Book contents
- Natural Resource Management Reimagined
- Ecology, Biodiversity and Conservation
- Natural Resource Management Reimagined
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- 1 The Systems Ecology Paradigm
- 2 Environmental and Natural Resource Challenges in the Twenty-First Century
- 3 Evolution of Ecosystem Science to Advance Science and Society in the Twenty-First Century
- 4 Five Decades of Modeling Supporting the Systems Ecology Paradigm
- 5 Advances in Technology Supporting the Systems Ecology Paradigm
- 6 Emergence of Cross-Scale Structural and Functional Processes in Ecosystem Science
- 7 Evolution of the Systems Ecology Paradigm in Managing Ecosystems
- 8 Land/Atmosphere/Water Interactions
- 9 Humans in Ecosystems
- 10 A Systems Ecology Approach for Community-Based Decision Making
- 11 Environmental Literacy
- 12 Organizational and Administrative Challenges and Innovations
- 13 Where to From Here? Unraveling Wicked Problems
- Index
- References
10 - A Systems Ecology Approach for Community-Based Decision Making
The Structured Analysis Methodology
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 February 2021
Book contents
- Natural Resource Management Reimagined
- Ecology, Biodiversity and Conservation
- Natural Resource Management Reimagined
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- 1 The Systems Ecology Paradigm
- 2 Environmental and Natural Resource Challenges in the Twenty-First Century
- 3 Evolution of Ecosystem Science to Advance Science and Society in the Twenty-First Century
- 4 Five Decades of Modeling Supporting the Systems Ecology Paradigm
- 5 Advances in Technology Supporting the Systems Ecology Paradigm
- 6 Emergence of Cross-Scale Structural and Functional Processes in Ecosystem Science
- 7 Evolution of the Systems Ecology Paradigm in Managing Ecosystems
- 8 Land/Atmosphere/Water Interactions
- 9 Humans in Ecosystems
- 10 A Systems Ecology Approach for Community-Based Decision Making
- 11 Environmental Literacy
- 12 Organizational and Administrative Challenges and Innovations
- 13 Where to From Here? Unraveling Wicked Problems
- Index
- References
Summary
The Structured Analysis Methodology (SAM) is an application of the systems ecology paradigm (SEP). SAM was built as a “tutorial” to guide community-based, collaborative stakeholder groups through analysis and resolution (decision-making) of complicated and complex natural resource, environmental, and societal challenges. Stakeholders are scientists, managers, policy decision-makers, and citizen leaders. SAM was initially created to address landscape- to regional-scale ecosystem management challenges, but it can be applied to many other complex problems. During the problem analysis phase of SAM several critical steps must be accomplished (e.g., SAM requires precise, transparent, and agreed-upon statements of problems and goals; detailed descriptions of associated space, time, and institutional dimensions of the problem must be made; SAM demands inclusion of important stakeholders; and as the problem analysis develops, the stakeholder group initiates and refines conceptual models of how the defined ecosystem functions and behaves). Conceptual models often require systems or simulation modeling for further analysis and clarification. Following the analysis phase, the stakeholder group develops management options (e.g., ecosystem management), chooses among them (decision-making), and implements one or more. The implemented plans must be monitored and if they are not working make adaptations. Adaptation may require reiteration of part or all of the SAM.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Natural Resource Management ReimaginedUsing the Systems Ecology Paradigm, pp. 300 - 334Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Balram, S., Dragicevic, S., and Feick, R. (2009). Collaborative GIS for spatial decision support and visualization. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(6), 1963–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). (1989). Little Snake Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Craig District, Little Snake Resource Area, urn:oclc:record:1048789307. https://archive.org/details/littlesnakeresou3740unit (accessed August 20, 2018).Google Scholar
Christensen, N. L., Bartuska, A. M., Brown, J. H., et al. (1996). The report of the Ecological Society of America committee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecological Applications, 6(3), 665–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faber, B. G., Watts, R., Hautaluoma, J. E., et al. (1994). A groupware-enabled GIS. GIS, 94, 3–13.Google Scholar
Fox, D. G., Faber, B. G., DeCoursey, D. G., et al. (1992). The Terrestrial Ecosystems Regional Research and Analysis Laboratory: Regional Collaboration to Address Global Change Issues. México: Montecillo, 41–6.Google Scholar
Future Earth. (2014). Future Earth 2025 Vision. http://old.futureearth.org/sites/default/files/future-earth_10-year-vision_web.pdf (accessed August 14, 2019).Google Scholar
Grumbine, R. E. (1994). What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology, 8(1), 27–38.Google Scholar
Hautaluoma, J. E., and Woodmansee, R. G. (1994). New roles in ecological research and policy making. Ecological International Bulletin, 21(21), 1–10.Google Scholar
Hicks, C. C., Levine, A., Agrawal, A., et al. (2016). Engage key social concepts for sustainability. Science, 352, 38–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holling, C. S. (1978). Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Jankowski, P. (2009). Towards participatory geographic information systems for community-based environmental decision making. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(6), 1966–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaplan, N. E., Baker, K. S., Draper, D. C., and Swauger, S. (2014). Packaging, Transforming and Migrating Data from a Scientific Research Project to an Institutional Repository: The SGS LTER Collection. Digital Collections of Colorado. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University. http://hdl.handle.net/10217/87239 (accessed August 13, 2020).Google Scholar
Kaplan, N. E., and Newman, G. J. (2013). Data Management for NREL and Beyond: A Roadmap and Recommendations. Digital Collections of Colorado. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University. http://hdl.handle.net/10217/87381 (accessed August 13, 2020).Google Scholar
Kessler, W. B., Salwasser, H., Cartwright, C. W. Jr., and Caplan, J. A. (1992). New perspectives for sustainable natural resources management. Ecological Applications, 2, 221–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lavery, J. V. (2018). Building an evidence base for stakeholder engagement. Science, 361, 554–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, C. S. (1955). The Magician’s Nephew. New York: Harper Collins Children’s Books.Google Scholar
Lubchenco, J., Olson, A. M., Brubaker, L. B., et al. (1991). The sustainable biosphere initiative: An ecological research agenda – A report from the Ecological Society of America. Ecology, 72(2), 371–412.Google Scholar
McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2011). Fostering Sustainable Behavior: An Introduction to Community-Based Social Marketing. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.Google Scholar
Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in Systems: A Primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.Google Scholar
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Board. (2005). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press. www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf.Google Scholar
Montréal Process Working Group (MPWG). (2015). The Montreal Process: Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests. www.montrealprocess.org/documents/publications/techreports/MontrealProcessSeptember2015.pdf (accessed August 17, 2018).Google Scholar
National Forest Foundation (NFF). (2016). Collaborative Restoration Workshop. The 2016 Collaborative Restoration Workshop, Denver Colorado. www.nationalforests.org/collaboration-resources/collaborative-restoration-workshop (accessed August 17, 2018).Google Scholar
National Research Council. (1994). Rangeland Health: New Methods to Classify, Inventory, and Monitor Rangelands. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation, 141, 2417–31.Google Scholar
Riebsame, W., and Woodmansee, R. (1995). Mapping common ground on public Rangelands. In Let the People Judge, ed. Echeverria, J. and Eby, R. B.. Washington, DC: Island Press, 69–81.Google Scholar
UN Sustainable Development Summit (UNSDG). (2015). Sustainable Development Goals: 17 Goals to Transform Our World. www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/# (accessed June 18, 2018).Google Scholar
USDA Forest Service (USFS). (2016). Northwest Forest Plan. www.fs.fed.us/r6/reo/. (accessed August 17, 2018).Google Scholar
Walker, B., and Salt, D. (2006). Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing World. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Waltner-Toews, D., Kay, J., and Lister, N.-M., eds. (2008). The Ecosystem Approach: Complexity, Uncertainty, and Managing for Sustainability. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Woodmansee, R. G. (1978). Critique and analyses of the grassland ecosystem model ELM. In Grassland Simulation Model, ed. Innis, G. S.. New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Woodmansee, R. G., and Riebsame, W. (1993). Evaluating the effects of climate change on grasslands. In Proceedings of the XVII International Grassland Congress, ed. New Zealand Grassland Association, et al. Palmerston North, New Zealand: The Association. 1191–6.Google Scholar
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar