|
|
 |
Recent Trends in Ecosystem Management Problem Statement Background on Previous Ecosystem Management Master's Projects Summary of Ecosystem Management Literature Project Goals Methodology Since the early 1990s, ecosystem management (EM) has emerged as a new paradigm for sustainable land use and conservation. Increased frustration with existing resource management approaches, improved scientific understanding of ecosystem function, and heightened demands for meaningful public involvement have fueled the gradual shift from land management strategies focused on the exploitation of one or more resources. EM recognizes that ecosystem-based decisions do not rest solely on the physical elements of a management area. Before decisions are made, social, economic, and political influences are integrated with ecological information based on the entire ecosystem. Ecosystem management is often viewed as an adaptive approach to management, with strategies and practices changing to reflect new information and the changing ecological, economic, and social aspects of the ecosystem. Proponents of ecosystem management, coming from a tradition of resource consumption or preservation, or anywhere in between, have supported the basic idea that managing resources from an ecosystem-based approach is more efficient and sustainable than management at the parcel level, focusing on ecological or economic factors alone. Environmentalists, industry representatives, private landowners, and federal, state, and local government agencies have forged partnerships and plans for ecosystem management projects across the United States. Although there is not consensus on the exact definition of ecosystem management, many will profess to use it as an approach to land-use management, sustainable resource extraction, or conservation planning. The debate over the definition of ecosystem management should not divert attention from the fact that hundreds of ecosystem management projects are operating in the field. Regardless of varying labels such as "sustainable development" or "ecologically based adaptive management," these projects focus on the long-term, large-scale, sustainable ecological and economic health and productivity of an ecosystem. In addition, EM projects will usually incorporate expertise across disciplines, foster stakeholder involvement at multiple levels, and work across traditional political and geographic boundaries. Without directly consulting ecosystem management practitioners, it is impossible to evaluate the true applicability or success of this new approach. A multi-disciplinary, ecosystem-based approach incorporating multiple stakeholders may be a sound approach on paper, but prior to 1995 no comprehensive evaluations had been assembled to identify challenges and demonstrate successes of such an approach. In 1995, a group of students from the University of Michigan’s School of Natural Resources and Environment conducted a preliminary analysis of 77 ecosystem-based projects (Frenz et al.). With many ecosystem management projects in the U.S. in their earliest stages, the group set out to gather ideas and experiences from ecosystem management practitioners, those in the field that could truly articulate the benefits and drawbacks of managing from an ecosystem-based approach. A representative set of project managers responded to inquiries about project background, goals and strategies, process and ecological accomplishments, stakeholder involvement, and facilitating and impeding factors in overseeing ecosystem-based projects. The original set of 77 projects was expanded to 105 for publication. This Master’s Project, an experience-based capstone project for the University of Michigan’s School of Natural Resources and Environment, will examine recent trends in ecosystem management. Focusing on the sample of 105 projects developed earlier, the Project will update case studies reflecting EM practitioners’ experiences in the field and conduct in-depth analyses of various aspects of ecosystem management. Return to top.The survey of ecosystem management projects published as a result of Frenz et al.’s 1995 study provided substantial information on the accomplishments and challenges faced by ecosystem managers and practitioners to date. However, few of the projects had progressed to the point where meaningful assessments of ecological improvements could be made. As those ecosystem management projects are now nearly five years further along, there now exists the opportunity to expand our understanding of the practice of ecosystem management by revisiting the projects and reevaluating their ecological and process accomplishments, stakeholder involvement, measures of success, and facilitating and impeding factors. This Master’s Project will initially focus on a survey of the 105 original study sites in order to provide both an update to the 1995 study and the basic information needed for a more in depth analysis of perspectives and trends in ecosystem management. Through surveys and analyses, this Project will pursue the following primary research questions:
Once initial information has been gathered via survey results and a primary literature search, Phase II of the project will address the following secondary questions of interest:
The survey results will be the basis for updated case studies of the 105 project sites and analyses of cross-project trends, similarities, and differences. In addition, the survey results, coupled with literature reviews and other interviews, will provide key information needed by the Master’s Project team to address more in-depth analyses in Phase II of the project. All products of the Master’s Project team, including case studies, cross-project analyses, and in-depth topic analyses, will be made available to ecosystem management practitioners, academics, and concerned policy makers. Return to top.Background on EM Master’s Projects Two EM studies conducted by students from the University of Michigan’s School of Natural Resources and Environment provide a foundation for this proposed study. In light of the steadily growing wealth of literature on EM, a 1994 study synthesized current ecosystem theory and drafted an EM framework that was applied in seven case studies. "Lessons for the future" were drawn from the cases to create recommendations for EM. By 1995, only limited assessments of on-the-ground experiences of EM had been assembled. Most of these assessments were restricted in their scope to single agencies, a limited number of case studies, or certain regions. Recognizing the need to accumulate ideas from ground-level experience, a second research team from the University of Michigan set out to complete an assessment of the actual experiences of EM practitioners. The primary objectives of the study were to:
The project team used a site-based survey to collect in-depth information from 77 of the 662 candidate EM sites identified. The process included telephone interviewing and compiling draft write-ups of the interviews, which were mailed to interviewees for verification. A follow-up survey was also sent, asking the interviewees to identify factors facilitating progress and barriers to progress. The information was consolidated in a database to facilitate a cross-site analysis that included both descriptive and evaluative information. Recommendations were framed for individuals and groups who are either interested in or active in EM activities. The research project resulted in a publication entitled Ecosystem Management in the U.S.: An Inventory and Assessment of Current Experience (Island Press, 1996), which expanded the original set of projects studied from 77 to 105. The ecosystem project areas were characterized as having diverse natural features, a presence of federally listed threatened and endangered species, involvement in public and private lands, and existence of numerous anthropogenic ecosystem stresses. The study also revealed the following about the EM projects:
The catalog has been a valuable resource for academics, natural resource managers, and policy decision-makers. Approximately 2000 copies of Ecosystem Management in the United States have been sold since it was published in 1996. Return to top.Summary of Ecosystem Management Literature A rich body of literature has developed describing various goals and methods of the ecosystem approach. As the concept evolved, debate over definitions, basic principles, and policy implications developed. Summarizing much of this literature in 1994, Edward Grumbine set forth a definition of EM: Ecosystem management integrates scientific knowledge of ecological relationships within a complex sociopolitical and value framework toward the general goal of protecting nature ecosystem integrity over the long term. The debate has advanced over the past five years as resource managers, policy makers, and theoreticians have achieved some level of consensus about the broad principles of EM. Today, common elements of EM include: systems thinking; deeper understanding of the complexity and dynamism of ecological and social systems; more extensive consideration of different spatial and temporal scales; ecologically-derived boundaries; adaptive management to deal with uncertainty; and collaborative decision-making. However, there is not a widespread understanding of methods and means for evaluating the success of EM projects. The literature review for Phase I will focus on literature that examines indicators and measures of success for EM programs, to help create a more robust framework and protocol for evaluating success at EM sites. For Phase II, the literature review will address relevant studies of boundary issues in EM, urban EM programs, and EM initiatives and programs in the USFS and state natural resource agencies. Return to top.Overview of Project Goals: Short and Long Term The work for this Master’s Project will be carried out in two distinct phases. The first phase will run through the spring and summer of 1999. Our principal goal during this period will be to develop a survey instrument for a follow-up study of the 105 ecosystem management sites examined in the 1995 University of Michigan ecosystem management study. After the survey is designed and pre-tested on University of Michigan faculty and outside experts in EM, it will be mailed to the project directors of the 105 sites. Data from the returned surveys will be entered into a database or spreadsheet. Preliminary analyses of the incoming data will be used to fine-tune the approaches used in the next phase of the study. Throughout this period, we will continue reviewing literature germane to evaluating ecosystem management projects and relevant to the four topics we have identified as candidates for our individual studies. Finally, since the members of the master’s project and their advisor have decided (in the spirit of ecosystem management) to assemble an interdisciplinary and institutionally diverse advisory board instead of finding a single client, team members will work to identify and contact potential members of the Board. The second phase will run through the fall and winter semesters of 1999/2000. During this period we will update and revise the descriptions of the 105 ecosystem management sites, incorporating new material obtained through the survey instrument. In order to prepare for a second edition of Ecosystem Management in the United States, in which Island Press has expressed interest, we will revise the introduction and Part I ("Assessment") of the 1995 study. In addition, we will write four additional chapters (which we also envision as freestanding studies) on subjects discussed in greater detail below. The conclusion will contain management and policy recommendations. On the basis of the freestanding studies, we plan a series of memos/project briefs that would summarize our findings and conclusions and that we could send to government agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) closely involved with EM projects. Return to top.
Short Term Components Short Term Goals
Short Term Products
Long Term Components Long Term Goals
The US Forest Service. The implementation of ecosystem management efforts around the United States has greatly increased the demand for scientific information. Resource managers need baseline information and ongoing monitoring to understand the impact that management decisions have on the ecosystems in which they work. Such information is needed to move toward an adaptive management approach. Policymakers also have a growing need for scientific information to make informed decisions about public and private land uses, and to support budgeting processes for state and federal land management agencies.
The study will attempt to distill learnings from the Forest Service and other institutions to help identify ways in which the Forest Service might more effectively transfer knowledge and technology in the future. State Natural Resource Agencies. In recent years, a number of state natural resource agencies have begun to shift away from centralized, multiple-use management practices to ones based on principles of ecosystem management. There are a number of reasons why states have become increasingly involved in EM. These include the transfer of natural resource oversight from federal to state agencies, the appropriate geographical scale of states, the extensive existing networks of offices and staff, and the experience of state agencies in dealing with multiple stakeholders (federal officials, local government officials, industry groups, recreational users, environmental organizations, etc.).
Urban Ecosystem Management. Ecosystem management projects are not limited to rural areas. Recently, urban-based ecosystem management projects have established an increasingly strong presence in the field. However, the "urban ecosystem" remains undefined—or defined in different ways by different people. The definition depends on the perspective. For the ecologist, the urban ecosystem is an ecological conceptualization of the urban area: a conglomeration of interconnected systems and processes at work in the area, such as energy cycling, consumption of resources, and nutrient cycling. Local residents concerned with the preservation or restoration of a fragmented natural space might adopt the "urban wildlands" definition of urban ecosystem. For these stakeholders, this small piece of nature is worthy of being conserved as a fragment of a larger ecosystem that once dominated the area. Habitat conservation plans, based on the preservation and restoration of habitat of species protected under the Endangered Species Act, will sometimes fall in urban areas. These plans focus on more than just preservation of a species; their focus is the preservation of the ecosystem that species needs to survive. Based on a focused literature search and the opinions of practitioners and professionals in the field, the project team will first establish the interpretation of "urban ecosystem" that will be considered as the focus of the urban ecosystem management projects examined.
Ecosystem Management Project Boundaries. One of the goals of EM projects is to educate people located within the project boundaries that they are a part of the "ecosystem" the project is trying to manage. However, as Edward Grumbine points out, "managers today are realizing through EM that responsibilities begin at boundaries." Managers are realizing that boundaries can be limiting and that they must look outside their boundaries to engage forces outside that may be influencing their project. Is bounding useful? Or, is it restrictive? If it is useful, what type of bounding is most useful? This part of the analysis will attempt to develop a better understanding of the kinds of boundaries (physical and socio-political) that have been used to define ecosystem management programs and to correlate these boundary-types with different rates and kinds of success. Questions to be addressed include:
4. Based on common factors such as program size, organizational structure, and agency sponsorship, the project will provide recommendations for EM practitioners about plans and strategies that have succeeded and those that have failed.
Long Term Products 1. The Master’s Project document will contain:
3. An updated and revised version of Steven Yaffee et al., Ecosystem Management in the United States: An Assessment of Current Experience (1996). Return to top. The following steps will be taken to answer the research team’s questions:
Development of a Comprehensive Survey The project team is in the process of developing a comprehensive survey of ecosystem management practices. The survey will solicit information from ecosystem management practitioners at the 105 project sites on the current status of the project and changes since the 1995 study. The design will encompass five topics of interest: project description and status; defining and monitoring project success; project outcomes; factors facilitating and obstacles to success; and outlook of the project. The goal of the survey is to draw out information that will provide both a background of information on ecosystem management projects in the field and the information the team will need to commence a more detailed analysis in the second phase. The assumptions of the team are that there will be significant differences in the status and outlook of these EM projects. The survey will be designed to incorporate topics researched in the survey conducted in 1995, thereby allowing the team to compare results between the two surveys. The survey will include both close-ended and open-ended questions, depending on the type of information requested and the appropriateness of individualized responses. The survey will include topics that were not covered comprehensively in the previous survey, such as ecological outcomes and methods used for monitoring success (see table 1 for a list of topics covered). This survey will provide the team with updated information and give them insights into how these projects are functioning and their similarities and differences. Table 1: Survey Topics Project Description & Status
Defining & Monitoring Project Success
Outcomes
Factors Involved in the Progress of the Project
Outlook
During the development process the survey will be tested and reviewed by faculty, professionals in the field, and students. The intent of this pre-testing is to produce a survey that will be both understandable and comprehensive.
In addition to the survey, project managers will be requested to update the project summary included in the 1996 publication, adding new information that is relevant to the project today. The information gathered from the edited write-ups will be incorporated into the study via a direct update on each of the 105 sites, and will be used as additional anecdotal information for Phase II analyses.
The survey and write up will be distributed to the contacts of the 105 projects based on the 1995 contact information. The research team will utilize phone contacts and email searches to correct mailing addresses for undeliverable surveys. The survey will be mailed out by May 15, 1999, with returned surveys expected by the end of June 1999. Analysis of the Survey’s Results The survey results will be analyzed utilizing a spreadsheet program such as Excel or a database program such as FoxPro or Microsoft Access. The survey responses will be keyed into specific fields corresponding with the design of the survey. Each question will correlate to a specific field in the database. The full text of open-ended questions will be included in the project's record. The write-ups will also be updated during this analysis. Whether or not new information taken from edited write-ups will be included in the database will be determined when the surveys are returned and the additions are evaluated. The database will then be utilized to identify information ranging from common trends in EM projects today to specific "on the ground" results taking place. This process will be completed by the end of August,1999. Literature Review A list of relevant EM literature will be gathered and reviewed by the team during Phase I of the project. The literature review will focus on indicators and success measures for EM programs, and literature that informs the Phase II analyses, focused on the USFS, state natural resource agencies, urban EM projects, and EM project boundaries. Key literature available will be determined from academics, professionals, and individual research. A list will be compiled by the end of the Winter 1999 term and divided among the project members over the summer. Each member will do the reviews of the literature over the summer. Advisory Board Development The advisory board will consist of a relatively small number of ecosystem management professionals. Academics, practitioners, and policy-makers are among types of people that will comprise the ecosystem management advisory board. This ad hoc committee will serve an important role in reviewing the analyses of the masters project team and providing suggestions. Between the Winter and Fall 1999 terms, the project group and faculty will determine potential candidates. The potential candidates will be contacted to determine their level of interest and if their interest is strong, will be invited to be members of the advisory board. It is expected that the majority of contact with the advisory board will be via conference call on an "as needed" basis. As the project develops, regular conference calls with the participation of most of all of the advisory board may be desirable. Web Site Development The existing ecosystem management web site maintained by the School of Natural Resources and Environment (SNRE) (http://www.snre.umich.edu/ecomgt/) will be updated to contain information pertinent to EM managers and professionals and will keep them updated on the progress of the project. The goal of the web site is to provide a clearinghouse of information that will be useful to those involved in EM projects. Ideas for web site content will be generated through interviews with a select group of professionals and EM practitioners. An extensive list of links to other web sites will be included on the site. During the duration of the project, members of the team familiar with web page upkeep will maintain the site. Upon the project’s completion, the web site will be turned over to SNRE. The web site will be expanded after the initial analysis has been completed. Phase II - In-depth Analysis The four areas of analysis will be divided among the four group members of the project team. During the completion of Phase I of the project, the team will narrow their topics of in-depth analysis and begin research. At the conclusion of Phase I, the team will meet with pertinent members of the advisory board to further develop their research questions and methods. The analyses will be completed through literature searches, direct interviewing, and site visits. The products of the Phase II project are expected to range from policy memoranda to publications submitted to appropriate journals. Knowledge Pools, the USFS, and EM The study of knowledge pools as a tool for achieving effective EM and the role of USFS in sharing information involves four steps. First, examples of successful knowledge pools in resource management will be identified. Information gathered from the Phase I survey will help identify EM projects with extensive information-sharing components. However, the study will not be limited to these 105 sites. A recent University of Michigan study on collaborative resource management (study near completion) will help identify other candidates. The Forest Service regional research stations will also be a primary resource to find examples of knowledge pools that have led to increased cooperation and effective EM. Second, a telephone survey will be developed to guide interviews with EM practitioners and Forest Service research scientists and planners at the sites identified in the first step. The objective of the survey will be to help determine why the knowledge pools have worked, and how the USFS role in these knowledge pools has facilitated or limited the transfer of information. Third, results of the survey will be analyzed. Advisory support in this phase will come from faculty members at the University of Michigan who have worked with, conducted extensive research on, and served as advisors to the Forest Service. The Master’s Project team cross-sector advisory committee will also provide information and feedback on this component of the project. Finally, a study will be submitted to the Agency with recommendations on ways that Forest Service knowledge, information, and technology can be disseminated more widely and used more effectively by different audiences. Reshaping State Environmental Agencies Around EM In methodological terms, there are three basic components to the study of EM approaches at state natural resource agencies. The first consists in constructing an analytic framework that will be used to understand the EM initiatives of the particular natural resource agencies. The purpose of the framework will be to provide a set of guidelines for assessing policy formation and implementation in state agencies. It will be developed through a literature review of relevant materials on state government bureaucracies, organizational behavior, management theory, and historical studies of the particular agencies. The second component involves using the analytic framework to assess the development of ecosystem management policies at three state natural resource agencies and to evaluate progress toward implementation of these policies. An initial review of state agencies has pointed to Florida, Missouri and Minnesota as likely subjects of the case studies, although further review of additional agencies is planned to confirm the appropriateness of these choices. The study will rely on publicly available documents and memos, interviews with agency officials, and relevant scholarly studies. The third component consists in developing recommendations for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), based on the experiences of the three other state agencies. To establish a foundation for making recommendations, we will review internal MDNR policy statements, memos, and meeting minutes as well as published documents, press releases, and public presentations. The team also plans to conduct interviews with division chiefs, WART Basin Coordinators, and members of the EcoTeams (the cross-division committees that are currently coordinating the EM planning process). Urban Ecosystem Management Projects Understanding urban ecosystems and the application of the ecosystem management approach will require both an understanding of the how managers define the "urban ecosystem" and the management approaches used by urban-based projects. A focused literature search will help define these terms and the range of the research. Ecosystem management projects currently in the field of study (the 105 original case studies) will be analyzed for their "fit" with the working definition of an urban ecosystem management project established by the master’s project team. Literature reviews, interviews with practitioners, and recommendations of academics and professionals will supplement the list of urban-based projects, until a sample of eight to fifteen projects representing geographic, demographic, and economic diverse urban settings are accumulated. It is expected that urban-based ecosystem management projects will vary substantially from their rural counterparts in a number of ways, including: the types of local stakeholders; the degree of stakeholder involvement; the intensity of anthropogenic stresses on the ecosystem; the relatively small scale of the project; and the amount of intervention prescribed in the management plan. A primary understanding of the urban approach will be based on interviews with project managers and other professionals in the ecosystem management field. A more in-depth analysis of survey results from study sites that are within urban areas, in conjunction with telephone interviews and site interviews, will provide information on current activities and practitioners’ experiences in the field. Surveys and interview responses will be analyzed to determine if urban ecosystem management projects differ significantly from the national set of EM projects, and if so, in what ways. The analysis will focus on facilitating factors and obstacles to success, access to resources, management strategies by project managers, and stakeholder involvement. Urban sites will be compared against the baseline information on ecosystem management projects in the US provided by the surveys of the 105 projects collected in the summer of 1999. The surveys and interviews will echo the information collected during the initial survey in order to allow analyses across the projects. Finally, taking into account advice from ecosystem management practitioners and members of the advisory board who have had experience in urban ecosystem management projects, the Master's Project team will offer suggestions for mangers undertaking urban-based projects. Project Bounding and How It Relates To Success This part of the analysis will look at how important boundaries are to the overall success of an EM project. The assumption is that the more comprehensible and identifiable a boundary is, the more ‘successful’ the project will be. To answer this question the team will select ten sites to analyze; five with clear and definable boundaries, such as watersheds or valleys, and five with boundaries that are a bit more amorphous, such as migration patterns or vegetative types. The projects to be analyzed will be selected after the initial surveys have been examined. When comparing sites all attempts will be made to keep variables, such as size, scope and project type, equal. The sites will be examined through interviews with project managers and employees. It will be difficult to separate out what factors have lead to a project’s success or failure. To this end, a series of questions will be developed to pose to project managers and their staff. The questions will be put to the managers and staff in a consistent format each time to manage for variation. Questions posed will focus on three categories: the amount of energy devoted to boundary definition; the types of opportunities and constraints have resulted from the project’s boundary; and foreseeable changes to the project’s boundaries. By identifying how much energy is spent in defining boundaries, the project team will be able to get a sense of how important the issue of bounding is. Questions that may be raised in this first category may be:
By asking questions about the opportunities and constraints boundaries pose to EM projects, the project team will be able to examine the strengths and drawbacks different types of boundaries pose. Questions raised in this second category may be:
Finally, by gaining an understanding of what the EM projects are planning for in the future the project team will get an idea of which direction boundaries are headed. Are they looking to reduce scope, expand scope, compartmentalize projects, etc.? Questions raised in this third category may be:
|