Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Colorado River, there is a single centralized regulatory body governing waterfowl
harvest in the United States (USFWS), and although there are many stakeholders
that play a role in setting harvest management regulations, ultimately, decisions
are made by the USFWS. Equally important, the interests of the USFWS parallel
those of the other stakeholders. For the Colorado River, stakeholder interests are
almost directly at odds. So from these examples is one to conclude that adaptive
management is an unattainable mandate for the management of resources
where various stakeholders and regulators are at odds? No, implementation of
adaptive management is appropriate in both examples, possibly even more so for
the management of the Colorado River. What the Colorado River example
highlights is the importance of collaboration, the benefits of a single or
superregulatory body, and the need to agree upon
apriori
objectives that guide
long-term management decisions despite short-term political, societal, economic,
or even environmental impacts.
Structured Decision Making
A key component of any management approach, whether it is adaptive or not, is
deciding on the objectives, goals, and ultimately management options that may best
achieve the desired goals (
Fig. 8.3
). Unfortunately, as with many decisions, decid-
ing upon a proper set of objectives and the means to reach those objectives can
prove challenging. Resource management decisions are further complicated
because social-ecological systems are complex (e.g., multiple objectives and
stakeholders, overlapping jurisdictions, short- and long-term effects) and are
characterized by a high degree of uncertainty (e.g., appropriate management action
or monitoring protocols, future economic or ecological conditions) and therefore
present decision makers with challenging judgments (e.g., predicted consequences
of proposed alternatives, value-based judgments about priorities, preferences, and
risk tolerances) often under enormous pressure (economic, environmental, social,
and political) and with limited resources to ensure success. The resulting outcome
of such conditions too often leads to management paralysis, or continuation of the
status quo, as managers and policy makers become overwhelmed by the process of
the decision and lose track of the desired social-ecological conditions they are
charged with achieving. Indeed, the process of resource management can be
arduous and even controversial, particularly if there are a variety of stakeholders
vying to push the agenda. Fortunately, there are methods to overcome these pitfalls
and maximize the potential for success.
One method to overcome management paralysis and mediate multiple stake-
holder interests is structured decision making. Borrowed from the sociological
fields, structured decision making is an organized approach to identify and evaluate
alternative resource management options by engaging stakeholders, experts, and
decision makers in the decision process and addressing the complexity and uncer-
tainty inherent in resource management in a proactive and transparent manner.
