Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Balancing learning and action: When something must be done, what is the right ‘something’?

Balancing learning and action: When something must be done, what is the right ‘something’? M y first, naïve, involvement with ecological restoration was in the 1970s, when I made an impassioned plea to local council to ‘do something’ about an erosion problem at our local beach. The trouble was, they did just that –‘something’. But it was entirely the wrong thing. From that disaster, I learned that a call to action needs to be accompanied by some guidance about which actions might be appropriate and which may not. But this sounds easier than it is. Although guidelines for restoration have improved in leaps and bounds since the early 1970s (particularly in terms of guiding philosophies, see SER Primer, Society for Ecological Restoration International, http://www.ser.org ), the complexities and heterogeneity of ecosystems is such that we may be unclear about what a project's precise goals might be (see Grant & Koch and Humphries in this issue). We also may be uncertain about which particular approaches and techniques will be needed to reach those goals on specific sites (see Gibson‐Roy et al ., King et al. , and Freebody in this issue). As such, it is necessary to adopt ‘highest practical extent’ goals, supplementing them with research and applying an adaptive approach involving ‘learning by doing’. Integrating highest practical extent goals within an adaptive management framework continuously drives improved technical development to achieve higher and higher outcomes. Such an approach is always needed in restoration, but it is particularly necessary where society permits ecosystem disturbance in natural areas with high conservation values. This issue's feature by Grant and Koch, for example, explain a gradual improvement in outcomes driven by high goals for postmining restoration in the jarrah forest of Western Australia; goals adopted not so much to meet high regulatory standards (formal standards were not high when the mine commenced in the 1960s) but adopted voluntarily in anticipation of ever‐increasing expectations by society. Such social expectations remind us that there is an ethical element to restoration – as well as to development itself. Most modern developments are undertaken with far less of a ‘fit’ with ecosystem processes than mining in the Jarrah forest; yet proponents of them often assume long‐term outcomes will provide a net benefit to society. This issue's interview (with ecologist and Chair of the Resilience Alliance, Brian Walker), for example, highlights many cases of social–ecological systems ‘suddenly’ failing due to management styles based on incorrect assumptions that ecosystems behave the way we want them to, noting that this occurs at both small and large scales. Large‐scale experimentation without regard to the ecological outcomes raises profound ethical questions. The obvious example is global warming – a ‘surprise’ we have been warned about for decades. Dramatic increases in citizen concern suggest a mandate for action without delay. Yet, what action is appropriate? What is the ‘something’ that must be done? A ‘resilience thinking’ view (see interview in this issue) should warn us that simple solutions to global warming are unlikely to be without side‐effects given that we are operating in complex social–ecological systems. For example, simply adopting lower emitting technologies is unlikely to achieve holistic sustainability targets if polluting technologies are not phased out or if the technologies (e.g. biofuels) alienate land required for biodiversity conservation. Rather than waiting for complete certainty, however, it is likely that early action based on an ‘adaptive planning and management’ approach would be appropriate to the global warming challenge. A rapidly devised mix of policies to start to reduce greenhouse gases (with a reasonable understanding that the actions will not make the problem, or other environmental problems, worse) is likely to be necessary; with sound monitoring to ensure that the inevitable mistakes inform ongoing adjustments. I use the term ‘global warming’ intentionally rather than the more benign‐sounding ‘climate change’ (an approach echoed by Mark McDonnell in this issue's guest editorial when he refers frankly to ‘tensions’ and ‘conflicts’ rather than replacing them with the safer term ‘challenges’). This is because engaging in frank discussion about underlying incompatibilities may well increase the likelihood of generating solutions that actually solve problems rather than replacing them with digestible versions of ‘more of the same’. For the same reason, it can be useful to ensure that when we speak about global warming we do not isolate it from its deeper causes. As McDonnell points out, our environmental problems are not confined to choices between fuel types; our industrialized lifestyles also depend on consuming natural areas, productive lands and space in which people can live without conflict; suggesting that these deeper causes will need to be transformed if we are serious about living sustainably on this planet. We have to be able to discuss these inherent conflicts without implying fault – just as we need to recognize that lack of ill intent is no guarantee that our actions will be benign. We are all caught up in a system where individual prosperity is elevated as an appropriate goal for successful societies and has become an article of faith by many. But our faith systems need to be better informed by knowledge systems. The knowledge system of resilience thinking itself could be part of the glue that confers greater resilience to our global social–ecological systems; linking people across countries, across disciplines and across political differences. Not a brittle glue but a very elastic and adaptive glue. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Ecological Management & Restoration Wiley

Balancing learning and action: When something must be done, what is the right ‘something’?

McDonald, Tein
Ecological Management & Restoration , Volume 8 (2) – Aug 1, 2007
Download PDF
1 page

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/balancing-learning-and-action-when-something-must-be-done-what-is-the-rahgUNbZgc

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 2007 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
ISSN
1442-7001
eISSN
1442-8903
DOI
10.1111/j.1442-8903.2007.00343.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

M y first, naïve, involvement with ecological restoration was in the 1970s, when I made an impassioned plea to local council to ‘do something’ about an erosion problem at our local beach. The trouble was, they did just that –‘something’. But it was entirely the wrong thing. From that disaster, I learned that a call to action needs to be accompanied by some guidance about which actions might be appropriate and which may not. But this sounds easier than it is. Although guidelines for restoration have improved in leaps and bounds since the early 1970s (particularly in terms of guiding philosophies, see SER Primer, Society for Ecological Restoration International, http://www.ser.org ), the complexities and heterogeneity of ecosystems is such that we may be unclear about what a project's precise goals might be (see Grant & Koch and Humphries in this issue). We also may be uncertain about which particular approaches and techniques will be needed to reach those goals on specific sites (see Gibson‐Roy et al ., King et al. , and Freebody in this issue). As such, it is necessary to adopt ‘highest practical extent’ goals, supplementing them with research and applying an adaptive approach involving ‘learning by doing’. Integrating highest practical extent goals within an adaptive management framework continuously drives improved technical development to achieve higher and higher outcomes. Such an approach is always needed in restoration, but it is particularly necessary where society permits ecosystem disturbance in natural areas with high conservation values. This issue's feature by Grant and Koch, for example, explain a gradual improvement in outcomes driven by high goals for postmining restoration in the jarrah forest of Western Australia; goals adopted not so much to meet high regulatory standards (formal standards were not high when the mine commenced in the 1960s) but adopted voluntarily in anticipation of ever‐increasing expectations by society. Such social expectations remind us that there is an ethical element to restoration – as well as to development itself. Most modern developments are undertaken with far less of a ‘fit’ with ecosystem processes than mining in the Jarrah forest; yet proponents of them often assume long‐term outcomes will provide a net benefit to society. This issue's interview (with ecologist and Chair of the Resilience Alliance, Brian Walker), for example, highlights many cases of social–ecological systems ‘suddenly’ failing due to management styles based on incorrect assumptions that ecosystems behave the way we want them to, noting that this occurs at both small and large scales. Large‐scale experimentation without regard to the ecological outcomes raises profound ethical questions. The obvious example is global warming – a ‘surprise’ we have been warned about for decades. Dramatic increases in citizen concern suggest a mandate for action without delay. Yet, what action is appropriate? What is the ‘something’ that must be done? A ‘resilience thinking’ view (see interview in this issue) should warn us that simple solutions to global warming are unlikely to be without side‐effects given that we are operating in complex social–ecological systems. For example, simply adopting lower emitting technologies is unlikely to achieve holistic sustainability targets if polluting technologies are not phased out or if the technologies (e.g. biofuels) alienate land required for biodiversity conservation. Rather than waiting for complete certainty, however, it is likely that early action based on an ‘adaptive planning and management’ approach would be appropriate to the global warming challenge. A rapidly devised mix of policies to start to reduce greenhouse gases (with a reasonable understanding that the actions will not make the problem, or other environmental problems, worse) is likely to be necessary; with sound monitoring to ensure that the inevitable mistakes inform ongoing adjustments. I use the term ‘global warming’ intentionally rather than the more benign‐sounding ‘climate change’ (an approach echoed by Mark McDonnell in this issue's guest editorial when he refers frankly to ‘tensions’ and ‘conflicts’ rather than replacing them with the safer term ‘challenges’). This is because engaging in frank discussion about underlying incompatibilities may well increase the likelihood of generating solutions that actually solve problems rather than replacing them with digestible versions of ‘more of the same’. For the same reason, it can be useful to ensure that when we speak about global warming we do not isolate it from its deeper causes. As McDonnell points out, our environmental problems are not confined to choices between fuel types; our industrialized lifestyles also depend on consuming natural areas, productive lands and space in which people can live without conflict; suggesting that these deeper causes will need to be transformed if we are serious about living sustainably on this planet. We have to be able to discuss these inherent conflicts without implying fault – just as we need to recognize that lack of ill intent is no guarantee that our actions will be benign. We are all caught up in a system where individual prosperity is elevated as an appropriate goal for successful societies and has become an article of faith by many. But our faith systems need to be better informed by knowledge systems. The knowledge system of resilience thinking itself could be part of the glue that confers greater resilience to our global social–ecological systems; linking people across countries, across disciplines and across political differences. Not a brittle glue but a very elastic and adaptive glue.

Journal

Ecological Management & Restoration – Wiley

Published: Aug 1, 2007

There are no references for this article.