it should be noted that
both these reports consider science to be only one of several prerequisites for better resource management; in other
words, better science alone – without other significant
changes – will not lead to better resource management.
Among those professionals that work in the field of
linking science to decisions – conducting the “bridge” work
referred to earlier – there is a growing consensus that
the role of science is often both overestimated and
underestimated. It is overestimated in the sense that participants often expect rational and scientific processes to dominate resource management questions when, in fact, issues
related to culture and values are usually more predictive
on how people make decisions. Gregory et al. (2006) note
that making good decisions requires good science, but it
also requires an acknowledgement of the power of culture
and values. Cash et al. (2003) note that issues related to trust
and relationships are as important as perceptions related to
the technical quality of the science. Finally, the role of science is underestimated in that many in society think overly
narrowly in their conception of “science,” forgetting that
rigorous scientific methods exist and can be applied to
incorporating values, addressing problems related to different perceptions of risk (Gregory et al., 2006), and studying
how to conduct science in a way that nurtures existing relationships (Matso and Becker, 2013).
Layzer (2012) also focuses on the issue of how to marry
good science, stakeholder engagement, and good decision
making. She notes that there is debate and ambiguity
about the role of collaborative stakeholder processes in
the development and implementation of EBM approaches.
Specifically, some studies clearly prioritize protection of
ecosystem integrity, using stakeholder engagement as
a means to gather local knowledge and buy-in in order to
achieve the goal of conservation. Others, however,
emphasize that EBM is about actually achieving two goals
simultaneously: ecosystem integrity and social/economic
goals of the human communities. These disparate interpretations of EBM are quite different and would result in very
different implementation strategies.
Layzer also conducted a systematic assessment of EBM
in practice, using seven case studies as her main source of
data. Although all seven case studies showed the promise
of environmental benefit, given enough time, Layzer
found that some of the cases – especially those that relied
on consensus building in their collaborative process – produced results that were less likely to provide significant
benefit to the environment. Layzer notes that, in these
cases, consensus building incentivized dodging tough
234
ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT
strategies that characterize the marine EBM ideal. First,
authorities established no-take zones throughout the area,
endeavoring to represent a diversity of key habitat types.
In addition, managers were aware that land use decisions
and activities have a significant impact on the Great Barrier Reef system and therefore created mechanisms for
the regulation of some of these activities.
The authors note, however, that even in these rare cases
of partial EBM implementation, there is considerable
room for improvement. For example, in the case of the
Great Barrier Reef, many of the social science questions
(such as the economic impacts of the EBM approach) have
not been researched and integrated into the plan. In addition, scientists acknowledged that the impacts of landbased inputs of sediment and nutrients from development
are still poorly understood.
Challenges to application
Readers will not be surprised that those who study EBM
implementation universally mention how challenging it
is to actually accomplish even some of the EBM principles, let alone all of them. At the heart of EBM is the
injunction to think much more broadly – both ecologically
and operationally – about the management of ecosystems.
Broader efforts are, by definition, more complicated than
narrower ones as they increase the sheer number of factors
to consider as well as the number of factor types, requiring
higher numbers of disciplines and perspectives. However,
researchers also point out more specific and less obvious
reasons why EBM implementation is so challenging.
Slocombe (1998) notes that many obstacles to EBM are
also obstacles to other endeavors (e.g., integrated resource
management). Slocombe’s list of obstacles includes
(1) too much fragmentation in the administration and
research sectors, (2) too much competition for resources
within/between various agencies, and (3) obscurely articulated objectives (e.g., “sustainability”) in the planning
process.
Boesch (2006) uses two case studies (Chesapeake Bay
Estuary and Coastal Louisiana) to focus on the scientific
requirements and challenges of EBM. He suggests several
challenges that must be overcome in order for scientific
contributions to better impact resource management of
ecosystems. Two of these challenges are discussed here.
First, scientific organizations must increase the emphasis
on using science to guide and test solutions, rather than
simply continuing to characterize the state of ecosystems.
Boesch is careful to state that curiosity-driven research
should be continued, but he makes it clear that the balance
needs to be adjusted so that greater priority is given to
solution-oriented science. Secondly, society needs to
invest in more bridge organizations and bridge activities.
The intent is not, Boesch stresses, to merge the science
world with the decision-making world; rather, society
needs more institutions and people who can act as effective bridges between the two worlds. For this to happen,
Boesch asserts that the financial incentives will have to
change so that integrative work becomes valued more in
the same way that specialization work is currently valued,
both in the science and nonscience sectors.
At this point, it is important to take a step back and
reassess the role of science in managing natural resources.
Boesch’s work begins by noting that both the Pew Ocean
Commission and the US Commission on Ocean Policy
urged modifications in the way science is done in light
of the EBM approach. However, it should be noted that
both these reports consider science to be only one of several prerequisites for better resource management; in other
words, better science alone – without other significant
changes – will not lead to better resource management.
Among those professionals that work in the field of
linking science to decisions – conducting the “bridge” work
referred to earlier – there is a growing consensus that
the role of science is often both overestimated and
underestimated. It is overestimated in the sense that participants often expect rational and scientific processes to dominate resource management questions when, in fact, issues
related to culture and values are usually more predictive
on how people make decisions. Gregory et al. (2006) note
that making good decisions requires good science, but it
also requires an acknowledgement of the power of culture
and values. Cash et al. (2003) note that issues related to trust
and relationships are as important as perceptions related to
the technical quality of the science. Finally, the role of science is underestimated in that many in society think overly
narrowly in their conception of “science,” forgetting that
rigorous scientific methods exist and can be applied to
incorporating values, addressing problems related to different perceptions of risk (Gregory et al., 2006), and studying
how to conduct science in a way that nurtures existing relationships (Matso and Becker, 2013).
Layzer (2012) also focuses on the issue of how to marry
good science, stakeholder engagement, and good decision
making. She notes that there is debate and ambiguity
about the role of collaborative stakeholder processes in
the development and implementation of EBM approaches.
Specifically, some studies clearly prioritize protection of
ecosystem integrity, using stakeholder engagement as
a means to gather local knowledge and buy-in in order to
achieve the goal of conservation. Others, however,
emphasize that EBM is about actually achieving two goals
simultaneously: ecosystem integrity and social/economic
goals of the human communities. These disparate interpretations of EBM are quite different and would result in very
different implementation strategies.
Layzer also conducted a systematic assessment of EBM
in practice, using seven case studies as her main source of
data. Although all seven case studies showed the promise
of environmental benefit, given enough time, Layzer
found that some of the cases – especially those that relied
on consensus building in their collaborative process – produced results that were less likely to provide significant
benefit to the environment. Layzer notes that, in these
cases, consensus building incentivized dodging tough
234
ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT