ArticlePDF Available

Adaptive Impact Management: An Integrative Approach to Wildlife Management

Authors:

Abstract

Wildlife professionals need better ways to integrate ecological and human dimensions of wildlife management. A focus on impacts, guided by a structured decision process, will orient wildlife management toward rigorous, integrative decision making. Impacts are important socially defined effects of events and interactions related to wildlife that merit management. To manage impacts we propose adaptive impact management (AIM). This approach has seven primary components: situational analysis, objective setting, development of system model(s), identification and selection of management alternatives, actual management interventions, monitoring, and refinement of models and eventually interventions. Adaptive impact management builds upon strengths of systems thinking and conventional adaptive management, yet differs in that fundamental objectives of management are impacts on society, rather than conditions of a wildlife population or habitat. Emphasis is placed on stakeholder involvement in management and shared learning among scientists, managers, and stakeholders. We describe and assess adaptive impact management with respect to black bear management in New York.
81
Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 8:81–95, 2003
Copyright © 2003 Taylor & Francis
1087-1209/03 $12.00 + .00
DOI: 10.1080/10871200390205138
Peer-Reviewed Articles
Adaptive Impact Management: An Integrative
Approach to Wildlife Management
SHAWN J. RILEY
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan, USA
WILLIAM F. SIEMER
DANIEL J. DECKER
Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca,
New York, USA
LEN H. CARPENTER
Wildlife Management Institute, Fort Collins, CO, USA
JOHN F. ORGAN
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, MA, USA
LOUIS T. BERCHIELLI
Bureau of Wildlife, New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, Albany, New York, USA
Wildlife professionals need better ways to integrate ecological and human
dimensions of wildlife management. A focus on impacts, guided by a struc-
tured decision process, will orient wildlife management toward rigorous,
integrative decision making. Impacts are important socially defined effects
Wildlife managers with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation con-
ducted initial applications of AIM, and provided valuable insights that were incorporated in develop-
ment of the AIM process. L. C. Chase, N. A. Connelly, K. K. Smith, and personnel from the Colorado
Division of Wildlife offered suggestions that improved the manuscript. Preparation of this article was
supported in part by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the Cornell
University Agricultural Experiment Station through Hatch Project NYC 147-403.
Address correspondence to Shawn J. Riley, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, 14 Natural
Resources Building, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1222, USA. Fax:
(517) 432-1699. E-mail: rileysh2@msu.edu
82 S. J. Riley et al.
of events and interactions related to wildlife that merit management. To
manage impacts we propose adaptive impact management (AIM). This
approach has seven primary components: situational analysis, objective
setting, development of system model(s), identification and selection of
management alternatives, actual management interventions, monitoring, and
refinement of models and eventually interventions. Adaptive impact manage-
ment builds upon strengths of systems thinking and conventional adaptive man-
agement, yet differs in that fundamental objectives of management are impacts
on society, rather than conditions of a wildlife population or habitat. Emphasis
is placed on stakeholder involvement in management and shared learning
among scientists, managers, and stakeholders. We describe and assess adaptive
impact management with respect to black bear management in New York.
Keywords
adaptive management, decisions, impacts, stakeholders, systems,
values, Ursus americanus, wildlife management
The sociocultural context for wildlife management has changed in recent decades,
especially with respect to availability and social acceptability of management
technology. For example, recreational hunting, a conventional tool for managing
game species, is no longer regarded as the only management technique or even
the technique of choice in some situations. Whereas this change is regrettable to
some wildlife managers, it may be inevitable in light of another changedeclining
hunter numbers in some regions of the U.S. (Enck, Decker, & Brown, 2000)
leading researchers to predict that hunting by itself will become insufficient for
management of white-tailed deer (Brown, Decker, Riley, et al., 2000). Originally
serving only a few interests, the wildlife profession now must develop management
programs acceptable to a large and growing array of stakeholders with diverse
and often competing stakes in wildlife management. Stakeholder involvement
has become a central element of contemporary wildlife management (Chase,
Lauber, & Decker, 2001). Wildlife managers are responding to these and other
changes in the management environment by adopting management approaches that
integrate biological and human dimensions and broaden stakeholder involvement
in management.
As part of this shift in management, a reorientation toward impacts of
human-wildlife interactions has been suggested (Riley, Decker, Carpenter, et al.,
2002). Impacts are significant positive and negative effects, defined in terms of
human values, that result from events or interactions involving: (a) wildlife
individuals, populations, habitats, and communities; (b) wildlife management
interventions; and (c) stakeholder interactions with respect to wildlife (Riley
et al., 2002). Events or interactions pertinent to wildlife management can be of
several general types: wildlife interactions with other wildlife, wildlife inter-
actions with their environment, interactions between wildlife and humans, inter-
actions between humans and wildlife habitat, and interactions among humans
where wildlife is a reason for the interaction. Every instance of such events or
Adaptive Impact Management 83
interactions has an effect of some type and degree. Effects are of management
concern only if people perceive them and then interpret them as producing
impacts (i.e., the effects warrant management attention). These effects may be
large or small, positive or negative, but to be considered an impact they must
be important to stakeholders.
We propose Adaptive Impact Management (AIM) as an approach to managing
impacts. This approach builds upon strengths of adaptive environmental assessment
and management (Holling, 1978), but also addresses weaknesses attributed to
social challenges in adaptive approaches (Johnson, 1999; Lee, 1999; Walters,
1997). Citizen participation, objectives, systems models, and subsequent man-
agement interventions in an AIM process emphasize impacts to society. Habitat
or wildlife populations may be foci of management actions, but are only means to
achieve impacts, not ends in themselves. A central assumption of AIM is that
integrating knowledge from multiple disciplines and engaging key stakeholders in
participatory management will increase the probability of identifying important
impacts on which to focus management. We believe this tact will promote the
soci-
etal support necessary for rigorous experimentation needed in adaptive management.
Management of impacts can be accomplished under a variety of frame-
works, and AIM may not be appropriate for every management issue. However,
an adaptive framework, with emphasis on learning through doing and guidance of
structured decision processes, offers promise for advancement of decision-making
for the most important wildlife issues society faces. The purpose of this paper is
to describe components of AIM and discuss benefits and costs of an AIM
approach. We use examples from the early stages of an AIM approach to black
bear (Ursus americanus) management in New York to demonstrate how AIM
concepts can be applied.
Adaptive Management
Wildlife management is just one aspect of resource conservation that is experi-
encing worldwide adoption of more integrative approaches to management. Other
attempts are occurring under the rubrics of ecosystem management (Yaffee,
1999), conservation biology (Meffe & Viederman, 1995), citizen science (Light,
Carlsen, Blann, Fagrelius, Barton, & Stenquist, 1998), and community-based
conservation (Western & Wright, 1994). Important commonalities among these
ideas include: (1) a broad range of knowledge and skills from natural and social
sciences must be integrated and applied to conservation issues; and (2) effective,
lasting conservation efforts are most apt to result when definition of problems,
identification of opportunities, development of solutions, and implementation of
management are shared processes among resource agencies and citizens at scales
where effects are perceived by stakeholders (Mangel, Talbot, Meffe, et al., 1996).
Another central theme of these contemporary approaches is that change is inevit-
able, and uncertainty and unpredictability are inherent in resource management.
84 S. J. Riley et al.
Adaptive management is promoted as a way of embracing such change and
uncertainty. Drawing upon systems dynamics (Forrester, 1968) and industrial
operations theory (Ackoff, 1970), Holling (1978) and Walters (1986) established
a philosophy and techniques for adaptive environmental assessment and manage-
ment. The vast appeal of adaptive management encouraged its adoption into the
lexicon of wildlife management (Lancia, Braun, Callopy, et al., 1996). However,
in most respects adaptive management has been more significant as a concept
than a management practice (Lee, 1999).
Numerous reviews of adaptive management have been presented (Johnson,
1999; Parma, Amarasekare, Mangel, et al., 1998; Walters, 1997); we will not add
to those critiques. Shortcomings in applications of adaptive resource management
prompt the modifications proposed here. Models and approaches to conventional
adaptive management are primarily based on objectives for a condition of wild-
life populations, species, or habitat rather than impacts on society defined by
stakeholders (Walters, 1997). Frequently missing are approaches to identification
of human values and incorporation of these values in the objective functions of
adaptive management (Gilmour, Walkerden, & Scandol, 1999; Johnson, 1999;
Lee, 1999). This shortcoming unfortunately leads to a focus on means or enabl-
ing objectives rather than stakeholder-defined fundamental objectives (Keeney,
1992). AIM seeks integration of biological or human dimensions considerations
rather than exclusively emphasizing one dimension over another.
The Adaptive Impact Management Process
The logic and blueprint for AIM is a modification of adaptive environmental
assessment and management (Holling, 1978) that incorporates a value-based,
decision-making philosophy (Hammond, Keeney, & Raiffa, 1999; Keeney, 1992).
The key difference between AIM and conventional adaptive management is that
AIM seeks to define objective functions in terms of desired stakeholder-identified
impacts. These objectives become performance measures of subsequent impact
management. A focus on impacts and stakeholder involvement will lead to: (1)
management of what really matters to society, which will lead to stronger polit-
ical support for experimental management often lacking in adaptive management
programs; and (2) improvements in shared learning among scientists, managers,
and stakeholders.
Identification of management goals and objectives in terms of impacts
requires early and continuous stakeholder involvement (Shindler & Cheek,
1999). Collaboration may take various forms depending on the scale of impacts
(Riley et al., 2002) and the level of stakeholder interest in the issue. Flexibility in
forums and processes that accounts for context specificity (e.g., scale of concern)
is vital for sustained citizen participation (Chase, Siemer, & Decker, 1999). An
appropriate image of the process is improvisational theatre, where the director
Adaptive Impact Management 85
(wildlife manager) guides the flow of interactions and analyses, but is capable of
adapting to include new actors and techniques as the actual plot unfolds (Payne,
Bettman, & Johnson, 1993).
Components of an AIM process, taken stepwise from the point of initializing
implementation, include situational analysis, objective setting, model development,
identification and selection of alternatives, management interventions, monitoring,
and adjustment to models and management (Figure 1).
FIGURE 1 The adaptive impact management process, which begins with
development of fundamental objectives and leads to monitoring and refinement
of systems models, and possibly to changes in fundamental objectives.
86 S. J. Riley et al.
Situational Analysis
The principal objective of situational analysis is to frame the decision-making
situation (Keeney, 1992, pp. 3033), by delineating the decision context, identifying
potentially relevant impacts (i.e., the expression of values that should be addressed
as fundamental objectives), and describing the management environment in
which the pertinent impacts occur. Situational analyses use existing information
and often new inquiry to improve understanding of what is known about relevant
impacts. Knowledge is used to construct a first generation map of the manage-
ment system. This step insures managers and stakeholders are in agreement that
everyone is working with the same core data, on the same pertinent issues to be
addressed by management. Context-specific stakeholder involvement strategies
are developed at this stage (Chase et al., 1999), and stakeholders can play a role
in identifying and perhaps even obtaining needed data (Decker, Schusler, Brown,
& Mattfeld, 2000).
Decision Framing
Decision framing is a process of central importance in AIM. A public policy
decision is framed by the alternatives and values considered in making that
decision (Keeney, 1992, p. 30). Frames are mental structures people create to
organize and simplify the world (Entman, 1993), serving as perceptual windows
through which people view opportunities or interpret problems, and establish dir-
ection for successive management efforts (Hammond et al., 1999). In the absence
of interaction, stakeholders can be expected to have different perspectives that
influence how they frame decisions; no single stakeholder or decision-maker
perspective can provide a complete or comprehensive societal view (Russo &
Schoemaker, 1989). Both managers and stakeholders are prone to common
decision traps (Russo & Schoemaker, 1989), such as the tendency to focus on
means for achieving some end (e.g., how do we reduce the size of the bear popu-
lation?), without first fully considering the desired ends in terms of impacts
(e.g., what ends are we trying to achieve with respect to bear management?).
Perspectives of the management environment resulting from deliberative
stakeholder processes greatly influence formulation of fundamental objectives
(based on impacts), the management interventions chosen to achieve desired
impacts, and the social acceptability of the interventions. An AIM approach can
help people avoid some common decision-making traps because it encourages
managers and stakeholders to view issues through the same conceptual window.
In most cases, wildlife agency personnel familiar with the pertinent issues
have ample knowledge to conduct situational analyses; however, the assistance
of an advisory group of key stakeholders can complement agency perspectives
and ensure an open process (Margerum, 1999). Membership in an advisory
group should be tailored to the specific issue. Environmental and agricultural
Adaptive Impact Management 87
professionals, recreationists, tourism and economic development interests,
extension agents, mid-level resource administrators, and independent wildlife
scientists are candidates for advisors. The initial range of stakeholders involved
depends upon anticipated impacts.
The types of questions to be asked at this point are: (1) what is the range of
impacts occurring now and expected in the future; (2) who are the key stakeholders;
(3) what are the operational scales (geographical and temporal extent) of the
anticipated impacts; (4) what are the capacity and limits of the resource, stake-
holders, and management? These four interrelated questions are best addressed
simultaneously.
Every event or interaction among people with respect to wildlife, between
people and wildlife or habitat, or between wildlife and their environment has an
effect of some type and degree. The effects considered most significant by stake-
holders are impacts that should attract management attention (Riley et al., 2002).
Defining impacts to be managed precisely may not be possible at this early point
in the process. Nevertheless, it is possible to anticipate the range and relative
importance of potential impacts. This early articulation of impacts is essential for
initiating identification of objectives.
Stakeholder Involvement in Situational Analysis
Stakeholder involvement is most effective when it matches the geographical,
temporal, and social scale of the issue (Chase et al., 1999). Local citizens and
local government generally are most able to address issues affecting their
communities. Similarly, regional nongovernmental organizations and state or
provincial public agencies should be engaged in issues that involve many
communities. Consideration also should be given to matching stakeholders to the
duration of expected impacts. For instance, age and duration of residency are
important characteristics of stakeholders if factors affecting anticipated impacts
occurred for long periods of time and necessitate a long-term perspective.
Determining relevant scales and relevant stakeholders for those wildlife
management issues requires careful judgments. These judgments constitute a great
deal of the art in the art and science of wildlife management (Lee, 1993). Scale
of management interventions should be aligned with the scale of impacts managers
seek to influence (Bissonette, 1997). Relevant scales for each impact tend to be
identified through interactions between stakeholders and managers rather than
being determined a priori (Riley et al., 2002).
The level of stakeholders involvement also must be appropriate to their
capacity for involvement and the biological, political, economic, and technological
limits of management (Riley et al., 2002). Level of conflict associated with an
issue may initially reduce capacity of stakeholders to work toward a common
goal (Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2000). Some level of conflict resolution is often
required early in the process and certainly prior to applying an adaptive approach
88 S. J. Riley et al.
to resource management (Lee, 1999). In some situations it may be possible for
communities to coalesce for a broad civic purpose (Schusler & Decker, 2001).
Objective Setting
Goals are statements of intent about the purpose of management, couched as
general, long-term conditions to be attained. Bear management in New York is
grounded within five major goals (e.g., Assure that people are not caused to
suffer from wildlife or users of wildlife) (Henry, Tripp, Gilligan, et al., 2000).
Goals, often established through legislation, lead to objectives essential for
directing and evaluating alternative actions to achieve desired outcomes (impacts).
Objectives normally are characterized by describing a decision situation, an object,
and a direction of preference (Hammond et al., 1999). Objectives form a basis for
a set of possible management interventions and evaluation of alternatives. In
complex situations, such as wildlife management, it is not always obvious who
should formulate objectives. However, objectives formulated through citizen
participation are more likely to result in sustained actions because of greater
ownership and support by stakeholders (Gregory, 2000). The process of formulat-
ing clear, acceptable objectives normally receives inadequate attention compared
to its importance (Russo & Schoemaker, 1989), although numerous techniques
exist for determining objectives (Hammond et al., 1999; Keeney, 1992).
Fundamental and Enabling Objectives
Two types of objectives are essential to AIM. Fundamental objectives characterize
the reason for management in terms of desired impacts. A set of fundamental
objectives guides development and evaluation of management alternatives and
interventions. A fundamental objective of black bear management could be to
increase the psychological well-being of a community in which negative black
bearhuman interactions are frequent events. Enabling objectives state how
fundamental objectives will be achieved. An enabling objective in the black bear
example previously could be to increase the level of education about successfully
living with black bears in that particular community.
Linking Fundamental and Enabling Objectives
Keeney (1992) suggests linking fundamental and enabling objectives through
a listing of process-ends relationships. For each objective, participants should
ask, Why is this important in the specific situation? The answer either will be
that the objective is an essential reason for management (fundamental objective),
or the objective is important because it helps attain another objective (enabling).
Each fundamental objective should have at least one enabling objective linked
to it. Similarly, each enabling objective should be tied to at least one fundamental
Adaptive Impact Management 89
objective. A network is created with ties identified between fundamental and
enabling objectives. Enabling objectives are initially formulated with fundamen-
tal objectives, but are not galvanized until after development of system models.
A black bear management example. The black bear population has been
increasing in New York State in recent years, and so have bear harvests, bear
sightings, and bear-related complaints to DEC. In response to these and other
aspects of the management environment, DEC created a team of biologists and
managers to develop a new statewide plan for black bear management.
Staff from DEC is using a sequence of public outreach efforts to identify
impacts that will become the basis of fundamental objectives within the statewide
bear management plan. The management team began by generated a preliminary
list of impacts. They based their preliminary list on insights from an outreach
process conducted between 1992 and 1994 to get input on proposed changes in
bear hunting and dog training regulations. As a next step, the management plan-
ning team worked with human dimensions (HD) specialists, who designed and
implemented a series of regional meetings to obtain input on the range of impacts
recognized by stakeholders in 2001. Stakeholder informants identified a range of
impacts that the researchers organized into six categories. The categories of
impacts identified by stakeholder representatives was similar to that identified
previously by the bear management planning team based on stakeholder input
between 1992 and 1994.
Human dimensions staff used findings from the small group meetings to
design a scale to assess bear impacts. This scale was included in a self-administered,
mail-back questionnaire being used as the data collection instrument for a
statewide black bear management survey implemented in spring, 2002. Among
other things, the stakeholder survey will allow researchers to quantify how
people are impacted by black bears by state region (e.g., upstate vs. downstate,
Catskills vs. Adirondacks), stakeholder group (e.g., hunters vs. nonhunters) and
value orientation (e.g., protection orientation vs. use orientation). As a final step
in the sequence of outreach efforts, DEC staff will conduct regional, qualitative
processes to further refine understanding of stakeholder-defined impacts generated
through the statewide mail survey.
Figure 2 displays a partial fundamentalenabling network for addressing
black bear management in New York State. A network diagram such as Figure 2
focuses on the means that enable managers to achieve one fundamental objective:
maximizing human safety. This fundamental objective has its origins in the
safety impacts recognized by stakeholders (i.e., managers understand from recent
interactions that stakeholders are concerned about their safety if they are
involved in a bear-related vehicular accident, or if they are confronted by a bear).
The fundamental objective of maximizing safety has three primary subdimensions:
safety of motorists, safety of outdoor recreationists, and safety of people at home.
Every element outside the fundamental objective box represents a means to
90 S. J. Riley et al.
achieve the end of human safety. Arrows in the figure describe which enabling
objectives are believed to influence achievement of specific subdimensions of the
human safety.
Figure 2 represents only a partial endsmeans matrix for decision making
with respect to black bear management in New York. In reality, wildlife managers
and stakeholders must consider a comprehensive and hierarchical set of funda-
mental objectives to identify and evaluate a comprehensive range of enabling
objectives, and eventually, to identify and evaluate a full range of action alternatives.
Creating a complete articulation of meansends relationships is essential to
create an effective decision-making frame (Keeney, 1992, p. 92).
Model Development
Wildlife management involves messy problems (Vennix, 1999, p. 380). Wildlife
management takes place within ecological and social systems that are highly
dynamic and nonlinear (Holling, Berkes, & Folke, 1998). Wildlife management
is also contentious because of the diversity of values associated with decisions
about wildlife resources. Many attributes under consideration in wildlife man-
agement, such as human attitudes, beliefs, and values typically are described
qualitatively. Systems dynamics offers three important strengths for developing
FIGURE 2 A partial meansend network for management of safety-related
impacts associated with New York State black bears.
Adaptive Impact Management 91
AIM: (1) better structure to guide and communicate thinking (Walters, 1986);
(2) increased decision-making capacity (Forrester, 1968); and (3) increased rates
of learning (Senge & Sterman, 1994).
Lee (1999, p. 5) indicated, The essence of managing adaptively is having
an explicit vision or model of the ecosystem one is trying to guide. Stakeholders
seldom have a common understanding of ecosystems or an understanding that
can be communicated in a common language. Modeling, especially when done in
a group setting, helps organize and communicate the complexity of management
systems to managers and stakeholders (Vennix, 1999). Model development also
exposes important uncertainties about the management system. With few excep-
tions, managers perform poorly at making accurate decisions within a multifaceted
system such as wildlife management (Kahneman, Slovic, & Tvesrsky, 1982).
Many facets of the management system may not even be recognized, let alone
understood. Models become highly useful tools for describing and managing a
wildlife management system, integrating ecological and human dimensions.
Models encourage examination of proposed management interventions, and
help define acceptable sets of management options carried forward through the
policy process. Assumptions behind policy changes will be explicit and subject
to additional evaluation and improvement. Modeling also leads to systematic
identification of information deficiencies that can become addressed by research.
Identification and Selection of Alternatives
In this phase types of potential management interventions are identified and the
critical processes and indicators of management performance are explicitly articu-
lated. In formulating alternatives, managers tend to maintain status quo or rely on
rules of thumb (Russo & Schoemaker, 1989). To counter this tendency, options
should not be limited to those believed to be available. Stakeholders often have
creative ideas for alternatives and personal perspectives about expected impacts
(Gregory, 2000). The key consideration is to continually analyze any proposed
intervention (enabling objective) in terms of the fundamental objectives
(impacts) expressed by stakeholders.
Management Interventions
It is unrealistic to develop a priori the single best model for a management system.
An adaptive mode accepts uncertainties and invites more than one model and
management approach. Managers and stakeholders can develop alternative,
competing models about the structure of the management system. Probabilities
about which may be the true model or approach to achieve desired impacts are
assigned to each competing model, with a strength of belief depicted by values
ranging from 0 (no belief in the model) to 1 (complete belief). Management
interventions are then conducted based upon the competing models.
92 S. J. Riley et al.
Monitor
An important step, often lacking in adaptive management, is rigorous evaluation
of impacts that result from interventions (White, 2001). Primary performance
measures are the fundamental objectives identified in the objective-setting step of
AIM. Model probabilities are updated through Bayesian analyses based on what
is learned after management interventions are conducted (Anderson, 1998).
A goal of adaptive impact management is to provide compelling evidence that
refines belief probabilities, based on monitoring of management interventions, of
one model towards a probability of 1.0. The purpose of this process is to focus
impact management under direction of the model believed to be the best repre-
sentation of the system.
Adjust
System models are adjusted through time with increased knowledge about the
management system or as changes occur in the system. With time and experience,
confidence systematically improves in the surviving model. Management
alternatives predicted by models to be viable sometimes fail because of poor
implementation. Adjustments must then be made to the implementation process,
not to the model structure.
Discussion
Benefits of AIM
By focusing on impacts, AIM is expected to have several advantages over
current adaptive management approaches: (1) increased relevancy of wildlife
management to society; (2) greater stakeholder satisfaction; (3) managers more
apt and capable of embracing change and uncertainty rather than avoiding it;
and (4) learning becomes a motivator as well as a product throughout the man-
agement system. Because relevant impacts are the primary focus, an adaptive
approachexperimental managementshould be more readily adopted and
implemented by decision makers such as wildlife commissions than current
adaptive management efforts (Walters, 1997). The inclusion of stakeholders in
the development and refinement of AIM models, as well as in implementation
and evaluation of management interventions, should put wildlife management
in a favorable political atmosphere (Chase, Lauber, & Decker, 2001). Less use
of legislative referenda processes can be an outcome of greater stakeholder
participation and achievement of desired impacts (Loker, Decker, & Chase,
1998). Most importantly, this approach will help managers stay agile in an
ever-changing management environment by discouraging a static, one-model-
fits-all approach.
Adaptive Impact Management 93
Costs of AIM
The adaptive or experimental portion of AIM may not always be chosen for
many justifiable reasons (Walters & Green, 1997). An adaptive approach is not
likely to be cost-effective if the opportunities for making major changes to policy
are not favorable. Potential gains in learning are not achieved if the only changes
made in management interventions are incremental or slight (Walters & Holling,
1990). The potential for learning increases with the magnitude of management
interventions.
Some management costs may increase with AIM. There is a learning curve
and new expertise will be needed. Agencies will need to strengthen expertise in
socioeconomic disciplines and employ effective facilitators to maintain a neutral
position in decisions. Whereas systems modeling aspects may be a barrier to
some potential users, availability of user-friendly software such as Stella II (High
Performance Systems, Hanover, NH) should increase understanding and facilitate
modeling. More important than modeling skills are positive attitudes and willing-
ness among managers to experiment and take risks.
Future effectiveness of wildlife professionals may depend upon their ability
to discover and adopt new ways to facilitate stakeholder involvement in impact-
oriented management. Structured decision processes, such as AIM, have much to
offer wildlife managers as operational approaches. A critical difference offered
by AIM over previous methods is employment of stakeholder-identified impacts
in fundamental objectives and an emphasis on learning shared among scientists,
managers, and stakeholders. Paradoxically, increased stakeholder involvement in
decisions may help professional managers maintain, rather than lose, leadership
in wildlife management.
References
Ackoff, R. L. (1970).
A concept of corporate planning
. New York: Wiley.
Anderson, J. L. (1998). Embracing uncertainty: The interface of Bayesian statistics and
cognitive psychology.
Conservation Ecology
[on-line], 2(2). <http://www.consecol.
org/vol2/iss1/art2>.
Bissonette, J. A. (1997). Scale-sensitive properties: Historical context, current meaning. In
J. A. Bissonette (Ed.),
Wildlife and landscape ecology: Effects of pattern and scale
(pp. 331). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Brown, T. L., Decker, D. J., Riley, S. J., Enck, J. W., Lauber, T. B., & Mattfeld, G. F.
(2000). The future of hunting as a mechanism to control white-tailed deer popula-
tions.
Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28
(4), 797807.
Chase, L. C., Siemer, W. F., & Decker, D. J. (1999).
Designing strategies for stakeholder
involvement in wildlife management: Insights from case studies in Colorado and New
York
. Human Dimensions Research Unit Publication 99-9. Department of Natural
Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
Chase, L. C., Lauber, T. B., & Decker, D. J. (2001). Citizen participation in wildlife
management decisions. In D. J. Decker, T. L. Brown, & W. F. Siemer (Ed.),
Human
94 S. J. Riley et al.
dimensions of wildlife management in North America 2001
(pp. 153170). Washington,
DC: The Wildlife Society.
Decker, D. J., Krueger, C. C., Baer, R. A., Jr., Knuth, B. A., & Richmond, M. E. (1996).
From clients to stakeholders: A philosophical shift for fish and wildlife management.
Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 1
, 7082.
Decker, D. J., Schusler, T. M., Brown, T. L., & Mattfeld, G. F. (2000). Co-management:
An evolving process for the future of wildlife management.
Transactions of the 65th
North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 65
, 262277.
Enck, J. W., Decker, D. J., & Brown, T. L. (2000). Status of hunter recruitment and reten-
tion in the United States.
Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28
(4), 817824.
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm.
Journal of
Communication, 43
, 5158.
Forrester, J. W. (1968).
Principles of Systems, 2nd
edition. Portland, OR: Productivity.
Gilmour, A., Walkerden, G., & Scandol, J. (1999). Adaptive management of the water
cycle on the urban fringe: Three Australian case studies.
Conservation Ecology,
3
(11). [on-line] <http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss1/art11>.
Gregory, R. (2000). Using stakeholder values to make smarter environmental decisions.
Environment, 42
, 3444.
Hammond, J. S., Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1999). Smart choices: A practical guide to
making better decisions. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
Henry, R., Tripp, N., Gilligan, V., Smith, E., Pratt, G., Fodge, J., et al. (2000).
New York
State’s black bear standard operating procedures manual
. Albany, NY: New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation.
Holling, C. S. (Ed.). (1978).
Adaptive environmental assessment and management
. New
York: Wiley.
Holling, C. S., Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (1998). Science, sustainability, and resource man-
agement. In F. Berkes, C. Folke, & J. Colding (Eds.),
Linking social and ecological
systems 1998
(pp. 342362). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, B. L. (1999). Adaptive managementScientifically sound, socially challenged?
Conservation Ecology
, 3(10) [on-line] <http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss1/art10>.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982).
Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics
and biases
. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
Keeney, R. L. (1992).
Value-focused thinking: A path to creative decisionmaking
.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Lancia, R. A., Braun, C. E., Callopy, M. W., Dueser, R. D., Kie, J. G., Martinka, C. J.,
et al. (1996). ARM! For the future: Adaptive resource management in the wildlife
profession.
Wildlife Society Bulletin, 24
, 436442.
Lee, K. N. (1993). Greed, scale mismatch, and learning.
Ecological Applications, 3
,
560564.
Lee, K. N. (1999). Appraising adaptive management.
Conservation Ecology, 3
(3).
[on-line] <http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss2/art3>.
Light, S., Carlsen, E., Blann, K., Fagrelius, S., Barton, K., & Stenquist, B. (1998).
Citizen
science, watershed partnerships, and sustainability: The case in Minnesota
. St. Paul,
MN: Surdna Foundation.
Loker, C. A., Decker, D. J., & Chase, L. C. (1998). Ballot initiativesAntithesis of
human dimensions approaches or catalyst for change?
Human Dimensions of Wild-
life, 3
, 820.
Adaptive Impact Management 95
Mangel, M., Talbot, L. M., Meffe, G. K., Tundi Agardy, M., Alverson, J. B., Barlow, J.,
et al. (1996). Principles for the conservation of wild living resources.
Ecological
Applications, 6
(2), 338362.
Margerum, R. D. (1999). Integrated environmental management: The foundations for
successful practice.
Environmental Management, 24
, 151166.
Meffe, G. K., & Viederman, S. (1995). Combining science and policy in conservation
biology.
Wildlife Society Bulletin, 23
, 327333.
Parma, A. M., Amarasekare, P., Mangel, M., Moore, J., Murdock, W. W., Noonburg, E.,
et al. (1998). What can adaptive management do for our fish, forests, food, and
biodiversity?
Integrative Biology, 1
, 1626.
Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Riley, S. J., Decker, D. J., Carpenter, L. H., Organ, J. F., Siemer, W. F., Mattfeld, G. F.
(2002). The essence of wildlife management.
Wildlife Society Bulletin, 30
(2), in press.
Russo, J. E., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1989).
Decision traps: Ten barriers to brilliant
decision-making and how to overcome them
. New York: Fireside.
Schusler, T. M., & Decker, D. J. (2001).
Engaging local communities in wildlife manage-
ment planning: An evaluation of the Lake Ontario Islands search conference
. Human
Dimensions Research Unit Publication 01-5. Department of Natural Resources,
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
Senge, P. M., & Sterman, J. D. (1994). System thinking and organizational learning: Acting
locally and thinking globally in the organization of the future. In J. D. W. Morecroft
& J. D. Sterman,
Modeling for learning organizations
(pp. 195216). Portland, OR:
Productivity.
Shindler, B., & Cheek, K. A. (1999). Integrating citizens in adaptive management: A propos-
itional analysis.
Conservation Ecology
, 3(9), [on-line] URL: <http://www.consecol.
org/vol3/iss1/art9>.
Vennix, J. A. M. (1999). Group model-building: Tackling messy problems.
System Dynamics
Review, 15
, 379401.
Walters, C. J. (1986).
Adaptive management of renewable resources
. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Walters, C. J. (1997). Challenges in adaptive management of riparian and coastal ecosys-
tems.
Conservation Ecology, 1
(1), [on-line:] <http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss2/
art1>.
Walters, C. J., & Green, R. (1997). Valuation of experimental management options for
ecological systems.
Journal of Wildlife Management, 61
, 9871006.
Walters, C. J., & Holling, C. S. (1990). Large-scale management experiments and learning
by doing.
Ecology, 71
, 20602068.
Western, D., & Wright, R. M. (1994). The background to community-based conservation.
In D. Western & R. M. Wright (Eds.),
Natural connections: Perspective in
community-based conservation
(pp. 112). Washington, DC: Island Press.
White, G. C. (2001). Why take calculus? Rigor in wildlife management.
Wildlife Society
Bulletin, 29
, 380386.
Wondolleck, J. M., & Yaffee, S. L. (2000).
Making collaboration work: Lessons from
innovation in natural resource management
. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Yaffee, S. L. (1999). Three faces of ecosystem management.
Conservation Biology, 13
,
713725.
... The key to successful wildlife management is to include both ecological and human dimensions (keuling et al. 2016) into the decision making process in order to achieve positive impacts that are valued by all stakeholders (Riley et al. 2003). This is particularly true for the management of conflict species such as wild boar. ...
... As the socio-cultural context of wildlife management has changed in recent decades (Riley et al. 2003), successful wildlife management more than ever implies including both ecological as well as human dimensions (keuling et al. 2016). With wild boar causing more and more human-wildlife conflicts in Flanders, there was a need for a fast and simple method to collect information on the most important impact: crop damage. ...
Article
Full-text available
Wild boar (Sus scrofa L.) reappeared in Flanders (northern Belgium) in 2006 after almost half a century of absence. Interactions between wild boar and human activities are frequent due to extensive fragmentation of the landscape in Flanders. Complaints about agricultural damage are increasing but the actual extent of crop damage remains unknown. The goal of this study was to assess the current risk and the spatial distribution of crop damage, as well as factors influencing damage distribution in the province of Limburg (eastern Flanders). An online survey was sent to farmers by email. Moreover, as we expected potential respondent bias towards farmers that already experienced damage, we also conducted a follow-up non-respondent check by telephone. Our study showed that the current crop damage probability on a farm lies between 42% (likely an overestimation due to respondent bias in the online survey) and 22% (an underestimation based on the non-respondent check). There is considerable geographical variation in the proportion of farms that report boar damage; probability for crop damage due to wild boar is relatively high for farmers in Limburg but shows a geographically heterogeneous spread. Factors explaining the crop damage probability differed strongly between the online survey and the non-respondent check and no consistent results could be found. Our results show that using the online survey, it was possible to get an initial insight in the geographical distribution of crop damage. However, as we found differences between the results of the online survey and the non-respondent check, taking management decisions based solely on online survey results without conducting a non-respondent check could lead to misguided actions.
... This article demonstrated that hunters are able and willing to contribute their understanding of this resource and want opportunities to share their knowledge. Hunters' insights into wildlife populations have been shown to be informative and help guide management and policy decisions in other systems (Chase, Siemer, & Decker, 2002;Fleegle, Rosenberry, & Wallingford, 2013;Holmgaard, Eythórsson, & Tombre, 2018;Riley et al., 2003), and despite the challenges of conducting scientific human dimensions of wildlife surveys, managers should be aware of and receptive to the notion that hunters' knowledge could be used to inform monitoring and research on wildlife in Alaska (Lauber et al., 2014;Sexton, Miller, & Dietsch, 2011). ...
Article
Full-text available
The Central Arctic Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) Herd (CACH) of Arctic Alaska rapidly declined (approximately 70%) between 2010–2016, which has generated hunter concerns and more conservative hunting regulations. Stakeholders expressed interest in exploring opportunities for a more effective exchange of information to facilitate management. We conducted a survey to identify hunters’ insights into CACH dynamics and to estimate the extent and effectiveness of stakeholder communication channels. Most hunters (69%) perceived a decline in caribou numbers where they hunt because of shifts in caribou movement. Approximately half of hunters (46%) communicated with other stakeholders and primarily shared their thoughts through solely informal (29%) rather than formal (2%) communication channels. Informal channels were perceived as equally or more effective than formal channels for influencing management. We provided a revised model of hunter engagement in the regulatory process. Our research contributes to knowledge on stakeholder communication channels, an understudied topic within wildlife management.
... Strategies like structured decision making (Gregory, McDaniels, and Fields 2001) and adaptive impact management (Riley et al. 2003) could meet this call by strategically incorporating stakeholder input into the policymaking and management processes. These strategies would explicitly combine abstract ideals of ecosystem balance with concrete goals to reduce depredation. ...
Article
Charismatic wildlife can be difficult to manage due to the controversies they generate among stakeholders, which may be rooted in their symbolic meaning. Using construal-level theory, we coded the images of gray wolves mentioned by respondents to a national survey (n ¼ 621) and an issue public survey (n ¼ 447) as symbolic (abstract) or corporeal (concrete). We analyzed the relationship between these representations of wolves and several perceptions that may perpetuate social conflict. Most people thought of wolves abstractly, and abstract thoughts were associated with positive feelings toward wolves and agreement with existence beliefs regarding wolves. Concrete representations were associated with identifying as a gun or property rights advocate, hunter, or farmer/rancher. Given these disparate views of wolves, engaging stakeholders through col-laborative processes designed to foster a shared understanding of this species, while addressing the concerns of those groups, could be useful in reducing conflict concerning wolf management. ARTICLE HISTORY
Article
Hastening the development of early and mid‐career fish and wildlife (hereafter wildlife) professionals in state and federal agencies is an acute need. In particular, development and application of exceptional reasoning and judgment skills is critical. It would be shortsighted, however, for wildlife agency administrators to assume professional development is simply a matter of staff training. Decker et al. (2019) completed an expert panel study in 2019 to identify habits and practices of consistently high performing wildlife management professionals. Decker et al. (2019) suggest 5 clusters of competencies are characteristic of consistently high‐performing wildlife professionals: being a critically inquisitive, continuous learner; practicing multi‐level, integrative systems thinking; being self‐disciplined; using a balanced approach; and having the emotional intelligence to interact successfully with others. Based on observations from a series of workshops with wildlife professionals, our collective professional experience, and literature review, we contend that impediments to expression of key habits/practices identified by Decker et al. (2019) exist at the group and organizational, as well as the individual level. We argue that providing individual training is necessary, but not sufficient to create work environments where wildlife professionals in state and federal wildlife agencies can develop and apply reasoning and judgment skills. Structural and cultural change in wildlife agencies would enhance effectiveness of public wildlife management. We hope this empirically‐grounded commentary stimulates reflection within wildlife agencies and a commitment to organizational behavior that catalyzes professional development. Decker et al. (2019) completed an expert panel study in 2019 that identified habits and practices characteristic of consistently high‐performing wildlife professionals. Barriers to expression of key habits/practices identified by Decker et al. (2019) exist at the group and organizational, as well as the individual level. We argue that providing individual training is necessary, but not sufficient to create work environments where all wildlife professionals can develop and apply reasoning and judgment skills.
Article
Conserving large carnivores while keeping people safe depends on finding means for peaceful coexistence. Although large carnivore populations are generally declining globally, some populations are increasing, causing greater overlap with humans and increasing potential for conflict. One method of reducing conflict with large carnivores is to secure attractants like garbage and livestock. This method is effective when implemented; however, implementation requires a change in human behavior. Human‐wildlife interaction is a public good collective action problem where solutions require contributions from many and individual actions have effects on others. We used the collective interest model to investigate how individual and collective factors work in concert to influence landowner attractant securing behavior in Montana, USA, in black (Ursus americanus) and grizzly bear (U. arctos) range. We used data from a mail‐back survey to develop logistic regression models testing the relative effects of collective and individual factors on landowners' attractant securing behaviors. The most important factor was whether individuals had spoken to a wildlife professional, a reflection of social coordination and pressure. Other collective factors (e.g., social norms [i.e., expectations and behaviors of peers] and the existence of discussion networks [i.e., how much social influence an individual has]) were equally important as individual factors (e.g., beliefs, age, gender) for influencing attractant securing behavior among Montana landowners. This research suggests pathways for wildlife managers and outreach coordinators to increase attractant securing behavior by emphasizing collective factors, such as social norms, rather than appealing exclusively to individual factors, such as risk perception of large carnivores. Furthermore, wildlife agencies would be justified in increasing their efforts to connect with landowners in person and to connect with members of the public who play an important role in discussion networks. This research demonstrates that, even on private lands, collective interests may be a missing and important piece of the puzzle for encouraging voluntary attractant securing behavior and improving wildlife‐human coexistence. © 2021 The Wildlife Society. Collective social factors, like social norms, influence uptake in human behaviors to secure items, like garbage and livestock, that can attract large carnivores. Managers seeking to encourage the public to secure carnivore attractants as a method for preventing conflict and improving coexistence with wildlife may benefit from applying collective action insights in their messaging and outreach strategies. For example, outreach campaigns that include a normative appeal, such as information about the expectations and behaviors of one's peers, may be more effective than campaigns that include carnivore risk information alone.
Article
• Throughout recent years, ungulates have experienced significant increases in numbers and geographic range sizes in Europe, becoming locally overabundant populations in some regions. Changes in legislation regarding poaching, abandonment of land and re‐naturalisation of habitats, and decreasing numbers of hunters, among other things, have led to alarming scenarios in wild ungulate biology. Although ungulates bring some financial benefits for ecosystems and society through tourism and hunting, the problems associated with populations that are no longer controlled can outweigh the advantages. Damage to forestry and agriculture, ungulate‐vehicle collisions, and diseases are among the most concerning problems related to ungulate overabundance. • To deal with these problems and to decide on the best management strategy to apply, it is essential to have tools available to monitor populations with an integrative approach based on ecological change indicators, and to assess population and ecosystem status. Furthermore, in a globalised world, people’s opinions matter, and sociological studies regarding human perception of wild mammals must take place in order to allow proper management, including consideration of people’s expectations as well as animal and ecosystem needs. Successful and unsuccessful management strategies have already been attempted, and the knowledge of consequences over time enables an adaptive approach. • Management of ungulate populations is a complex subject, and each case should be studied, analysing the cost_performance balance of measures to be taken, and ensuring ongoing financial means to carry out and continue with successful ecosystem management strategies. Multidisciplinary teams should be built, including biologists, veterinarians, stakeholders, sociologists, and others, to deal with the management of European wild ungulate populations.
Article
en Diurnal raptor habitat use has conservation implications due to environmental and anthropogenic interactions. Three tree‐nesting diurnal raptors, black kites (Milvus milvus ), steppe buzzards (Buteo vulpinus ) and African fish eagles (Haliaeetus vocifer ), were studied from December 2016 to October 2017. The objective was to determine factors influencing diurnal raptor habitat selection and use in and around Chembe Bird Sanctuary of Kalulushi district, Zambia. We surveyed for birds in ten randomly selected 200 × 200 m sample plots in each of the five stratified sampling units (miombo woodland, grasslands, human settlements, Lake Chembe and marsh). Seasons and dietary composition variably influenced the distribution, habitat selection and use by raptors. The three raptors devised a suit of behaviours to curtail challenges associated with seasonal food and water availability, and anthropogenic disturbances. There is a need to promote multi‐stakeholder engagement and involvement in raptor conservation. Résumé fr L’utilisation de l’habitat des rapaces diurnes a des répercussions sur la conservation en raison des interactions environnementales et anthropiques. Trois espèces de rapaces diurnes, les milans noirs (Milvus milvus ), les buses de steppe (Buteo vulpinus ) et les aigles pêcheurs d'Afrique (Haliaeetus vocifer ) utilisant les arbres comme sites de nidification ont fait l’objet d’une étude qui s’est déroulée de décembre 2016 à octobre 2017. Les objectifs de cette étude étaient de déterminer les facteurs influençant la sélection et l’utilisation de l’habitat par les rapaces diurnes dans la réserve ornithologique de Chembe, située dans le district de Kalulushi, en Zambie. Nous avons étudié les oiseaux de dix parcelles échantillonnées de 200 × 200 m sélectionnées de manière aléatoire dans chacune des cinq unités d’échantillonnage stratifié (savanes boisées de miombo, prairies, établissements humains, lac Chembe et marécages). Les saisons ainsi que la composition du régime alimentaire ont influencé de manière variable la répartition, la sélection et l’utilisation de l’habitat par les rapaces. Les trois espèces de rapaces ont élaboré un ensemble de comportements pour faire face aux défis associés à la disponibilité saisonnière des ressources en eau et en nourriture ainsi qu’aux perturbations anthropiques. La promotion d’un engagement impliquant de multiples intervenants dans la conservation des rapaces est nécessaire.
Article
Marketing research methods could enhance understanding of hunter satisfaction, a key metric for state wildlife management agencies. We used 3 marketing research approaches—revised importance‐performance, importance‐grid, and penalty‐reward‐contrast analysis—to test determinants of waterfowl hunter satisfaction in Minnesota, USA. These methods have seen limited application in research on hunting and other outdoor recreation activities. Using results from a 2015 mail survey, we examined the implicit and explicit motivations and overall satisfaction of Minnesota waterfowl hunters. We also differentiated how experiences relate to satisfaction for more avid and less avid hunters, defined by self‐reported importance of the activity. Seeing ducks in the field was important to satisfaction for both avidity groups. Bagging ducks each day in the field was more important to satisfaction for less avid hunters, whereas bagging a lot of ducks over the season and attracting ducks with decoys were more important to the satisfaction of more avid hunters. Our methods illuminate differences between explicit and implicit motivations for participation in waterfowl hunting, clarify factors crucial to satisfaction, and identify asymmetric influences of experiences on satisfaction and dissatisfaction. © 2019 The Wildlife Society. We demonstrated the use of novel marketing research methods to enhance understanding of hunter satisfaction, which is a key metric for state wildlife management agencies. We differentiated more and less avid hunters, illuminated differences between explicit and implicit motivations for participation in waterfowl hunting, clarified factors crucial to satisfaction, and identified asymmetric influences of experiences on satisfaction and dissatisfaction.
Article
Wildlife management is evolving in many ways including adaptation of philosophy and practices to contemporary ideas about governance of wildlife as public trust resources. Inherent to good governance is citizen engagement, especially regarding who is engaged and to what ends management efforts are directed. Two decades ago, the profession was encouraged to shift from a client orientation (i.e., a narrow focus on people who pay for services and products) to a stakeholder orientation (i.e., any people affected by or affecting wildlife or its management). We believe that it is time again to broaden thinking about the related questions: wildlife management for whom and for what? We argue that management needs to shift slightly from a stakeholder orientation to a beneficiary orientation. This shift may be less challenging than the earlier call for change but nevertheless has implications for practices of public engagement and for objectives and outcomes of wildlife management that bring the enterprise into better alignment with the expectations of public trust resource management. © 2019 The Wildlife Society. Recent interest in the Public Trust Doctrine has helped clarify the question of “Wildlife management for whom and for what?” The concept of all wildlife for all people broadens the scope of who the beneficiaries of wildlife management should be and shifts conservation agencies’ focus from stakeholders to beneficiaries.
Article
Full-text available
A national survey of wildlife agency directors was conducted during 1957 to determine their perceptions of wildlife damage to agriculture. This study was repeated in 1987, expanding the sample to include chief executive officers of state Farm Bureaus and state Wildlife Extension Specialists as well as wildlife agency leaders. During 2017, we replicated these studies to determine how perceptions of leaders had changed over the past 30 and 60 years. In the 2017 survey, 21 different wildlife species were reported by ≥1 respondent as causing the most damage in their state. Despite the numerous species causing damage, deer (Odocoileus spp.) were listed by most respondents as producing the most agricultural damage in their state. State Farm Bureaus and Wildlife Extension Specialists overestimated the amount of governmental services and products that were available to help farmers in their state. Most respondents believed that wildlife damage to agriculture was a serious problem in their state and had increased during the past 30 years. When survey results were compared, feral hog (Sus scrofa), goose (Anatidae), and wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) were listed more frequently in 2017 than in 1987, suggesting that problems caused by these species have increased in severity during the past 30 years. Use of special shooting and trapping permits issued to farmers had increased over the decades. Governmental agencies were more likely to provide fencing material and noisemakers and plant diversionary crops in 2017 and 1987 than they were in 1957. Modern wildlife management has been remarkably successful in increasing wildlife populations, to the point that some species occur in sufficient numbers in some places to cause remarkable levels of damage to crops and livestock.
Article
Both realism and justice demand that efforts to conserve biological diversity address human needs as well. The most promising hope of accomplishing such a goal lies in locally based conservation efforts -- an approach that seeks ways to make local communities the beneficiaries and custodians of conservation efforts.Natural Connections focuses on rural societies and the conservation of biodiversity in rural areas. It represents the first systematic analysis of locally based efforts, and includes a comprehensive examination of cases from around the world where the community-based approach is used. The book provides: an overview of community-based conservation in the context of the debate over sustainable development, poverty, and environmental decline case studies from the developed and developing worlds -- Indonesia, Peru, Australia, Zimbabwe, Costa Rica, the United Kingdom -- that present detailed examples of the locally based approach to conservation a review of the principal issues arising from community-based programs an agenda for future action
Article
Adaptive management is appraised as a policy implementation approach by examining its conceptual, technical, equity, and practical strengths and limitations. Three conclusions are drawn: (1) Adaptive management has been more influential, so far, as an idea than as a practical means of gaining insight into the behavior of ecosystems utilized and inhabited by humans. (2) Adaptive management should be used only after disputing parties have agreed to an agenda of questions to be answered using the adaptive approach; this is not how the approach has been used. (3) Efficient, effective social learning, of the kind facilitated by adaptive management, is likely to be of strategic importance in governing ecosystems as humanity searches for a sustainable economy.
Article
Group model-building here refers to a system dynamics model-building process in which a client group is deeply involved in the process of model construction. The problem that is modelled can be reasonably well defined, but it can also take the form of an ill-defined or messy problem, i.e., a situation in which opinions in a management team differ considerably These messy managerial situations are difficult to handle, primarily because thus far little theoretical work has been conducted to shed more light on the question why these messy situations exist and why it may be difficult for a management team to reach agreement. This article fills this theoretical gap by drawing on literature from sociology, (social) psychology and small-group research. Insights from this literature are discussed and translated into guidelines for conducting Group Model-Building projects for messy problems. The article ends with the conclusion that system dynamicists should include Group Model-Building and facilitation training in their teaching programs. Copyright (C) 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Article
Many decisions are based on beliefs concerning the likelihood of uncertain events such as the outcome of an election, the guilt of a defendant, or the future value of the dollar. Occasionally, beliefs concerning uncertain events are expressed in numerical form as odds or subjective probabilities. In general, the heuristics are quite useful, but sometimes they lead to severe and systematic errors. The subjective assessment of probability resembles the subjective assessment of physical quantities such as distance or size. These judgments are all based on data of limited validity, which are processed according to heuristic rules. However, the reliance on this rule leads to systematic errors in the estimation of distance. This chapter describes three heuristics that are employed in making judgments under uncertainty. The first is representativeness, which is usually employed when people are asked to judge the probability that an object or event belongs to a class or event. The second is the availability of instances or scenarios, which is often employed when people are asked to assess the frequency of a class or the plausibility of a particular development, and the third is adjustment from an anchor, which is usually employed in numerical prediction when a relevant value is available.