Role of Adaptive Management for Watershed Councils

Recent findings in the Umpqua River Basin in southwestern Oregon illustrate a tension in the rise of both community-based and watershed-based approaches to aquatic resource management. While community-based institutions such as watershed councils offer relief from the government control landowners dislike, community-based approaches impinge on landowners' strong belief in independence and private property rights. Watershed councils do offer the local control landowners advocate; however, institutional success hinges on watershed councils' ability to reduce bureaucracy, foster productive discussion and understanding among stakeholders, and provide financial, technical, and coordination support. Yet, to accomplish these tasks current watershed councils rely on the fiscal and technical capital of the very governmental entities that landowners distrust. Adaptive management provides a basis for addressing the apparent tension by incorporating landowners' belief in environmental resilience and acceptance of experimentation that rejects “one size fits all solutions.” Therefore community-based adaptive watershed management provides watershed councils a framework that balances landowners' independence and fear of government intrusion, acknowledges the benefits of community cooperation through watershed councils, and enables ecological assessment of landowner-preferred practices. Community-based adaptive management integrates social and ecological suitability to achieve conservation outcomes by providing landowners the flexibility to use a diverse set of conservation practices to achieve desired ecological outcomes, instead of imposing regulations or specific practices.     

Information Network Topologies for Enhanced Local Adaptive Management

We examined the principal effects of different information network topologies for local adaptive management of natural resources. We used computerized agents with adaptive decision algorithms with the following three fundamental constraints: (1) Complete understanding of the processes maintaining the natural resource can never be achieved, (2) agents can only learn by experimentation and information sharing, and (3) memory is limited. The agents were given the task to manage a system that had two states: one that provided high utility returns (desired) and one that provided low returns (undesired). In addition, the threshold between the states was close to the optimal return of the desired state. We found that networks of low to moderate link densities significantly increased the resilience of the utility returns. Networks of high link densities contributed to highly synchronized behavior among the agents, which caused occasional large-scale ecological crises between periods of stable and high utility returns. A constructed network involving a small set of experimenting agents was capable of combining high utility returns with high resilience, conforming to theories underlying the concept of adaptive comanagement. We conclude that (1) the ability to manage for resilience (i.e., to stay clear of the threshold leading to the undesired state as well as the ability to re-enter the desired state following a collapse) resides in the network structure and (2) in a coupled social–ecological system, the systemwide state transition occurs not because the ecological system flips into the undesired state, but because managers lose their capacity to reorganize back to the desired state. An erratum to this article can be found at .     

Adaptive management: Promises and pitfalls

Proponents of the scientific adaptive management approach argue that it increases knowledge acquisition rates, enhances information flow among policy actors, and provides opportunities for creating shared understandings. However, evidence from efforts to implement the approach in New Brunswick, British Columbia, Canada, and the Columbia River Basin indicates that these promises have not been met. The data show that scientific adaptive management relies excessively on the use of linear systems models, discounts nonscientific forms of knowledge, and pays inadequate attention to policy processes that promote the development of shared understandings among diverse stakeholders. To be effective, new adaptive management efforts will need to incorporate knowledge from multiple sources, make use of multiple systems models, and support new forms of cooperation among stakeholders.     

Adaptive Management and Watersheds: A Social Science Perspective1

Abstract:  Adaptive management is often proposed as the most effective way to manage complex watersheds. However, our experience suggests that social and institutional factors constrain the search for, and integration of, the genuine learning that defines adaptive management. Drawing on our work as social scientists, and on a guided panel discussion at a recent AWRA conference, we suggest that watershed‐scale adaptive management must be recognized as a radical departure from established ways of managing natural resources if it is to achieve its promise. Successful implementation will require new ways of thinking about management, new organizational structures and new implementation processes and tools. Adaptive management encourages scrutiny of prevailing social and organizational norms and this is unlikely to occur without a change in the culture of natural resource management and research. Planners and managers require educational, administrative, and political support as they seek to understand and implement adaptive management. Learning and reflection must be valued and rewarded, and fora established where learning through adaptive management can be shared and explored. The creation of new institutions, including educational curricula, organizational policies and practices, and professional norms and beliefs, will require support from within bureaucracies and from politicians. For adaptive management to be effective researchers and managers alike must work together at the watershed‐scale to bridge the gaps between theory and practice, and between social and technical understandings of watersheds and the people who occupy and use them.     

Watershed Management and Organizational Dynamics: Nationwide Findings and Regional Variation

Recent attention has focused on resource management initiatives at the watershed scale with emphasis on collaborative, locally driven, and decentralized institutional arrangements. Existing literature on limited selections of well-established watershed-based organizations has provided valuable insights. The current research extends this focus by including a broad survey of watershed organizations from across the United States as a means to estimate a national portrait. Organizational characteristics include year of formation, membership size and composition, budget, guiding principles, and mechanisms of decision-making. These characteristics and the issue concerns of organizations are expected to vary with respect to location. Because this research focuses on organizations that are place based and stakeholder driven, the forces driving them are expected to differ across regions of the country. On this basis of location, we suggest basic elements for a regional assessment of watershed organizations to channel future research and to better approximate the organizational dynamics, issue concerns, and information needs unique to organizations across the country. At the broadest level, the identification of regional patterns or organizational similarities may facilitate the linkage among organizations to coordinate their actions at the much broader river basin or ecosystem scale.     

A Soft Systems Approach to Watershed Management: A Road Salt Case Study

Watershed management requires integration of social and ecological understanding. Participatory approaches to planning and management incorporate stakeholder knowledge and understanding. An action research strategy using focus groups with Michigan State University operations units helped generate a soft systems model of watershed impacts of organizational decision-making regarding road de-icing. The results reveal tensions and inconsistencies between the mission and operation of the institution. These tensions are exacerbated by inadequate communication among various elements of the campus watershed management system. The action research approach facilitated the researchers understanding of the complex institutional system and helped identify possible areas for making improvements. Specifically, the researchers were able to facilitate improvement in some linkages between scientists developing campus watershed models and the operations staff responsible for handling many of the inputs being modeled.     

Post-Project Appraisals in Adaptive Management of River Channel Restoration

Post-project appraisals (PPAs) can evaluate river restoration schemes in relation to their compliance with design, their short-term performance attainment, and their longer-term geomorphological compatibility with the catchment hydrology and sediment transport processes. PPAs provide the basis for communicating the results of one restoration scheme to another, thereby improving future restoration designs. They also supply essential performance feedback needed for adaptive management, in which management actions are treated as experiments. PPAs allow river restoration success to be defined both in terms of the scheme attaining its performance objectives and in providing a significant learning experience. Different levels of investment in PPA, in terms of pre-project data and follow-up information, bring with them different degrees of understanding and thus different abilities to gauge both types of success. We present four case studies to illustrate how the commitment to PPA has determined the understanding achieved in each case. In Moore's Gulch (California, USA), understanding was severely constrained by the lack of pre-project data and post-implementation monitoring. Pre-project data existed for the Kitswell Brook (Hertfordshire, UK), but the monitoring consisted only of one site visit and thus the understanding achieved is related primarily to design compliance issues. The monitoring undertaken for Deep Run (Maryland, USA) and the River Idle (Nottinghamshire, UK) enabled some understanding of the short-term performance of each scheme. The transferable understanding gained from each case study is used to develop an illustrative five-fold classification of geomorphological PPAs (full, medium-term, short-term, one-shot, and remains) according to their potential as learning experiences. The learning experience is central to adaptive management but rarely articulated in the literature. Here, we gauge the potential via superimposition onto a previous schematic representation of the adaptive management process by Haney and Power (1996). Using PPAs wisely can lead to cutting-edge, complex solutions to river restoration challenges.     

Why ecosystem management can't work without Social science: An example from the California northern spotted owl controversy

It is increasingly obvious that social science, while not a sufficient condition for making ecosystem management effective, is a necessary condition. A social science typology of ecosystems is developed, applied, and shown to have substantial and unexpected implications for the practice of ecosystem management. Ecologists and environmental scientists, in particular, will find some conclusions uncomfortable. The application involves a case material from the California northern spotted owl controversy.     

Making Collaborative Watershed Management Work: The Confluence of State and Regional Initiatives

Initiatives in the Neponset, Ipswich, and Sudbury-Assabet-Concord watersheds highlight how watershed-scale innovation in engaging nongovernment participants is influenced, but not dominated, by the statewide program, the Massachusetts Watershed Initiative. The presence or absence of three elements—external support, process, and issue—and the order in which they occur, shape the viability of collaborative watershed-scale management initiatives. External support includes providing personnel or funding from outside an initiative. Process is the interaction among individuals undertaking watershed-wide policy development and/or implementation. An issue is an attention-requiring concern, vital to a watershed, that can most effectively be addressed by a coordinated strategy among different parties. A process generated by an issue is sustainable and amenable to enhancement through external support. The contribution of external support is most apparent when outside assistance is provided after an issue has crystallized into clear problem needs that can be addressed through specific research projects or implementation activities. Process is central in shaping issues, utilizing external support, and generating management results. The outcomes of voluntary processes in the three watershed initiatives highlight how the evolution of the Massachusetts Watershed Initiative leads to, and depends upon, the development of watershed-scale initiatives.     

Beneath the Straw: In Defense of Participatory Adaptive Management

Our recent paper advocating adaptive management of invasive nonnative species (INS) in Kings Bay, Florida received detailed responses from both Daniel Simberloff, a prominent invasion biologist, and Mark Sagoff, a prominent critic of invasion biology. Simberloff offers several significant lines of criticism that compel detailed rebuttals, and, as such, most of this reply is dedicated to this purpose. Ultimately, we find it quite significant that Simberloff, despite his other stated objections to our paper, apparently agrees with our argument that proposals for alternative management of established INS (i.e., alternatives to minimization/eradication) should not be rejected on an a␣priori basis. We argue that more specific development and application of adaptive approaches toward INS management, whether in Kings Bay or other appropriate case studies, would be facilitated if ecosystem managers and invasion biologists follow Simberloff’s lead on this key point. While Sagoff largely shares (and, indeed, served as a primary source for developing) our general arguments that challenge common moral and scientific assumptions associated with invasion biology, he does question our suggestion that participatory adaptive management provides an appropriate framework for approaching environmental problems in which science and politics are inherently entangled. We attempt to answer this criticism through a brief sketch of what participatory adaptive management might look like for Kings Bay and how such an approach would differ from past management approaches.