Adaptive Ecosystem Management:
Working Bibliography
Ashwani
Vasishth vasishth@usc.edu
[Last Update: April 9, 2006]
Aley, Jennifer, et al. (ed.). 1999. Ecosystem Management: Adaptive Strategies for Natural Resources Organizations In the Twenty-First Century. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.
Allan, Catherine & Allan Curtis. 2005. “Nipped in the Bud: Why Regional Scale Adaptive Management Is Not Blooming,” Environmental Management, v36n3 (2005): 414-425. [Adaptive management is an
approach to managing natural
resources that emphasizes learning from the implementation of policies and strategies. Adaptive management appears to offer a solution to the
management gridlock caused by
increasing complexity and uncertainty. The concept of adaptive management has been embraced by natural resource managers worldwide, but
there are relatively few published
examples of adaptive management in use.
In this article, we explore two watershed management projects in southeastern Australia to better
understand the potential of
adaptive management in regional scale programs through qualitative, case study–based investigation. The program logic of one case implies the use
of passive adaptive management,
whereas the second case claims to be
based on active adaptive management. Data were created using participant observation, semistructured
interviews with individuals and
groups, and document review. Using
thematic content and metaphor analysis to explore the case data, we found that each case was
successful as an implementation
project. However, the use of both passive and active adaptive management was constrained by deeply entrenched social norms and institutional
frameworks. We identified seven
``imperatives'' that guided the behavior of project stakeholders, and that have consequences for the use of adaptive management. Reference to recent
evaluations of the Adaptive
Management Areas of the Pacific Northwest
of the United States suggests that some of these imperatives and their consequences have broad applicability. The implications of our findings are discussed,
and suggestions for improving the
outcomes of regional scale adaptive
management are provided.]
Allen, Craig R. & Lance Gunderson & A.R. Johnson.
2005. “The Use of
Discontinuities and Functional Groups to Assess Relative
Resilience in
Complex Systems,” Ecosystems, v8 (2005): 958–966. [It is evident when the
resilience of a system has been exceeded and the
system qualitatively changed. However, it is not clear
how to measure resilience in a system
prior to the demonstration that the capacity for
resilient response has been exceeded. We argue that
self-organizing human and natural systems are
structured by a relatively small set of processes
operating across scales in time and space. These
structuring processes should generate a discontinuous
distribution of structures and frequencies, where
discontinuities mark the transition from one
scale to another. Resilience is not driven by the
identity of elements of a system, but rather by the
functions those elements provide, and their distribution
within and across scales. A self-organizing system
that is resilient should maintain patterns of
function within and across scales despite the
turnover of specific elements (for example, species,
cities). However, the loss of functions, or a decrease
in functional representation at certain scales will
decrease system resilience. It follows that some
distributions of function should be more resilient than
others. We propose that the determination of
discontinuities, and the quantification
of function
both within and across scales, produce relative
measures of resilience in ecological
and other
systems. We describe a set of methods
to assess
the relative resilience of a system based
upon the determination
of discontinuities and the quantification of the
distribution of functions in relation to those
discontinuities.]
Arcese, P. & A.R.E. Sinclair. 1997. "The Role of Protected Areas as Ecological Base-Lines," Journal of Wildlife Management, v61n3, (Jul, 1997): 587-602. [Proposes a representative number of protected areas as ecological baseline controls to help in understanding the effects of humans worldwide, and to enhance our ability to manage natural resources for a wide range of goals. Within these cological baseline control areas: (1) no effort is made to maintain an ecological status quo; (2) human interference is kept to a minimum; (3) natural and human-induced changes inside and adjacent to baseline control areas are closely monitored. If subjective opinion perceives that human effects are altering the system, then management intervention should be carried out on part of the system only, leaving the rest as its own control.] {Adaptive Management; Base-Line Reserves; Conservation Goals; Ecological Processes; Ecosystem Management; Human Effects; Intervention; Monitoring; Nonintervention; Scientific Understanding; Wildlife Communities; Integrated Conservation; Science; Africa; Populations; Demography; Elephants; Serengeti; Mammals}
Argyris, C. & Donald Schon. 1978. Organizational
Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Argyris, C. 1993. Actionable Knowledge:
Especially for Changing the Status Quo. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Atkinson, Andrea J.
& Peter C. Trenham & Robert N. Fisher & Stacie A. Hathaway &
Brenda S. Johnson & Steven G. Torres & Yvonne C. Moore. 2004. Designing Monitoring Programs in an Adaptive Management
Context for Regional Multiple Species Conservation Plans. Sacramento, CA: U.S. Geological Survey,
Western Ecological Research Center, with the California Department of Fish And
Game, Habitat Conservation Division, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Carlsbad, CA.
Baydack, Richard K. & Henry Campa III & Jonathan B. Haufler (eds.). 1999. Practical Approaches To the Conservation of Biological Diversity. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. [Contents: Setting the context / Richard K. Baydack and Henry Campa III -- Strategies for conserving terrestrial biological diversity / Jonathan B. Haufler -- The bioreserve strategy for conserving biodiversity / Allen Y. Cooperrider, Steven Day, and Curtice Jacoby -- Regional approaches to managing and conserving biodiversity / J. Michael Scott... [et al.] -- Application of historical range of variability concepts to biodiversity conservation / Gregory H. Aplet and William S. Keeton -- Restoring biodiversity on public forest lands through disturbance and patch management irrespective of land-use allocation / Richard L. Everett and John F. Lehmkuhl -- Conserving biological diversity using a coarse-filter approach with a species assessment / Jonathan B. Haufler, Carolyn A. Mehl, and Gary J. Roloff -- Maintaining biodiversity in an intensively managed forest: a habitat-based planning process linked with a fine-filter adaptive management process / William A. Wall -- Landscape planning and management in agro-ecosystems: the Canadian Prairie experience / Terry G. Neraasen and Jeffrey W. Nelson -- Putting diversity into resource conservation / Fred B. Samson and Fritz L. Knopf -- Adaptive management and the conservation of biodiversity / Thomas D. Nudds -- Can we manage for biological diversity in the absence of scientific certainty? / David L. Trauger -- A management challenge now and in the future: what to do with exotic species / Henry Campa III and Christine Hanaburgh -- Contrasting approaches for the conservation of biological diversity / Jonathan B. Haufler -- Implementation of an effective process for the conservation of biological diversity / Brian J. Kernohan and Jonathan B. Haufler -- Future innovations and research needs / Henry Campa III, Richard K. Baydack, and Jonathan B. Haufler -- Closing perspectives / Richard K. Baydack.]
Bissonette, John A. (ed.). 1997. Wildlife and Landscape Ecology: Effects of Pattern and Scale. New York: Springer. [Some of these papers were originally presented at the Second Annual Meeting of the Wildlife Society in Portland, Oregon in September of 1995. Contents: Section one. Underlying concepts. Scale-sensitive ecological properties: historical context, current meaning / John A. Bissonette; Applications of fractal geometry in wildlife biology / Bruce T. Mime; Taming chaos in the wild: a model-free technique for wildlife population control / David Peak; Patch dynamics: the transformation of landscape structure and function / S.T.A. Pickett and Kevin H. Rogers / Disturbance and diversity in a landscape context / Peter S. White and Jonathan Harrod; Populations in a landscape context: sources, sinks, and metapopulations / Mark E. Ritchie; Hierarchy theory: a guide to system structure for wildlife biologists / Anthony W. King -- Section 2. Landscape metrics. Neutral models: useful tools for understanding landscape patterns / S.M. Pearson and R.H. Gardner; Understanding measures of landscape pattern / C.D. Hargis, John A. Bissonette, and J.L. David -- Section three. Applications and large-scale management. The role of moose in landscape process: effects of biogeography, population dynamics, and predation / R.T. Bowyer, V. Van Ballenberghe, and J.G. Kie; A spatial view of population dynamics / Jerry L. Cooke; The importance of scale in habitat conservation for an endangered species: The Capercaillie in Central Europe / Ilse Storch; Landscape heterogeneity and ungulate dynamics: what spatial scales are inportant? / Monica G. Turner, S.M. Pearson, W.H. Romme, and L.L. Wallace; The influence of landscape scale on the management of desert bighorn sheep / Paul R. Krausman; The influence of spatial scale and scale-sensitive properties in habitat selection by American Marten / John A. Bissonette, D.J. Harrison, C.P. Hargis, and T.G. Chapin; Adaptive policy design: thinking at larger spatial scales / Carl J. Walters.]
Blann, Kristen
& Stephen S. Light. 2000. The Path of Last Resort: Adaptive
Environmental Assessment and Management (AEAM) (“Nine Heuristics of Highly
Adaptive Managers”).
Unpublished, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, University of
Minnisota. Accessed April 8, 2006,
at <http://www.adaptivemanagement.net/primer.doc>
Bormann, B.T. & P.G. Cunningham & M.H.
Brookes & V.W. Manning & M.W. Collopy. 1993. Adaptive Ecosystem
Management in the Pacific Northwest. USDA Forest Service Gen. Technical
Report PNW-GTR-341. 22 pages.
Boyle, Michelle
& James Kay & Bruce Pond.
2001. “Monitoring in
Support of Policy: an Adaptive Ecosystem Approach,” 116-137 in T. Munn (editor
in chief), Vol.4 Encylopedia of Global Environmental Change. London, John Wiley and Son.
Brooks, Harvey. 1987. "Expanding
Adaptive Management Principles (applied to environmental research and
regulation)," Environment, v29 (Jan-Feb 1987): 3(2).
Buck, Louise E. (ed.). 2001. Biological Diversity: Balancing Interests Through Adaptive Collaborative Management. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Carpenter, Stephen R. & Frances Westley &
Monica G. Turner. 2005. “Surrogates for Resilience of
Social–Ecological Systems,” Ecosystems,
v8 (2005): 941–944.
Carpentier, L.C & D.J. 1994.
"Adaptive Management and Geographic Information-System to Overcome
Informational Barriers to Pollution Reduction Trading," American
Journal of Agricultural Economics, v76n5, (Dec 1994): 1272-1272.
Clark, W.C. & D.D. Jones & Crawford S.
Holling. 1979. “Lessons for Ecological Policy Design: A Case Study of Ecosystem
Management,” Ecological Modeling, v7 (1979): 1-53.
Crossley, J.W. 1996. "Managing
Ecosystems for Integrity, Theoretical Considerations for Resource and
Environmental Managers," Society & Natural Resources,
v9n5, (Sep-Oct 1996): 465-481. [Approaches to resource and environmental management
based on outdated notions about nature and the development of complex systems
must be updated by new approaches that mix leading-edge ecosystem science and
management. New approaches should be endowed with an appropriate mix of
ecological theory, data, creativity, and flexibility in an overall framework
that emphasizes adaptability and experimentation. Guided by societal goals of
achieving (or maintaining) ecological integrity and natural resource
sustainability, a management framework based on clinical ecology-a prescriptive
scientific management regime informed by theory and empirical
generalization-may represent the type of approach needed to proceed in an
orderly fashion toward resolving many resource and environmental management
problems.] {Adaptive Management; Clinical Ecology; Ecological Integrity;
Ecosystem Development; Surprise; Framework}
Davis, S.M. & J.C. Ogden. 1994. Everglades:
The Ecosystem and Its Restoration. Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.
Duncan, Sally. 1998. “Adaptive Management:
Good Business Or Good Buzzwords?”
Science Findings, n7 (Sep 1998). Pacific Northwest Research Center. Accessed on April 8, 2006, at <http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/sciencef/scisept.pdf>
Failing, Lee,
Graham Horn & Paul Higgins. 2004.
“Using Expert Judgment and Stakeholder Values To Evaluate Adaptive
Management Options,” Ecology
and Society, v9n1 (2004): 13. Accessed on April 8, 2006, at: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art13
Folke, Carl &
Thomas Hahn & Per Olsson & Jon Norberg. 2005.
“Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems,” Annual Review of Environmental
Resources, v30 (2005):
441-73. [We explore the
social dimension that enables adaptive ecosystem-based management. The review
concentrates on experiences of adaptive governance of social ecological systems
during periods of abrupt change (crisis) and investigates social sources of
renewal and reorganization. Such governance connects individuals,
organizations, agencies, and institutions at multiple organizational
levels. Key persons provide
leadership, trust, vision, meaning, and they help transform management organizations
toward a learning environment. Adaptive governance systems often self-organize
as social networks with teams and actor groups that draw on various knowledge
systems and experiences for the development of a common understanding and
policies. The emergence of “bridging organizations” seem to lower the costs of
collaboration and conflict resolution, and enabling legislation and
governmental policies can support self-organization while framing creativity
for adaptive co-management efforts. A resilient social-ecological system may
make use of crisis as an opportunity to transform into a more desired
state.] <http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511>
or <http://edcintl.cr.usgs.gov/SEMSOC/uploads/File/Folke
et al05.pdf>
Franklin, J.F. 1994. "Adaptive
Management Areas," Journal of Forestry, v92n4, (Apr 1994):
50-50. [Editorial]
Graham, Amanda C. & Linda E. Kruger. 2002. Research In Adaptive Management: Working Relations and the Research Process. Portland, OR: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. <http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS24745>
Grumbine, R.E. 1997. "Reflections On
What Is Ecosystem Management," Conservation Biology, v11n1,
(Feb 1997): 41-47. [Reviews 10 dominant
themes of ecosystem management described in the paper ''What is Ecosystem
Management?'' (Grumbine 1994a) based on feedback received from managers
actively implementing ecosystem management projects in the field. Emphasis is
on practical advice from working professionals for working professionals. Key
points include the importance of managing for ecological integrity, the need
for social as well as scientific data, suggestions for implementing cooperation
strategies and conservation partnerships, a pragmatic definition of adaptive
management and first steps toward changing the structure of natural resource
organizations As ecosystem management evolves, the pressure for change within
traditional resource management agencies appears to be reaching a critical
point] {Policy}
Gunderson, L. H. & C. S. Holling & S. S.
Light (eds.). 1994. Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and
Institutions. New York: Columbia University Press.
Halbert, C.L. 1993. “How Adaptive is Adaptive
Management? Implementing Adaptive Management in Washington State and British
Columbia,”. Reviews in Fisheries Science, v1n3 (1993): 261-283.
Halpin, P.N. 1997. "Global Climate-Change and
Natural-Area Protection, Management Responses and Research Directions,"
Ecological Applications, v7n3, (Aug 1997): 828-843. [Simulation studies of expected changes in species
ranges and changes in ecosystem dynamics have indicated that rapidly changing
climatic conditions could significantly thwart natural-area protection efforts
at a global scale. Prescriptive policy and management responses include general
guidelines for selecting new protected habitats, preemptive actions such as the
development of connective corridor systems between protected areas, and active
habitat management interventions. But the suggested responses are only vaguely
defined and must now be rigorously assessed with focused and practical
ecological analysis. ]
Haney, A. & R.L. Power. 1996.
"Adaptive Management for Sound Ecosystem Management," Environmental
Management, v20n6, (Nov-Dec 1996): 879-886. [Sound ecosystem
management meshes socioeconomic attitudes and values with sustainable natural
resource practices. This paper reviews the process of adaptive management and
describes how it is being applied to oak/pine savanna restoration at Necedah
National Wildlife Refuge as an illustration to help managers design their own
adaptive management models for successful ecosystem management.] {Adaptive
Management; Ecosystem Management; Monitoring; Restoration; Savanna;
Perturbations}
Hennessey, T.M. 1994. "Governance and
Adaptive Management for Estuarine Ecosystems: The Case of Chesapeake Bay,"
Coastal Management, v2n2, (Apr-Jun 1994): 119-145. [The governance system of the Chesapeake Bay Program
operates according to adaptive management principles which evolved over a 16
year period. During this time, the Program developed a learning, adaptive
capacity whereby program elements and institutional structures underwent
significant changes in light of new information, growing from a rudimentary
management structure to the current program, which uses a sophisticated set of
baywide indicators of ecosystem health and is governed by an institutional
structure that coordinates management activities across federal, state, and
local governments around the bay in order to implement 29 specific programs in
six major policy areas. Underscores the difficulty of operationalizing the
concept of ecosystem management and the necessity of relying on surrogates to
evaluate progress in ecosystem restoration and protection.]
Hilborn, R. & C.J. Walters & B. Ludwig.
1995. "Sustainable Exploitation of Renewable Resources,"
Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, v26, (1995): 45-67. [Sustainable yields may be estimated by direct
experimentation, by the observation of natural systems, or by deduction from
biological understanding. For large-scale unique resources, the only way to
determine the response of the population to harvesting is by direct
exploitation. Information on sustainability collected in the past may have limited
applicability in the future. The unregulated dynamic of exploiters is to push
the resources to overexploitation, and even when regulated, exploiters have
been very successful at modifying their behavior so that regulations are less
effective than anticipated. The most successful institutions at maintaining
sustainability have been small-scale community or private ownership.]
{Sustainable Yield; Harvesting; Resource Management; Optimal Exploitation;
Adaptive Management; Benguela-Ecology-Program; Fisheries Management;
Ecosystems; Uncertainty; Stocks; Conservation; Evolution; Systems; Stress;
Fish}
Hilborn, R. & C.S. Holling & C.J. Walters.
1980. Managing the Unknown: Approaches to Ecological Policy Design.
****: American Institute of Biological Science.
Hilborn, R. & M. Ledbetter. 1979. “Analysis of
the British Columbia Salmon Purse-Seine Fleet: Dynamics of Movement,” Journal
of Fisheries Research, v36n4 (1979): 384-391.
Holling, C. S. (ed.). 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. Laxenburg, Austria: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis; Chichester; New York: Wiley. sponsored by the United Nations Environmental Program. [Developed at the Workshop on Adaptive Assessment of Ecological Policies, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, 1977.]
Holling, Crawford S. & A.D. Chambers. 1973.
“Resource Science: The Nurture of an Infant,” Bioscience, v23n1 (1973):
13-20.
Holling, Crawford S. & D.D. Jones & W.C.
Clark. 1979. “Ecological Policy Design: A Case Study of Forest and Pest
Management,” in: Pest Management, G.A. Norton and C.S. Holling (eds.).
Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Holling, Crawford S. & S. Bocking. 1990.
“Surprise and Opportunity: in Evolution, in Ecosystems, in Society,” in: Planet
Under Stress, C. Mungall & D.J. McLaren (eds.). Toronto: Oxford
University Press.
Holling, Crawford S. (ed.). 1980. Adaptive
Environmental Assessment and Management. Vol.3 International Series on
Applied Systems Analysis. Toronto: John Wiley & Sons. [Examples of potential impacts of climate change on
global nature-reserve systems, the composition of landscape boundaries of
natural ecosystems, and latitudinal differences illustrate the complexity of
potential habitat changes. Direct extrapolation of observed species distributions
in relation to present climate as a means for projecting future responses is
inappropriate; such projections must include consideration of physiological
tolerances, competition, and dispersal mechanisms. Understanding local
disturbance regimes is fundamental to understanding changes in ecosystem
properties and stability. How landscape fragmentation interacts with
population mobility and dynamics must be defined in order to better characterize ecosystem
controls.] {Adaptive Management; Climate Change; Global Climate Change;
Landscape Fragmentation vs Climate Change; Natural-Area Protection and
Biodiversity Maintenance; Natural-Area Protection, Climate-Change Effects On;
Nature Reserves, Viability and Climate Change; Biological Diversity;
Vegetation; Model; Landscapes; Reserves}
Holling, Crawford S. 1973. “Resilience and
Stability of Ecological Systems,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics,
v4 (1973): 1-23.
Holling, Crawford S. 1978. “Myths of Ecological
Stability: Resilience and the Problem of Failure,” in: Studies in Crisis
Management, C.F. Smart & W.T. Stanbury (ed.). Montreal: Butterworth
& Co.
Holling, Crawford S. 1980. “Adapting to
Uncertainty in an Unforgiving Society,” The Lindbergh Lecture Series in
Ecology (1980): (19)
Holling, Crawford S. 1980. “Forest Insects, Forest
Fires and Resilience,” in: Fire Regimes and Ecosystem Properties, H.
Mooney & J.M. Bonnicksen & N.L. Christensen & J.E. Lotan & W.A.
Reiners (eds.). USDA Forest Service General Technical Report.
Holling, Crawford S. 1981. Highlights of
Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. R-23. Institute of
Resource Ecology.
Holling, Crawford S. 1982. “Predicting the
Unpredictable. Is It Possible to Identify the Variables that Trigger Surprise
and Change?” UNESCO Courier, (1982):60-62.
Holling, Crawford S. 1986. “The Resilience of
Ecosystems; Local Surprise and Global Change.” in: Sustainable Development
of the Biosphere, W.C. Clark & R.E. Munn, ed. Cambridge University
Press,Cambridge.
Holling, Crawford S. 1987. “Simplifying the
Complex; The Paradigms of Ecological Function and Structure,” European
Journal of Operational Research, v30 (1987): 139-146.
Holling, Crawford S. 1989. “Integrating Science
for Sustainable Development,” Journal of Business Administration, v19 n1
& 2 (1989): 73-83.
Holling, Crawford S. 1992. “Cross-scale
Morphology, Geometry and Dynamics of Ecosystems,” Ecological Monographs,
v62n4) (1992): 447-502.
Holling, Crawford S. 1993. “Investing in Research
for Sustainability,” Ecological Applications, v3n4 (1994): 552-555.
Holling, Crawford S. 1994. “New Science and New
Investments for a Sustainable Biosphere,” in: Investing in Natural Capital,
A. M. Jansson, M. Hammer, C. Folke and R. Costanza (eds.). WAsington, DC:
Island Press.
Holling, Crawford S. 1994. “What Barriers? What
Bridges?” in: Barriers and Bridges in Renewing Ecosystems and Institutions,
L.H. Gunderson, C.S. Holling and S.S. Light (eds). New York: Columbia University
Press.
Holling, Crawford S.& Lance H. Gunderson &
Carl J. Walters. 1994. “The Structure and Dynamics of the Everglades System:
Guidelines for Ecosystem Restoration,”. in: S. Davis & J. Ogden, (eds.), Everglades:
The Ecosystem and Its Restoration, Delray Beach: St. Lucie Press.
Holling, Crawford S., G.B. Dantizig & C.
Winkler. 1986. “Determining Optimal Policies for Ecosystems,” Systems
Analysis in Forestry and Forest Industries, v21 (1986):453-473.
Jensen, Mark E. & Patrick S. Bourgeron (eds.). 2001. A Guidebook for Integrated Ecological Assessments. New York: Springer. [Contents: An overview of ecological assessment principles and applications / Mark E. Jensen, Norman L. Christensen, Jr., Patrick S. Bourgeron -- A theoretical framework for ecological assessment / S.J. Turner, Alan R. Johnson -- Ecosystem characterization and ecological assessments / Patrick S. Bourgeron, Hope C. Humphries, Mark E. Jensen -- Adaptive ecosystem assessment and management: the path of last resort? / S.S. Light -- Data acquisition / Thomas J. Stohlgren -- Sampling design and statistical inference for ecological assessment / Brian M. Steele -- General data collection and sampling design considerations for integrated regional ecological assessments / Patrick S. Bourgeron, Hope C. Humphries, Mark E. Jensen -- Ecological data storage, management, and dissemination / Ray Ford -- Integration of physical, biological, and socioeconomic information / D. Scott Slocombe -- Remote sensing applied to ecosystem management / Henry M. Lachowski, Vicky C. Johnson -- Geographic information science and ecological assessment / Janet Franklin -- Decision support for ecosystem management and ecological assessments / H. Michael Rauscher, Walter D. Potter -- Elements of spatial data analysis in ecological assessments / Patrick S. Bourgeron, Marie-Jos*e Fortin, Hope C. Humphries -- Applications of fractal geometry and percolation theory to landscape analysis and assessments / Bai-Lian Li -- Fuzzy statistical and modeling approach to ecological assessments / Bai-Lian Li -- Measuring ecosystem values / Kimberly Rollins -- Economic linkages to natural resources / Daniel E. Chappelle -- Ecosystem structure and function modeling / Hope C. Humphries, Jill Baron -- Methods for determining historical range of variability / Hope C. Humphries, Patrick S. Bourgeron-- Representativeness assessments / Patrick S. Bourgeron, Hope C. Humphries, Mark E. Jensen -- Methods of economic impact analysis / Daniel E. Chappelle -- Elements of ecological land classifications for ecological assessments / Patrick S. Bourgeron, Hope C. Humphries, Mark E. Jensen -- Dynamic terrestrial ecosystem patterns and processes / Stephanie P. Wilds, Peter S. White -- Ecological classification and mapping of aquatic systems / Mark E. Jensen, Iris A. Goodman, Christopher A. Frissell, C. Kenneth Brewer, Patrick S. Bourgeron -- Geomorphic patterns, processes, and perspectives in aquatic assessment / Michael Hurley, Mark E. Jensen -- Assessment of biotic patterns in freshwater ecosystems / Christopher A. Frissell, N. Leroy Poff, Mark E. Jensen -- Characterizing the human imprint on landscapes for ecological assessment / Daniel G. Brown -- Assessing human processes in society: environment interactions / David J. Campbell -- Mapping patterns of human use and potential resource conflicts on public lands / James V. Schumacher, Roland L. Redmond, Melissa M. Hart, Mark E. Jensen -- The great lakes ecological assessment / David T. Cleland, Larry A. Leefers, J. Michael Vasievich, Thomas R. Crow, Eunice A. Padley -- Upper Mississippi River adaptive environmental assessment / S.S. Light -- Southern Appalachian case study / Charles Van Sickle -- Northern forest lands case study / Charles A. Levesque -- Interior Columbia basin ecosystem management project / Russell T. Graham -- Ecological assessments and implementing ecosystem management: challenges, opportunities, and the road ahead / Rick Haeuber.]
Johnson, Barry L. 1999a.
“Introduction To the Special Feature: Adaptive Management -
Scientifically Sound, Socially Challenged?” Conservation Ecology, v3n1 (1999): 10. Accessed on
April 9, 2006, at: http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss1/art10/
Johnson, Barry L. 1999b. “The
Role of Adaptive Management As An Operational Approach for Resource Management
Agencies,” Conservation Ecology,
v3n2 (1999): 8. Accessed on April 9, 2006, at: http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss2/art8/
Kagan, Robert A. 1997. "Political and Legal Obstacles To Collaborative Ecosystem Planning," (Symposium: The Ecosystem Approach; New Departures for Land and Water) Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, v52n4 (July-August 1997): 226(5).
Kay, James & Eric D. Schneider. 1994. "Embracing Complexity: The Challenge of the Ecosystem Approach," Alternatives, v20n3 (1994): 32- 38.
Kay, James &
Henry A. Regier & Michelle Boyle & George Francis. 1999. "An Ecosystem Approach for Sustainability: Addressing
the Challenge of Complexity," (Special Issue: Post-Normal Science), Futures, v31n7 (Sept 1999):
721(2).
Keeney, R.L. 1982. “Decision Analysis: An
Overview,” Operations Research, v30 (1982): 803-838.
Kessler, W.B. & H. Salwasser & C.W.
Cartwright & J.A. 1992. "New Perspectives for Sustainable
Natural-Resources Management," Ecological Applications,
v2n3, (Aug 1992): 221-225. [The
USDA Forest Service is taking a new direction in its research and management
programs in response to changing views of land and natural resources. The
changes reflect the complexity of society's concerns and expectations for
national forest management, including biological diversity, ecological function
and balance, product yields, social values, and the beauty and integrity of
natural environments. The new direction involves a shift in management focus
from sustaining yields of competing resource outputs to sustaining ecosystems.
More than ever, management of public lands and resources requires knowledge
about ecosystems, including relationships to human values, activities, and
patterns of resource use. Also required are new roles for scientists, including
closer partnerships with managers to achieve large-scale studies and adaptive
management of public lands and resources] {Conservation}
Kline, P.& B. Saunders. 1996. 10 Steps to a
Learning Organization. ****: Pfeiffer and Co., Prentice Hall.
Kofman, Fred & Peter M. Senge. 1993.
“Communities of Commitment: The Heart of Learning Organizations,” Organizational
Dynamics, v22n2 (Autumn 1993): 5-23.
Lee, B.J. & H.A. Regier & D.J. Rapport.
1982. “Ten Ecosystem Approaches to the Planning and Management of the Great
Lakes,” Journal of Great Lakes Research, v8n3 (1982): 505-519.
Lee, Kai N. & J. Lawrence. 1986a. “Adaptive
Management: Learning from the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program,” Environmental
Law, v16 (1986): 431-460.,
Lee, Kai N. & J. Lawrence. 1986b. “Restoration
Under the Northwest Power Act,” Environmental Law, v16 (1986): ****.
Lee, Kai N. 1989. “Columbia River Basin:
Experimenting with Sustainability,” Environment, v31n6 (1989):7-11,
30-33.
Lee, Kai N. 1991. “Rebuilding Confidence: Salmon,
Science, and Law in the Columbia Basin,” Environmental Law, v21 (1991)
745-805.
Lee, Kai N. 1993. Compass and Gyroscope:
Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment. Washington, DC:
Island Press.
Lee, Kai N. 1999. “Appraising Adaptive Management,” Conservation Ecology, v3n2 (1999): 3. Accessed on April 9, 2006, at: http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss2/art3/
Ludwig, Donald & Carl J. Walters. 1981.
“Measurement Errors and Uncertainty in Parameter Estimates for Stock and
Recruitment,” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, v38n6
1993): 711-720.
Ludwig, Donald & Ray Hilborn & Carl J.
Walters. 1993. “Uncertainty, Resource Exploitation, and Conservation: Lessons
from History, Science, v260 17 & 36.
McAllister, M.K. & R.M. Peterman, & D.M.
Gillis. 1992. “Statistical Evaluation of a Large-Scale Fishing Experiment
Designed to Test for a Genetic Effect of Size-Selective Fishing on British
Columbia Pink Salmon ( Oncorhynchus gorbuscha),” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences, v49n7 (1992): 1294-1304.
McAllister, M.K. & R.M. Peterman. 1992.
“Decision Analysis of a Large-scale Fishing Experiment Designed to Test for a
Genetic Effect of Size-selective Fishing on British Columbia Pink Salmon ( Oncorhynchus
gorbuscha ), Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, v49n7 (1992): 1305-1314.
McAllister, M.K. & R.M. Peterman. 1992.
“Experimental Design in the Management of Fisheries: A Review,” North
American Journal of Fisheries Management, v12 (1992): 1-18.
McLain. Rebecca J. & Robert G. Lee. 1996.
"Adaptive Management: Promises and Pitfalls," Environmental
Management, v20n4, (Jul-Aug 1996): 437-448. [Proponents of the scientific adaptive management
approach argue that it increases knowledge acquisition rates, enhances
information flow among policy actors, and provides opportunities for creating
shared understandings. However, evidence from efforts to implement the approach
in New Brunswick, British Columbia, Canada, and the Columbia River Basin
indicates that these promises have not been met. The data show that scientific
adaptive management relies excessively on the use of linear systems models,
discounts nonscientific forms of knowledge, and pays inadequate attention to
policy processes that promote the development of shared understandings among
diverse stakeholders. To be effective, new adaptive management efforts will
need to incorporate knowledge from multiple sources, make use of multiple
systems models, and support new forms of cooperation among stakeholders.]
{Adaptive Management; Landscape Management; Social Learning; Natural Resource
Policy; Policy Implementation; Systems Modeling; Salmon Management; Skeena
River}
Meffe, Gary K. (ed.). 2002. Ecosystem Management: Adaptive, Community-Based Conservation. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Moir, W. H. & W. M. Block. 2001. “Adaptive Management on Public Lands in the United States:
Commitment or Rhetoric?” Environmental
Management, v28n2 (2001): 141-148. [Adaptive management (AM is the
process of implementing land management activities in incremental steps and
evaluating whether desired outcomes are being achieved at each step. If
conditions deviate substantially from predictions, management activities are
adjusted to achieve the desired outcomes. Thus, AM is a kind of monitoring, an
activity that land management agencies have done poorly for the most part, at
least with respect to ground-based monitoring. Will they do better in the
future? We doubt it unless costs, personnel, and future commitment are
seriously addressed. Because ecosystem responses to management impacts can
ripple into the distant future, monitoring programs that address only the near
future (e.g.. 10-20 years), are probably unreliable for making statements about
resource conditions in the distant future. We give examples of this. Feedback
loops between ecosystem response and adjustment of management actions are often
broken, and therefore AM again fails. Successful ground-based monitoring must
address these and other points that agencies commonly ignore. As part of the
solution, publics distrustful of agency activities should be included in any
monitoring program.]
Morrison, M.L. & B.G. Marcot & R.W.
Mannan. 1997. Wildlife Habitat Relationships: Concepts and Applications.
Second edition. Madison, WI: Univ. of Wisconsin Press, Madison WI.
Norton, Bryan G. 1996. "Moral
Naturalism and Adaptive Management," Hastings Center Report,
v26n6, (Nov-Dec 1996): 24-26.
Norton, Bryan
G. 2005. Sustainability: A Philosophy of Adaptive Ecosystem
Management. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Olsson, Per &
Carl Folke & Fikret Berkes.
Undated. Adaptive Co-Management
For Building Resilience In Social-Ecological Systems. Accessed on April 8, 2006, at: <http://www.beijer.kva.se/publications/pdf-archive/Disc175.pdf>
Oglethorpe, James (ed.). 2002. Adaptive Management: From Theory To Practice. Gland, Switzerland: Cambridge: IUCN, World Conservation Union. [(SUI technical series; v. 3) Contents: Foreward / Stephen R. Edwards -- Tropenbos' experience with adaptive management in Cameroon / Guillaume Lescuyer -- GIS-assisted joint learning: a strategy in adaptive management of natural resources / Rhodora M. Gonzalez -- Culture and cosmovision: roots of farmers' natural resource management / Irene Dankelman -- Decision-making in local forest management: pluralism, equity, and consensus / Jon Anderson -- Plural perspectives and institutional dynamics: challenges for community forestry / Melissa Leach -- Participatory processes and conflict management in community forestry / Katherine Warner -- Adaptive management: potential and limitations for ecological governance of forests in a context of normative pluriformity / Janice Jiggins and Niels R*oling -- Adaptive management: a learning-approach to decision-making in forestry / K.R. Wiersum and R.J. de Hoogh -- Role of communities in adaptive management: a case from North America / Cecilia Danks -- Ruta Condor: an indigenous-led cooperative model for conserving culture, nature, and agrobiodiversity in the South American Andes / Alejandro Argumendo and Katy Mamen -- Appropriate social units of analysis in the CAMPFIRE programme in Zimbabwe / Bev Sithole and P.G.H. Frost -- Transboundary protected areas and adaptive management / Arun Agrawal -- Ecoregion scale conservation: planning, joint learning, and action / Gordon H. Orians -- The landscape kaleidoscope: the conundrum of protected areas and adaptive management in the context of climate change / Peter Bridgewater.]
Prato, Tony.
2005. “Accounting for
Uncertainty in Making Species Protection Decisions,” Conservation Biology,
v19n3 (Jun 2005): 806-814. [Uncertainty gives rise to two decision errors in implementing the U.S.
Endangered Species Act: listing species that are not in danger of extinction
and delisting species that are in danger of extinction. I evaluated four
methods (minimum standard, precautionary principle, minimax regret criterion,
adaptive management) for deciding whether to list or delist a species when
there is uncertainty about how those decisions are likely to influence survival
of the species. A safe minimum standard criterion preserves some minimum amount
or safe standard (population) of a species unless maintaining that amount
generates unacceptable social cost. The precautionary principle favors not
delisting a species when there is insufficient evidence on the efficacy of
state management plans for protecting them. A minimax regret criterion selects
the delisting decision that minimizes the maximum loss likely to occur under
alternative ecosystem states. When the cost of making a correct decision is
less than the cost of making an incorrect decision, the minimax regret criteria
indicates that delisting is the optimal decision. Active adaptive management
employs statistically valid experiments to test hypotheses about the likely
impacts of delisting decisions. Safe minimum standard and minimax regret
criterion are not compatible with the U.S. Endangered Species Act. The
precautionary principle comes closest to describing how federal agencies make
delisting decisions. Active adaptive management is scientifically superior to
the other methods but is costly and time consuming and may not be compatible
with the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act.]
Roe, Emory. 1996. "Why Ecosystem
Management Can't Work Without Social-Science: An Example from the California
Northern Spotted Owl Controversy," E nvironmental Management,
v20n5 (Sep-Oct 1996): 667-674. [It is
increasingly obvious that social science, while not a sufficient condition for
making ecosystem management effective, is a necessary condition. A social
science typology of ecosystems is developed, applied, and shown to have
substantial and unexpected implications for the practice of ecosystem
management. Ecologists and environmental scientists, in particular, will find
some conclusions uncomfortable. The application involves a case material from
the California northern spotted owl controversy.] {Ecosystem Management; Social
Science; Adaptive Management; Top-Down versus Bottom-Up Planning; Outside-In
Versus Inside-Out Planning}
Roling, Niels G. & M.A.E. Wagemakers (eds.). 1998. Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture: Particpatory
Learning and Adaptive Management In Times of Environmental Uncertainty. Cambridge, U.K; New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Schneider, S.H. & T.L. Root. 1996.
"Ecological Implications of Climate-Change Will Include
Surprises," Biodiversity and Conservation, v5n9 (Sep 1996):
1109-1119. [More consideration is needed to
estimate extreme events or 'surprises' at the intersection of disciplines like
climate and ecology because of the high potential for large discontinuitie,
given all the possible climate/biota interactions. The vast disparities in
scales encountered by those working in traditional ecology (typically 20 m) and
climatology (typically 200 km) make diagnoses of such interactions difficult,
but these can be addressed by an emerging research paradigm we call strategic
cyclical scaling (SCS). The effectiveness of adaptation responses to anticipated climatic
changes is complicated when consideration of transient changes, regional
disturbances, large unforseeable natural fluctuations and surprises are
considered. Slowing down the rate of disturbances and decreasing vulnerability
are advocated as the most prudent responses to the prospect of human-induced
climatic changes.] {Climatic Change; Ecological Change; Global Change;
Climate-Ecology Interactions; Surprises; Synergisms; Scale; CO2}
Schreiber, E.
Sabine G. & Andrew R. Bearlin & Simon J. Nicol & Charles R.
Todd. 2004. “Adaptive Management: A Synthesis of
Current Understanding and Effective Application,” Ecological Management & Restoration, v5n3 (Dec
2004): 177-182. [Adaptive management (AM) remains a commonly cited,
yet frequently misunderstood, management approach. The aim of AM is to improve
environmental management through 'learning by doing' and understand the impact
of incomplete knowledge, but AM more commonly consists of ad hoc changes in
managing environmental resources in the absence of adequate planning and
monitoring. Here, we trace and review the development of AM, the central roles
of consultation, collaboration and of monitoring, and of quantitative models
and simulations. We identify a series of formalized, structured steps included
in one AM cycle and review how current AM programs build upon such cycles. We
conclude that the best AM outcomes require rigorous and formalized approaches
to planning, collaboration, modelling and evaluation. Finally, simulating
potential outcomes of an AM cycle in the presence of existing uncertainty can
help to identify management strategies that are most likely to succeed in
relation to clearly articulated goals.]
Senge, P.M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art
and Science of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday.
Shindler, Broce & B. Steel & P. List.
1996. "Public Judgments of Adaptive Management: A Response from
Forest Communities," Journal of Forestry, v94n6 (Jun 1996):
4-12.
Shindler, Bruce
& K. Aldred Cheek. 1999. “Integrating Citizens In Adaptive Management:
A Propositional Analysis,” Conservation
Ecology, v3n1(1999): 9. Accessed on April 9, 2006, at: http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss1/art9/
Shindler, Bruce
& Kristin A. Cheek & George H. Stankey. 1999. Monitoring
and Evaluating Citizen-Agency Interactions: A Framework Developed for Adaptive
Management. Portland, OR: U.S.
Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Smith, A.D.M. & C.J. Walters. 1981. “Adaptive Management
of Stock Recruitment Systems,” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Science, v38 (1981): 690-703.
Smythe, K.D. & J.C. Bernabo & T.B. Carter
& P.R. Jutro. 1996. "Focusing Biodiversity Research on the Needs
of Decision-Makers," Environmental Management, v20n6,
(Nov-Dec 1996): 865-872. [As
part of the project on Biodiversity Uncertainties and Research Needs (BURN)
decision makers articulated concerns related to four issues: significance of
biodiversity; status and trends of biodiversity; management for biodiversity;
and the linkage of social, cultural, economic, legal, and biological
objectives. Scientists then identified several fundamental issues: research and
assessment efforts should be: multidisciplinary and integrative, participatory
with stakeholder involvement, hierarchical (multiple scales), and problem- and
region-specific. They recommended six priority research areas: (1)
characterization of biodiversity, (2) environmental valuation, (3) management
for sustainability - for humans and the environment (adaptive management), (4) information
management strategies, (5) governance and stewardship issues, and (6)
communication and outreach.] {Biodiversity; Ecosystem Management; Ecological
Stewardship; Sustainable Development; Assessment}
Sonntag, N. C. 1987. Policy Excercises: An
Approach to Developing Policy on the Effects of Climate Warming in Canada.*****.
Thom, R.M. 1997. "System-Development
Matrix for Adaptive Management of Coastal Ecosystem Restoration Projects,"
Ecological Engineering, v8n3 (Jul 1997): 219-232. [The principles of adaptive management are applied to
coastal ecosystem restoration to improve the ability to assess performance and
make informed decisions on how to improve performance. The method uses a system-development
matrix which defines development in terms of structure and function, but can
accommodate other performance and development characteristics. Phrases in the
matrix provide plausible explanations for the condition of the system and point
toward possible actions to be taken. The matrix is applied using examples from
community development on dredged material, a seagrass system and tidal marsh
system.] {Adaptive Management; Restoration; Wetlands; Estuary; Coastal
Habitats; Marine Monitoring; Restored Estuarine Wetland; Juvenile Salmon;
Disturbance}
Volkman, John M. & Willis E. McConnaha. 1993.
"Through a Glass, Darkly: Columbia River Salmon, the Endangered
Species Act, and Adaptive Management," Environmental Law,
v23n4 (Summer 1993): 1249-1272. [Since
1984, the Northwest Power Planning Council has sought to incorporate the
principle of adaptive management in fish and wildlife recovery in the Columbia
River Basin. Adaptive management is the principle that environmental
restoration initiatives--in this case fish and wildlife recovery measures--may
be designed as experiments to help resolve key uncertainties about the
interaction of humans and the ecosystem, and lead to better restoration
programs. This Essay describes the Council's experience with adaptive
management, and some of the challenges to it that are posed by the listing of
Snake River salmon populations under the Endangered Species Act.] {Northwest
Power Planning Council, Management; Environmental policy, Technique; Endangered
species, Laws, regulations, etc.}
Walters, C. & V. Christensen & D. Pauly.
1997. "Structuring Dynamic-Models of Exploited Ecosystems from
Trophic Mass-Balance Assessments," Reviews In Fish Biology And
Fisheries, v7n2 (Jun 1997): 139-172. [The linear equations that describe trophic fluxes in
mass-balance, equilibrium assessments of ecosystems (such as in the ECOPATH
approach) can be re-expressed as differential equations defining trophic
interactions as dynamic relationships varying with biomasses and harvest
regimes. Time patterns of biomass predicted by these differential equations,
and equilibrium system responses under different exploitation regimes, are
found by setting the differential equations equal to zero and solving for
biomasses at different levels of fishing mortality. Incorporation of our
approach as the ECOSIM routine into the well-documented ECOPATH software will
enable a wide range of potential users to conduct fisheries policy analyses
that explicitly account for ecosystem trophic interactions, without requiring
the users to engage in complex modelling or information gathering much beyond
that required for ECOPATH. While the ECOSIM predictions can be expected to fail
under fishing regimes very different from those leading, to the ECOPATH input
data, ECOSIM will at least indicate likely directions of biomass change in
various trophic groups under incremental experimental policies aimed at
improving overall ecosystem management. That is, ECOSIM can be a valuable tool
for design of ecosystem-scale adaptive management experiments]
{Lates-Niloticus; Nile Perch; Bottom-Up; Top-Down; Predation; Fisheries; Fish;
Quantification; Strategies; Population}
Walters, C. J. & B. Ridell. 1986. “Multiple
Objectives in Salmon Management: The Chinook Sport Fishery in the Strait of
Georgia, B.C.,” The Northwest Environmental Journal, v2n1 (1986): 1-15.
Walters, C. J. & P. Cahoon. 1985. “Evidence of
Decreasing Spatial Diversity in British Columbia Salmon Stocks,” Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, v42n5 (1985): 1033-1037.
Walters, Carl J. & Crawford S. Holling. 1984.
“Resilience and Adaptability In Ecological Management Systems: Why Do Policy
Models Fail?” International Series on Applied Systems Analysis, v13
(1984): ****
Walters, Carl J. & Crawford S. Holling. 1990.
“Large-scale Management Experiments and Learning by Doing,” Ecology,
v71n6 (1990): 2060-2068.
Walters, Carl J. & D. Ludwig. 1981. “Effects
of Measurement Errors and Uncertainty in Parameter Estimates for Stock and
Recruitment,” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, v38n6
(1981): 704-710.
Walters, Carl J. & L.H. Gunderson &
Crawford S. Holling. 1992. “Experimental Policies for Water Management in the
Everglades,” Ecological Applications, v2n2 (1992): 189-202.
Walters, Carl J. & L.H. Gunderson. 1994.
“Screening Water Policies for Ecological Restoration,”. in: Everglades: The
Ecosystem and Its Restoration, S.M. Davis and J.C. Ogden (eds.) Delray
Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.
Walters, Carl J. & R. Hilborn. 1978. “Ecological
Optimization and Adaptive Management,” Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics, v9 (1978):157-188.
Walters, Carl J. & R. Hillborn. 1976.
“Adaptive Control of Fishing Systems,” Journal of Fisheries Research Board
of Canada, v33 (1976): 145-159.
Walters, Carl J. 1981. “Optimum Escapements In the
Face of Alternative Recruitment Hypotheses,” Canadian Journal of Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences, v38n6 (1981): 678-689.
Walters, Carl J. 1986. Adaptive Management of
Renewable Resources. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Walters, Carl J. 1993. “Dynamic Models and Large
Scale Field Experiments In Environmental Impact Assessment and Management,” Australian
Journal of Ecology, v18 (1993): 53-61.
Walters, Carl J. 1995. Adaptive Policy Design
for Forest Management in British Columbia. Vancouver, B.C. : Fisheries
Centre, University of B.C.
Waltner-Toews, David & James Kay
& Tamsyn P. Murray & Cynthia Neudoerffer. 2004. “Adaptive
Methodology for Ecosystem Sustainability and Health (AMESH): An Introduction,”
in: Gerald Midgley & Alejandro E. Ochoa-Arias (eds.), Community
Operational Research: Systems Thinking for Community Development. New York:
Kluwer / Plenum Press.
Waltner-Toews,
David & James Kay. 2005. “The Evolution of An Ecosystem
Approach: The Diamond Schematic and An Adaptive Methodology for Ecosystem
Sustainability and Health,” Ecology
and Society, v10n1 (2005): 38.
<http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art38/>
Wilhere, George
F. 2002. “Adaptive Management in Habitat Conservation Plans,” Conservation Biology, v16n1 (Feb
2002): 20-29. [Habitat conservation plans ( HCPs) allow incidental
take of threatened or endangered species in exchange for conservation measures
that minimize and mitigate such taking. Habitat conservation plans entail a
compromise between regulatory certainty and scientific uncertainty. This
compromise is controversial because many HCPs are thought to inadequately
address scientific uncertainty. Adaptive management is the systematic
acquisition and application of reliable information to improve natural resource
management over time. Ideally, under adaptive management, conservation
strategies are implemented as a deliberate experiment. This approach can
establish cause-and-effect relationships and point the way toward optimal
strategies. Adaptive management has been promoted as essential to management
under uncertainty, but few HCPs incorporate genuine adaptive management.
Habitat conservation plans will continue to lack adaptive management until
certain conditions are met, such as acknowledgment that an HCP is a management
hypothesis, landowner interest in improving biological outcomes, and sufficient
financial resources. Economic incentives would encourage adaptive management in
HCPs. Habitat conservation plan permittees might receive direct payments or tax
deductions for reliable information that benefits a species. "Mitigation
credits" could be awarded for information produced through adaptive
management. In effect, habitat would be exchanged for information that benefits
a species. Successful use of mitigation credits would depend on correctly
valuing information and enforcement of the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Under a
"precautionary polluter pays principle," an HCP permittee would put
up an environmental assurance bond. Portions of the bond are returned with
interest as adaptive management demonstrates that environmental damages are
unlikely to occur. Funds spent on adaptive management are funds unavailable for
habitat protection, so limited financial resources may force a compromise
between protecting habitat and acquiring knowledge.]
Williams, Byron
K. 2001. “Uncertainty, Learning, and the Optimal Management of
Wildlife,” Environmental and
Ecological Statistics, v8n3 (Sep 2001): 269-288. [Wildlife management
is limited by uncontrolled and often unrecognized environmental variation, by
limited capabilities to observe and control animal populations, and by a lack
of understanding about the biological processes driving population dynamics. In
this paper I describe a comprehensive framework for management that includes
multiple models and likelihood values to account for structural uncertainty,
along with stochastic factors to account for environmental variation, random
sampling, and partial controllability. Adaptive optimization is developed in
terms of the optimal control of incompletely understood populations, with the
expected value of perfect information measuring the potential for improving
control through learning. The framework for optimal adaptive control is
generalized by including partial observability and non-adaptive, sample-based
updating of model likelihoods. Passive adaptive management is derived as a
special case of constrained adaptive optimization, representing a potentially
efficient suboptimal alternative that nonetheless accounts for structural
uncertainty.]
Zedler, Joy B. & Bruce Nyden. 1995.
"Innovative Management of California Wetlands," Forum
for Applied Research and Public Policy, v10n2 (Summer 1995): 93(5). [Adaptive management and restoration techniques are
required to manage California wetlands as the offer a mechanism for modifying
techniques and original plans as projects evolve. Adaptive techniques involve
plotting a management strategy before knowing, with certainty, whether these
will give the desired results. Thus it leaves room for innovation and better
response to unanticipated problems. Adaptive management techniques are now
being used in coastal restoration projects in the San Diego, California, area.
Work has started in San Dieguito Lagoon, Famosa Slough and Sweetwater Marsh.]