trade-offs by trying to provide something for everyone and
results were less protective of the environment.
It should be noted that “consensus building” is only one
way of approaching collaborative decision making. Other
approaches, such as Structured Decision Making
(Gregory et al., 2012) and Collaborative Learning
(Daniels and Walker, 2001), explicitly note that consensus
is not always the correct method in collaborative processes. Sometimes it can lead to less creative solutions.
Layzer (2012) also noted that successful (i.e., most
likely to show environmental benefit) examples of
EBM – looking beyond her seven cases – tend to involve
contexts that corresponded to Ostrom’s criteria (1990).
These criteria include:
– Participants believe they will be harmed if they do not
adopt rules for resource management.
– Participants are affected in similar ways by the proposed rules.
– Participants value the continued use of the common
property resource.
– Participants have relatively low hurdles in terms of
obtaining new information, making changes, and
enforcing rules.
– Participants share generalized norms of reciprocity and
trust.
– The group is relatively small and stable.
However, Layzer (2012) points out that the typical EBM
project occurs at a large enough scale that many of these
criteria are difficult to fulfill, which results in a very challenging situation for those trying EBM approaches. Another
critical challenge to EBM is evaluating success. For example, Layzer (2012) discounts process-based evaluations that
rely on stakeholder testimony about gains in trust and
understanding. Rather, she focuses on data that show environmental benefit. However, this approach is controversial
in and of itself. Many evaluation scholars (e.g., Conley
and Moote, 2003; Mandarano, 2008) note that it is very difficult and possibly unwise to rely on environmental parameters in evaluating collaborative management efforts,
because it is usually very difficult to isolate and show conclusively that an intervention did or did not have an impact
with so many uncontrollable factors at play. In light of all
these factors, most evaluators admit that using proxies such
as stakeholder testimony regarding process and social outcomes (e.g., new rules and regulations) must be part of an
evaluative best practice.
Summary
EBM remains a very relevant yet controversial topic in the
arena of natural resource management. Society has made
significant progress in understanding what EBM is and
what it requires; however, truly successful implementation
of EBM that succeeds in meeting all the principles of
the concept is either extremely rare or nonexistent.
Nevertheless, it remains – to most scholars and decision
makers – a worthwhile alternative when compared
with the traditional approach of single-species and
single-purpose planning. The challenges of the future will
be in understanding what sorts of institutional arrangements will be necessary to truly implement EBM and to
evaluate it so that modifications can be made in the face
of unintended consequences.
Bibliography
Arkema, K. K., Abramson, S. C., and Dewsbury, B. C., 2006.
Marine ecosystem-based management: from characterization to
implementation. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,
4(10), 525–532.
Boesch, D. F., 2006. Scientific requirements for ecosystem-based
management in the restoration of Chesapeake Bay and Coastal
Louisiana. Ecological Engineering, 26(2006), 6–26.
Cash, D. W., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N. M., Eckley, N.,
Guston, D. H., Jager, J., and Mitchell, R. B., 2003. Knowledge
systems for sustainable development. Publications of the
National Academies of Science, 100(14c), 8086–8091.
Compass. 2005. Scientific Consensus Statement on Marine
Ecosystem-Based Management. http://www.compassonline.org/
sites/all/files/document_files/EBM_Consensus_Statement_v12.
pdf. Accessed 28 June 2013.
Conley, A., and Moote, M. A., 2003. Evaluating collaborative natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources, 16,
371–386.
Daniels, S. E., and Walker, G. B., 2001. Working Through Environmental Conflict: The Collaborative Learning Approach. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Gregory, R., Failing, L., Ohlson, D., and McDaniels, T., 2006. Some
pitfalls of an overemphasis on science in environmental risk management decisions. Journal of Risk Research. http://training.fws.
gov/CSP/Resources/Decision_Analysis/Articles_from_Seminar/
Gregory_Failing,_Ohlson,_McDaniels_In_Press.pdf. Accessed
6 May 2013
Gregory, R., Failing, L., Harstone, M., Long, G., McDaniels, T., and
Ohlson, D., 2012. Structured Decision Making: A Practical
Guide to Environmental Management Choices. West Sussex,
UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Layzer, J. A., 2012. The purpose and politics of ecosystem-based
management. In: Weinstein, M. P. and Turner, R. E. (eds.), Sustainability Science: The Emerging Paradigm 177 and the Urban
Environment, doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3188-6_9, pp. 177–197.
Leslie, H. M., and McLeod, K. L., 2007. Confronting the challenges
of implementing marine ecosystem-based management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 5(10), 525–532.
Levin, S. A., and Lubchenco, J., 2008. Resilience, robustness and
marine ecosystem-based management. BioScience, 58(1), 27–32.
Mandarano, L. A., 2008. Evaluating collaborative environmental
planning outputs and outcomes: restoring and protecting habitat
and the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program. Journal
of Planning Education and Research, 27, 456.
Matso, K. E., and Becker, M., 2013. Funding science that links to
decisions: case studies involving coastal land use planning projects. Estuaries and Coasts, doi:10.1007/s12237-013-9649-5.
NRC, 1999. Sustaining marine fisheries. Committee on Ecosystem
Management for Sustainable Marine Fisheries. National
Research
Council.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?
record_id¼6032 Accessed 28 June 2013.
Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pew Oceans Commission, 2003. America’s Living Oceans: Charting
a Course for Sea Change. http://www.pewtrusts.org/
uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Protecting_ocean_life/
env_pew_oceans_final_report.pdf. Accessed 28 June 2013.
ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT
235
results were less protective of the environment.
It should be noted that “consensus building” is only one
way of approaching collaborative decision making. Other
approaches, such as Structured Decision Making
(Gregory et al., 2012) and Collaborative Learning
(Daniels and Walker, 2001), explicitly note that consensus
is not always the correct method in collaborative processes. Sometimes it can lead to less creative solutions.
Layzer (2012) also noted that successful (i.e., most
likely to show environmental benefit) examples of
EBM – looking beyond her seven cases – tend to involve
contexts that corresponded to Ostrom’s criteria (1990).
These criteria include:
– Participants believe they will be harmed if they do not
adopt rules for resource management.
– Participants are affected in similar ways by the proposed rules.
– Participants value the continued use of the common
property resource.
– Participants have relatively low hurdles in terms of
obtaining new information, making changes, and
enforcing rules.
– Participants share generalized norms of reciprocity and
trust.
– The group is relatively small and stable.
However, Layzer (2012) points out that the typical EBM
project occurs at a large enough scale that many of these
criteria are difficult to fulfill, which results in a very challenging situation for those trying EBM approaches. Another
critical challenge to EBM is evaluating success. For example, Layzer (2012) discounts process-based evaluations that
rely on stakeholder testimony about gains in trust and
understanding. Rather, she focuses on data that show environmental benefit. However, this approach is controversial
in and of itself. Many evaluation scholars (e.g., Conley
and Moote, 2003; Mandarano, 2008) note that it is very difficult and possibly unwise to rely on environmental parameters in evaluating collaborative management efforts,
because it is usually very difficult to isolate and show conclusively that an intervention did or did not have an impact
with so many uncontrollable factors at play. In light of all
these factors, most evaluators admit that using proxies such
as stakeholder testimony regarding process and social outcomes (e.g., new rules and regulations) must be part of an
evaluative best practice.
Summary
EBM remains a very relevant yet controversial topic in the
arena of natural resource management. Society has made
significant progress in understanding what EBM is and
what it requires; however, truly successful implementation
of EBM that succeeds in meeting all the principles of
the concept is either extremely rare or nonexistent.
Nevertheless, it remains – to most scholars and decision
makers – a worthwhile alternative when compared
with the traditional approach of single-species and
single-purpose planning. The challenges of the future will
be in understanding what sorts of institutional arrangements will be necessary to truly implement EBM and to
evaluate it so that modifications can be made in the face
of unintended consequences.
Bibliography
Arkema, K. K., Abramson, S. C., and Dewsbury, B. C., 2006.
Marine ecosystem-based management: from characterization to
implementation. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,
4(10), 525–532.
Boesch, D. F., 2006. Scientific requirements for ecosystem-based
management in the restoration of Chesapeake Bay and Coastal
Louisiana. Ecological Engineering, 26(2006), 6–26.
Cash, D. W., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N. M., Eckley, N.,
Guston, D. H., Jager, J., and Mitchell, R. B., 2003. Knowledge
systems for sustainable development. Publications of the
National Academies of Science, 100(14c), 8086–8091.
Compass. 2005. Scientific Consensus Statement on Marine
Ecosystem-Based Management. http://www.compassonline.org/
sites/all/files/document_files/EBM_Consensus_Statement_v12.
pdf. Accessed 28 June 2013.
Conley, A., and Moote, M. A., 2003. Evaluating collaborative natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources, 16,
371–386.
Daniels, S. E., and Walker, G. B., 2001. Working Through Environmental Conflict: The Collaborative Learning Approach. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Gregory, R., Failing, L., Ohlson, D., and McDaniels, T., 2006. Some
pitfalls of an overemphasis on science in environmental risk management decisions. Journal of Risk Research. http://training.fws.
gov/CSP/Resources/Decision_Analysis/Articles_from_Seminar/
Gregory_Failing,_Ohlson,_McDaniels_In_Press.pdf. Accessed
6 May 2013
Gregory, R., Failing, L., Harstone, M., Long, G., McDaniels, T., and
Ohlson, D., 2012. Structured Decision Making: A Practical
Guide to Environmental Management Choices. West Sussex,
UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Layzer, J. A., 2012. The purpose and politics of ecosystem-based
management. In: Weinstein, M. P. and Turner, R. E. (eds.), Sustainability Science: The Emerging Paradigm 177 and the Urban
Environment, doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3188-6_9, pp. 177–197.
Leslie, H. M., and McLeod, K. L., 2007. Confronting the challenges
of implementing marine ecosystem-based management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 5(10), 525–532.
Levin, S. A., and Lubchenco, J., 2008. Resilience, robustness and
marine ecosystem-based management. BioScience, 58(1), 27–32.
Mandarano, L. A., 2008. Evaluating collaborative environmental
planning outputs and outcomes: restoring and protecting habitat
and the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program. Journal
of Planning Education and Research, 27, 456.
Matso, K. E., and Becker, M., 2013. Funding science that links to
decisions: case studies involving coastal land use planning projects. Estuaries and Coasts, doi:10.1007/s12237-013-9649-5.
NRC, 1999. Sustaining marine fisheries. Committee on Ecosystem
Management for Sustainable Marine Fisheries. National
Research
Council.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?
record_id¼6032 Accessed 28 June 2013.
Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pew Oceans Commission, 2003. America’s Living Oceans: Charting
a Course for Sea Change. http://www.pewtrusts.org/
uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Protecting_ocean_life/
env_pew_oceans_final_report.pdf. Accessed 28 June 2013.
ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT
235