by Jay Lund
In practice, adaptive management wheels have squarish corners.
In ideal adaptive management, there is a steady or periodic process for gathering performance and environmental data, analyzing that data in the context of an integrative computer model, discussions based on the analysis to determine the most promising adaptations of management to reflect this likely better understanding, and repeating this general process into the future (Holling 1978).
In real adaptive management, transaction delays, costs, and risks for science and management impede the smooth acquisition and digestion of scientific information as well as management discussions and decision-making. Stakeholders have economic or political interests in management status quo or change, which affect the pace and outcomes of decision-making. These generally slow adaptive management, perhaps to the point of obviating adaptation. Instead of a smoothly rotating wheel, it is closer to a square with jerky movements.
Management institutions need more insulation and resources (which they seem unlikely to get). Progress will be slow, and probably insufficient, especially with climate change.
Adaptive management is a terrible idea which must be made to work, as all other approaches to environmental management seem likely to perform worse. This will take more dedication of funding and authority than most interests are likely to be comfortable with. And far more work across agencies than we have ever seen before. But we are also uncomfortable with the pace of ecosystem and economic losses which we are currently poised to experience.
This does not mean the situation is hopeless, but it does mean we need to do better, rounding many corners. This is a test of our institutions and leadership.
Further reading
Delta Independent Science Board. 2016. Improving adaptive management in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, Sacramento, CA.
Healey, M.C., et al. (1989), Conceptual Models and Adaptive Management in Ecological Restoration: The CALFED Bay-Delta Environmental Restoration Program. CALFED Environmental Restoration Program, Sacramento, CA.
Holling CS, editor. 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. London (UK): John Wiley & Sons.
Lund J, Moyle P. 2013. Adaptive management and science for the Delta ecosystem. San Francisco Estuary & Watershed Science 11(3). https://doi.org/10.15447/sfews.2013v11iss3art8
Luoma SN, Dahm CN, Healey M, Moore JN. 2015. Challenges facing the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta: Complex, chaotic, or simply cantankerous? San Francisco Estuary Watershed Sci 13(3). https://doi.org/10.15447/sfews.2015v13iss3art7
Walters, C. 1997. Challenges in adaptive management of riparian and coastal ecosystems. Conservation Ecology 1(2):1 online at http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss2/art1.
Weins, J.A., et al. (2017), Facilitating Adaptive Management in California’s Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, San Francisco Estuary Watershed Sci, Volume 15, Issue 2, Article 3. https://doi.org/10.15447/sfews.2017v15iss2art3
Leave a Reply