Ecosystems, Adaptive Management - Ecological Systems - page 128

Although semantic arguments may seem the realm of ivory-towered professors,
inconsistent and even contradictory approaches and definitions of adaptive manage-
ment have resulted in confusion and limited the ability of management organizations
to develop consistent and repeatable comprehensive adaptive management
programs. Ironically, the confusion over the term “adaptive management” may
stem from the flexibility inherent in the approach which has resulted in multiple
interpretations of “adaptive management” that fall upon a continuum of complexity
and a priori design, starting from the simple (e.g., “learning by doing”) and
progressing to the more explicit (e.g., “a rigorous process that should include
sound planning and experimental design with a systematic evaluation process
that links monitoring to management”) [ 2 , 21 , 22 ]. Obviously, there is a clear
distinction in intent, investment, and success between approaches that propose to
learn from prior management decisions and those that outline a concise feedback
mechanism dependent upon sound scientific principles on which future manage-
ment decisions will be made. The definition of “adaptive management” is further
confused because one of the powerful attributes of adaptive management is the
ability to simultaneously address multiple needs of managers, scientists, and
stakeholders. The result has been published reports of adaptive management
that emphasize definitions that focus on the needs of the authors and the ability
of adaptive management to meet those needs (e.g., experimentation [ 14 ], uncer-
tainty [ 23 ], changing management actions [ 24 ], monitoring [ 25 ], and stakeholder
involvement [ 26 ]).
Despite the challenges in defining adaptive management, momentum and inter-
est in the subject and its application continue to grow. The recent development by
the United States Department of Interior of an adaptive management technical
guide ( http://www.doi.gov/initiatives/AdaptiveManagement/TechGuide.pdf ) and
the policies developed around this manual to:
Incorporate adaptive management principles, as appropriate, into policies, plans, guidance,
agreements, and other instruments for the management of resources under the Department's
jurisdiction. - Department of Interior Manual (522 DM 1)
are an indication of the growing movement in natural resource management
toward taking a more proactive role in management decisions. Unfortunately,
this movement has little to build upon with one clear exception, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Adaptive Harvest Management Plan (AHM) for
mid-continent mallards. Worldwide, AHM is one of the few successful efforts to
apply the principles of adaptive management and demonstrate how to success-
fully manage natural resources by improving the understanding of natural
systems through management actions. The adaptive management processes of
AHM have greatly improved the understanding of the harvest potential of
waterfowl populations, the ability of managers to regulate harvest, and the
importance of monitoring and assessment programs to support the decision-
making process.
So why has AHM succeeded while so many other attempts to implement
adaptive management have stalled? First, AHM developed a clear and concise