Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
We propose that a new conceptual framework is needed for conservation and land restoration to achieve sustainability. We present two conceptual models—Static Productive Harmony and Dynamic Productive Harmony—for formulating environmental policy and making natural resource management decisions. The static model seeks a balance among ecological, social, and economic systems through compromises that require trade-offs that often end up satisfying no one. The dynamic model represents a fundamentally different approach to restoring and sustaining lands. In this model, healthy ecosystems are the foundation for thriving communities and dynamic economies. The dynamic model aims to generate resource management approaches that add value to each of the systems for a mutual gains outcome. Restoring and sustaining lands is a wicked problem. New institutions need to be shaped that support ongoing collaborative and participatory processes to achieve durable and equitable environmental policy.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
A rancher in eastern Nevada said this to Herman Karl about in 2004 when Karl was visiting two privately held ranches that practiced holistic ranch management.
The challenge is not only that of action; it is how to develop institutions that provide the incentives, feedback, and accountability that help people understand the results of their decisions, be accountable for them, and adjust to changing circumstances.
Thoreau provided a view of harmony in Walden published in 1854 that is as true today as it was then: “Our notions of law and harmony are commonly confined to those instances which we detect; but the harmony which results from a far greater number of seemingly conflicting, but really concurring, laws which we have never detected is still more wonderful” (Sayre 1985). Has he anticipated the field of ecology and Leopold’s land ethic?
“Civilization has so cluttered this elemental man-earth relationship with gadgets and middlemen that awareness of it is growing dim. We fancy that industry supports us, forgetting what supports industry.”— Aldo Leopold
“We abuse land because we see it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.”—Aldo Leopold
Ecological systems are both foundations and infrastructure. Using ecosystems in an ecosystem services framework is often about replacing “gray” infrastructure—levees, wastewater treatment plants, etc.—with “green” infrastructure—coastal sea marshes, wetlands, etc. Economic systems are not really just matters of “static” infrastructure—bridges, roads, airports, etc. As systems, economies are highly dynamic contexts through which people exchange goods and services, allocate scarce resources, etc.
Anyone who has built a house knows that there is constant negotiation and tension among the architect, contractor, subcontractors, and owner. When tension is managed well, a superior house is built.
Karl was an instructor in the Bureau of Land Management Community-based Ecosystem Stewardship course; he taught the role of science in collaborative processes. These courses were taught at sites of some of the most contentious environmental issues in the country. He would start by asking the participants what they thought of and what their experience had been with science and scientists. A few people would say: “Smart people.” “People in white lab coats.” Many, though would say: “Lying SOBs.” “You can’t trust them as far as you can throw them.” “You can pay any one of them to say anything you want.” Clearly, their experiences with scientists and the information they produce were not that of objectivity. This experience was an epiphany for Karl. Every scientist that he has related the story too, has expressed shock. Too many scientists stay in their offices, laboratories, and discount local knowledge when in the field. More scientists should work with people to experience problems from their perspectives. Scientists might then take a more humble attitude toward their science and knowledge (see for example, Andrews 2002).
The issue is not whether to “believe” experimental results per se. Indeed, science is all about a method of replication to try to validate results, rendering them (potentially) more robust. Rather, the issue goes back to the matter of different cognitive and decision purposes. Science is about asking, “how does the world work.” But social and political choices are about “what values do we hold, what priorities do we hold, what are our individual preferences.” Science cannot answer these questions. For example, scientists can examine what happens if some contaminant enters the soil. They can’t answer the question: how clean is clean enough, which is a values question.
Climate change has accelerated the need for society to evolve socially and to continue to develop a land ethic that instead of economics is the basis for political and social action. We must find ways to adapt to changing climate. We must evolve a new mindset that jumps beyond the bounds of the current environmental movements, which seem to have ground to a halt only staying the line and not moving further toward the goal.
Although it appears late in this book, Chap. 20, The Tomales Bay Watershed Council: A Model for Collective Action, is especially important as an exemplar of this new ethos in action.
“Our job is to harmonize the increasing kit of scientific tools and the increasing recklessness in using them with the shrinking biotas to which they are applied. In the nature of things we are mediators and moderators, and unless we can help rewrite the objectives of science we are predestined to failure.”— Aldo Leopold ( 1949)
Sections III and IV address our role as mediators and moderators and stewards of the land.
Theodore Roosevelt also pondered this question. “His subject, ‘Biological Analogies in History,’ was one that he had pondered since discovering, as a teen ager, that he was equally drawn to science and the humanities. It seemed to him that these disciplines, rigorously separated in the nineteenth century might drawer closer again in the twentieth, as scientists looked for narrative explanations of the mysteries of nature, and scholars became more abstract and empirical in their weighing of evidence (Morris 2010, 74).
“It is not the critic who counts, not the man who point outs out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs, and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows the great enthusiasms; the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat.” Theodore Roosevelt, Citizenship in a Republic, speech given at the Sorbonne, Paris, France, April 23, 1910.
To learn more visit the International Association for Public Participation website http://www.iap2.org/
The U.S. Geological Survey developed a role-play simulation game, called the Airport Game, in 2000 as part of a class at Stanford University on integrated approaches to environmental assessments. The roles purposefully were given disproportionate amounts of money to set up a large power disparity. The role players were allowed to negotiate outside of the classroom. We found that many of the players came up with solutions that created value. For example, two or more of the environmental groups that were not well funded, formed a partnership to pool their funds. Because of the nature of the environmental controversy (the proposed expansion of San Francisco airport into the bay), these environmental groups were in disagreement with one another. Yet, by negotiating they reached a consensus on how to proceed. The game designers developed it to be played in two 90 min classes separated by a day so that the players could negotiate outside of class if they chose to do so. The game was so successful as a learning and research tool that the Stanford Law School expanded it for use in an advanced class on negotiation.
See Karl et al. ( 2007) and William Isaascs (1999), Dialogue and the art of thinking together: Currency (New York, London, Toronto, Sydney, Auckland), 428 p.
Adler PS, Birkhoff JE (2002) Building trust: when knowledge from “Here” meets knowledge from “Away”, The National Policy Consensus Center, Portland. http://www.resolv.org/about_pub_bt.html. Accessed 2003
Andrews CJ (2002) Humble analysis: the practice of joint fact-finding. Praeger, Westport/Connecticut/London, 200 p
Argyris C, Schon D (1978) Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective. Addison-Wesley, Reading
Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (2003) Navigating social-ecological systems. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom, 393 p
Brown VA, Harris JA, Russell JY (2010) Tackling wicked problems through the interdisciplinary imagination. Earthscan, Washington, DC/London, 312 p
Brunner RD, Steelman TA, Coe-Juell L, Cromley CM, Edwards CM, Tucker DW (2005) Adaptive governance, integrating science, policy, and decision making. Columbia University Press, New York, 319 p
Bryant TA (2004) Tragedy averted: the promise of collaboration. Soc Nat Resour 17:881–896 CrossRef
National Research Council (1996) Understanding risk: informing decisions in a democratic society. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 249 p
National Research Council (2008) Public participation in environmental assessment and decision making. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 305 p
Folke C, Pritchard L Jr, Berkes F, Colding J, Svedin U (1998) The problem of fit between ecosystems and institutions, International human dimensions programme on global environmental change, working paper no. 2. http://www.ihdp.unibonn.de/html/publications/workingpaper/workpaper01.html. Accessed 2003
Groat C (2005) Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans: “I told you so” is not enough. EOS, Trans Amer Geophys Union 86(38):341 CrossRef
Gunderson LS, Holling CS (eds) (2002) Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, DC/Covelo/London, 507 p
Gunderson LH, Pritchard L Jr (eds) (2002) Resilience and the behavior of large-scale systems. Island Press, Washington, DC/Covelo/London, 287 p
Gunderson L, Holling CS, Light SL (eds) (1995) Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions. Columbia University Press, New York
Holling CS (1973) Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 4:1–23 CrossRef
Holling CS (1978) Adaptive environmental assessment. Wiley, Chichester, 377 p
Ison R, Collins K (2008) Public policy that does the right thing rather than the wrong thing righter. In: Analyzing collaborative and deliberative forms of governance, one-day workshop, Deliberative Democracy Group & The Crawford School of Economics & Government, The Australia National University, Canberra, 14 Nov 2008
Issacs W (1999) Dialogue: and the art of thinking together. Currency, New York/London/Toronto/Sydney/Auckland, 428 p
Kania J, Kramer M (2011) Collective impact. Stanf Soc Innov Rev Winter 2011:36–41
Karl HA, Susskind LE, Wallace KH (2007) A dialogue, not a diatribe—effective integration of science and policy through joint fact finding. Environment 49(1):20–34 CrossRef
Koontz TM, Steelman TA, Carmin J, Korfmacher KS, Moseley C, Thomas CW (2004) Collaborative environmental management: what roles for government? Resources For the Future, Washington, DC, 210 p
Layzer JA (2006) The environmental case: translating values into policy, 2nd edn. CQ Press, Washington, DC, 527 p
Lehrer J (2010) The truth wears off. The New Yorker, 13 Dec 2010, pp 52–57
Leopold A (1949) A Sand County almanac and sketches here and there with an introduction by Robert Finch (1987). Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York/Toronto, 228 p
Liu J, Dietz T, Carpenter SR, Alberti M, Folke C, Moran E, Pell AN, Deadman P, Kratz T, Lubchenco J, Ostrom E, Ouyang Z, Provencher W, Redman CL, Schneider SH, Taylor WW (2007) Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science 317(5844):1513–1516 CrossRef
McKinney M, Harmon W (2004) The western confluence: a guide to governing natural resources. Island Press, Washington, DC/Covelo/London, 297 p
Meine C (1988) Aldo Leopold: his life and work. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 638 p
Miller A (1999) Environmental problem solving: psychosocial barriers to adaptive change. Springer, New York
Morris E (2010) Colonel Roosevelt. Random House, New York, 766 p
Rittel H, Webber M (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Pol Sci 4:155–169 CrossRef
Sayre RF (ed) (1985) Thoreau: a week on the Concord and Merrimack rivers, Walden, the Maine woods, Cape Cod. The Library of America, New York, 1113 p
Susskind L, Field P (1996) Dealing with an angry public: the mutual gains approach to resolving disputes. The Free Press, New York, 276 p
Susskind L, McKearman S, Thomas-Larmer J (eds) (1999) The consensus building handbook. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Thornburgh N (2005) Unsafe harbor. Time, 10 Oct 2005, pp 32–37
U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) Strategic plan FY 2003–2008. http://www.doi.gov/ppp/strat_plan_fy2003_2008.pdf. Accessed March 2004
Walters C (1986) Adaptive management of renewable resources. The Blackburn Press, Cardwell, 374 p
Wilson EO (1998) Consilience—the unity of knowledge. Alfred A Knopf, New York, 332 p
Wondolleck JM, Yaffee SL (2000) Making collaboration work, lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Island Press, Washington, DC/Covelo, 277
- Restoring and Sustaining Lands—Coordinating Science, Politics, and Community for Action
Herman A. Karl
Juan Carlos Vargas-Moreno
- Springer Netherlands
- Chapter 1