Ugly, elegant or simply messy

294 views

Published on

A presentation at the University of Idaho concerning integrated natural resources management. Some hyperlinks may not work.

Published in: Technology, Real Estate
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
294
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Ugly, elegant or simply messy

  1. 1. Stephen F. McCoolDepartment of Society and ConservationThe University of Montana(Steve.McCool@cfc.umt.edu)A Social Scientist’s Perspectiveon the Evolving World ofIntegrated PlanningFrom Staplers to Mylar toRoundtables:
  2. 2. State of Natural Resource Planning• Paralysis• Conflict• Lack of trust• Anger• Morale
  3. 3. The Rise of IntegratedResource Management• A response to– Mechanistic definitions of planning– Narrow definitions of public land values– Calls for thinking about the system as a whole• Represents a response to the inadequaciesof planning approaches– Adversarial– Marginalized forms of knowledge– Action requires many actors
  4. 4. Objectives• Discuss how we have proceeded indeveloping paradigms of integration• Raise questions and issues about theseparadigms• Suggest some lessons learned
  5. 5. The various titles could be subsectiontitles• Land manager’s job is providestewardship for public resources• Public is deeply concerned about thefuture of these resources• Broadening definitions of what rolespublic administered resources play insociety– Ecosystem goods and services– Cultural, spiritual, and sustenance
  6. 6. Toward Integrated Planning• Variety of attempts beginning in the1980’s• No real sense of what this meant, otherthan more than one discipline• Learning has occurred, severalgenerations of integrated planning
  7. 7. First Generation Integration:The Stapler• Respond by involving a greater variety ofdisciplines• Each approaches the planning issue from thedominant paradigm of that discipline• Specialists pursue parallel, but separate courses• Extreme form, specialists compete to have theirvalues favored
  8. 8. The Results of First GenerationIntegration• Separate chapters• Different metrics, scales, perceptions• Understanding of planning problem notwidely shared• Competition for financial resources amongspecialists• Some appreciation that an action impactsa wide range of values
  9. 9. Second Generation Integration:Mylar, Maps and GIS• Initial attempts used mylar overlays to displaymaps of different variables• Specialists attempt to display their fieldsspatially• Emphasis on consistency in gathering data• What data to be gathered influenced by what isavailable to display on maps• Evolved into GIS, and use of digital information• Spurred by advances in landscape ecology
  10. 10. Results of Second GenerationIntegration• Better ability to understand spatialrelationships of things that were measured• Marginalized many values that are notexpressed at a particular pixel size• Spatial modeling into the future revealeda lot of assumptions• GIS folks in control of the planning
  11. 11. • Disciplines developed out of a matter ofconvenience, but now interests and egoshave formed around them• The drive for integrated resource decision-making represents a critique of pastapproaches• But what do we mean by integration?
  12. 12. More Important Outcomes• Raised fundamental questions– What was to be integrated? Why? By Whom?For what purpose? How?– For what reason do we integrate?– What things hinder and what things facilitateintegration?– Who decides when integrated planning isappropriate?
  13. 13. Some Observations• Staplers and Myla represent anoperational perspective on integration• Need a systemic view• Only values/interests represented byexperts included• Staplers and Mylar (GIS) only tools• Is the public interest revealed through theapplication of expertise?
  14. 14. Third Generation Integration:The Roundtable• These questions stimulated developmentof a third generation• Reasons for this paradigm:– Equality– Leadership– Used in other settings
  15. 15. Third Generation Characteristics• Shared definitions• One puzzle, not several• Mutual respect• Systems focus• Notion of holism, emergent properties• Iterative thinking• Learning
  16. 16. Spanning, Balancing or Integrating:contemporary challenges in NRM• Integration – balancing or accomodation?
  17. 17. Integrated Planning Issues• Different paradigms operating• Some people don’t want to integrate• Few roundtables exist• Choice of paradigm• Role of science/expertise
  18. 18. What integration is not• final step in a fragmented process• a book stapled together• a management plan• unequal treatment of values/uses• individual disciplines recommendingactions
  19. 19. Some Lessons Learned• The better you know where you are going,the more likely you are to get there• Outcomes are consequences of socialprocesses• Integration is continuous• Integration and complexity are linked
  20. 20. Some Lessons Learned• Team members play by the same rules• Teams have a captain• Integration does not stop when report isaccepted• Acknowledge uncertainty
  21. 21. • Currently have a limited ability to predictconsequences of actions at larger spatialand temporal scales• Planning tends to be issue oriented ratherthan goal directed• Responses to issues require, in manycases, collaboration and cooperationamong many disciplines
  22. 22. What are characteristics of the pathwayto the future?• Complexity – different scales interacting with differingemergent properties• Uncertainty – emergent properties we can’t anticipate• Non-linearly dynamic – small disturbances lead to largechanges• Instability – systems dynamic and difficult to predict• Learning – command control processes don’t work
  23. 23. Why integration?• Stewardship involves relationships amongpeople, processes and the environment• Widening range of values must beconsidered in stewardship• Limited ability to identify and predictchange, particularly at larger spatial andtemporal scales

×