This proposal outlines a collaborative approach for evaluating management and policy options for real ecosystem level problems, whether human-caused or naturally occurring, such as those presented in the legislation "The Rio Puerco Watershed Act of 1994". The approach, using the Structured Analysis Methodology (SAM), provides a means of integrating knowledge from the biological, physical, and social sciences at regional, landscape, and human community scales of inquiry. It is designed to be fully functional in working group settings where recommendations and decisions are made about land use management and the interplay of those decisions with human community well-being and the broader issues of global change. SAM is dependent on new technologies and facilitation techniques that allow managing complex information rather than focusing on simplification.
Two specific projects are described that represent vital components of the SAM and it's application to analysis of the Rio Puerco Watershed. One, a systems analysis of biological, physical, economic, and social factors influencing erosion and sedimentation in the Rio Puerco Watershed, links GIS information to conceptual and simulation modeling of these processes. The other project develops an analysis of factors that interrelate land use management factors to human community vitality and sustainability in the Rio Puerco Watershed.
Human resources, land management practices, and climate interact in many ways which ultimately lead to changes in each. A notable example was the co-occurrence of the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl which caused human migration westward from Oklahoma. Local populations declined and communities were abandoned as young families left in search of employment. A lack of appropriate management of land under drought conditions exacerbated the problem and the lack of human institutional resources (social services, economic aid, and unemployment insurance) accelerated this migration.
Over the past 200 years, extensive ecological changes have occurred in the Rio Puerco watershed (a major tributary of the Rio Grande, Fig. 1) as a result of human occupation, inappropriate land management practices, and changing climate. Loss of surface cover by native vegetation in the uplands has contributed to severe erosion of some agricultural and range lands. Loss and alteration of functioning riparian habitat, including arroyo down cutting have disrupted the original dynamics of the river resulting in loss of available surface water and severe impairment of remaining waters due to heavy sedimentation. Reduced productivity of renewable resources, loss of biological diversity and the introduction of exotic species are other examples of biophysical effects of human intervention. During this same period dramatic fluctuations in climate have occurred.
These changes to ecosystems within the watershed have been influenced by and have impacted the economic and cultural well-being of its inhabitants. Some villages which once were productive agricultural communities have been abandoned; traditional lifestyles which are natural resource based have been impaired or destroyed; acequias have been abandoned; and urban migration of younger inhabitants has occurred eroding local community infrastructure needed for transportation, education and health facilities.
The progressive soil erosion within the watershed also has damaged the ecological and economic well being of the area below the junction of the Rio Puerco with the Rio Grande through disruption of natural ecological processes; impairment of water quality by sediment, salts, trace metals, and radionuclides; a significant reduction in the water storage capacity and life expectancy of the Elephant Butte Dam and Reservoir system due to sedimentation; chronic problems of irrigation system channel maintenance; and increased risk of flooding caused by sediment accumulation.
Moving towards land use based upon improved health and sustainability of ecosystems should lead to improved economic conditions, enhanced availability of human services and sustaining local human populations. Additionally, coordinated implementation of ecosystem-based, best management practices for the Rio Puerco system should benefit the larger Rio Grande system.
The purpose of the Rio Puerco Watershed Management Act of 1994 is: "To improve water quality within the Rio Puerco watershed and to help restore the ecological health of the Rio Grande through the cooperative identification and implementation of best management practices which are consistent with the ecological, cultural, sociological, and economic conditions in the region". Evaluating the factors that have contributed to the decline of water quality and ecosystem health in the Rio Puerco and Rio Grande watersheds is an enormously complex and complicated problem because of the space and time scales associated with land use and disturbance histories of ecosystems therein. Additionally, the watershed is a mosaic of private, public, tribal trust, and State land ownership with diverse, sometimes conflicting management objectives. Overall management of the lands within the basin is a major challenge.
Likewise, forecasting the probable outcomes of new "best" management practices intended to achieve desired goals is a very complex problem. The complexity arises from changes in climate that will occur in conjunction with changes in land use resulting from environmental, economic, and social change. Additionally, the problem is complicated by the reality of concomitant changes such as environmental and natural resource and economic policies, human demographics and increased communications, organizational and political changes, biotic redistribution, increased vigilance by non -tenant users, and new awareness of the limits of ecosystem productivity, profitability, sustainability, and social equity. Determining the effects of changes in management practices and other changes requires careful definition of precisely what the problem is and how it might be solved in many dimensions (Fig. 2).
Scientific knowledge must become an integral part of the policy and management decision process. But, the traditional scientific approach or myth of analysis that demands "holding everything else constant" while the phenomenon of interest is evaluated is not only unrealistic but unachievable and thus, alone is not very useful in addressing problems of the Rio Puerco. Management and policy decisions are often based on intuition, myth, beliefs, and value systems some of which are not clearly rational and objective. Policy approaches that are developed by people who are not closely associated with the people and lands of the watershed likewise, are not helpful. Management approaches that ignore scientific knowledge and attempt to adhere to vague policy also are inadequate. Therefore, scientists, managers, policy makers and the public must find new ways to work together at the interface between the objectivity of science and needs of management and policy making, and the desires of society. What is needed by people who influence and are influenced by the Rio Puerco Watershed is a collaborative scientific, management and policy approach that accepts and accommodates complexity and complication, is not stifled by the demand for unrealistic simplification and expectations, does not have to wait many years for new research results, and is not paralyzed by the inability of key stakeholders to communicate with one another. That approach is emerging throughout the world under various names, descriptions, and emerging applications; adaptive management (Holling, 1979); ecosystem management (Kessler et al. 1992); and ecosystem sustainability (Woodmansee and Riebsame 1993).
We will present herein one such approach that will allow analysis of the complex problem of managing the Rio Puerco Watershed for improved water quality, ecosystem health, and human community vitality (Fig. 3). This approach is the Structured Analysis Methodology (SAM) of the Terrestrial Ecosystem Regional Research and Analysis Laboratory (TERRA). TERRA is collaborative laboratory of the USDA Forest Service, Agricultural Research Service, and Soil Conservation Service; the USDI, Geological Survey and Bureau of Mines, the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Colorado State University, the University of Colorado, and the Consortium for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN). Using SAM, we can address questions such as: Can society sustain important and desirable grazing land and woodland ecosystems in the Rio Puerco Watershed in the face of changing climate, biological invasions of exotic species, human population change (decline) and increased demand for natural resources, changing social structures and other simultaneous changes that are real occurrences in the Northwestern New Mexico? Focusing on this and similar questions forces recognition of the interdependence of ecological, economic, and social integrity of ecosystems. Issues of biological productivity, social equity, safety, and economic security are interwoven to such an extent that policy and management decisions in an increasingly modern world must fully account for their interconnectedness.
Traditionally, policy analysts, scientists and managers alike have overly simplified problems and decisions because they had no way of managing the huge amounts of diverse information necessary to make informed decisions about real but complex problems. However, because of methods such as TERRA SAM, there are now new ways of dealing with the immense complexity associated with the integration of the biological, physical, and social factors into a coherent concept of managing ecosystems in changing environments. Analyses of these interactions will require they be done in ways that ensure the decision processes based thereon are open to and comprehensible by policy makers, managers, and often the public at large.
We assume the common vision for Rio Puerco Watershed is to sustain important and desirable grazing land and woodland ecosystems and viable human communities within the context of changing climates for the (1) benefit of current tenants, landowners, managers, and society as a whole, and (2) ensure that future options for productive, profitable, and ecologically sound and socially equitable grazing lands and woodlands are held open. As scientists and practitioners we care most about what changes will occur so that we can develop the best management practices to offset negative impacts and enhance positive effects.
We need to accept that decisions increasingly will not be made in isolation from numerous constituencies with varying viewpoints about managing ecosystems (Fig. 4). In the past, policy makers and land managers have, to a great extent, made decisions without much public involvement (Kessler et al. 1992). Countless examples are emerging from both our country and abroad that illustrate concern by people at all levels of society about the broader consequences of environmental degradation. As a result, with the increasing influence of open and democratic processes, people (the public) are demanding increased involvement in decisions that concern them as was clear in the recent United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro.
This proposal addresses a structured approach (SAM) for evaluating management and policy options for real ecosystem level problems such as those presented in the legislation "The Rio Puerco Watershed Act of 1994", whether human-caused or naturally occurring. The approach emphasizes integration of knowledge from the biological, physical, and social sciences. It is dependent on new technologies and facilitation techniques that allow managing information complexity rather than focusing on simplification. Specifically, we will pursue three activities:
1.) Continued development of the prototype, hypertext based (Lotus SmarText) navigation system (HyperSAM) which allows integration of biological, physical, economic, and social information stored in many software applications, including spreadsheets, word processors, GIS, model develop and execution, and other information databases;
2.) Development of a full systems analysis of biological, physical, economic, and social factors influencing erosion and sedimentation in the Rio Puerco Watershed; and
3.) Development of a human dimensions analysis of the Rio Puerco. Development and evaluation of procedures allowing for multiple communities of diverse constituencies to cooperate in the development and management of
the Rio Puerco watershed.
The interactions illustrated in Fig. 3 represent a new way of collaboration among scientists, managers, and policy decision makers, a primary goal of the TERRA. Focusing all stakeholders or subsets thereof, on specific environmental and natural resource issues and goal setting in open, collaborative settings is an essential step in developing enduring solutions. This process is designed to move science, management, and policy debates beyond abstractions and rhetoric to real and rigorous definition, analysis, and implementation of research, management, and policy making. Accomplishing the move from rhetoric of vision to the relentless pragmatism application of science to decision making requires a mutually agreed upon research analysis and synthesis integration framework. Activities described below are steps necessary to define the science needs for environmental and natural resource issues and raise some essential ecological, economic, social, and institutional considerations that must be included in any analysis or assessment process. The framework shown in Fig. 3 is adapted Woodmansee and Riebsame (1993) and DeCoursey et al. (1993). This methodology is representative of an emerging body of knowledge regarding structured analysis schemes that are intended to facilitate information management and group interactions (citations). TERRA activities will utilize this framework or modifications thereof to facilitate individual projects and to help integrate among projects.
Figure 3 illustrates a science driven process that brings scientists, managers, policy makers, and other stakeholders together to accomplish analysis, synthesis and evaluation of issues such as: causes and consequences of global changes; changes in biological diversity; and factors and goals of ecological sustainability. Traditional group facilitation techniques or new powerful computer-based collaboration and visualization technology, serve as the interface between participants (Cites -- Faber, etc.). Regardless of which techniques are used to accomplish the analysis, the goal of the interaction is to focus rigorously on the steps needed to define and understand the issues at hand and communicate that understanding to participants and others who will use the results of the analysis. The steps in the SAM should not be viewed as linear, but rather as dynamic iterations of the overall analysis process. They are interactive and interdependent. Accomplishing one step will feed into other steps and visa versa. Additionally, the process is scale and issue independent so long as scalar hierarchical level is clearly recognized and within scale integrity is maintained.
Developing Problem and Goal Statements. Developing clear statements that describe the problems and goals remains the "Achilles heel" of ecological, environmental and natural resource analysis. For example, we all agree loss of biodiversity, global warming, or changing timber and grazing management goals on public lands would impact many people in numerous sectors of society. However, as problem definitions, these statements lack specificity and are of little help in guiding specific analyses or research. Furthermore, vague problem statements and definitions usually lead to endless debate, frustration, and poor communication. The proposed TERRA framework emphasizes the need to create clear problem and goal statements through inclusive processes designed to reach agreement among people (stakeholders) with differing viewpoints. The SAM will emphasizes this problem statement and goal setting phase as it is a likely "linch-pin" of all other activities. Identification and participation of all stakeholders is essential to obtaining problem definitions and management strategies which are pertinent, and likely to be operationalized.
Important questions regarding problem definition are:
Whose problems, policies or issues will be included in our analysis?
How will their cooperation be obtained?
What problems, policies or issues require analysis?
Articulate all possible perceptions of the problem, policy or issue.
What is the agreed upon problem statement?
What are the primary biophysical, social, economic, or policy driven forces (scenario) that are expected to cause change in a specified ecosystem ?
List the individual statements of most the important driving force.
What are the agreed upon driving force statements?
Which statements will be addressed, and in what order?
Are there ancillary disturbances or changes taking place in the ecosystems) that will influence the outcome of this analysis? If so, they may also need analysis.
Are there indications that the climate is changing?
Is the ecosystem) undergoing biological invasion or impoverishment?
Are chemical alterations taking place in the environment?
Is land use changing due to recreation or commercial enterprises?
List other significant change that may need analysis.
Will the impacts be expressed over periods of seasons, years, decades, centuries, or millennia?
What is the perceived time frame of impact or change?
What is the agreed upon time frame?
What ecosystems and communities are impacted by the problems or issues?
Will the impacts be expressed at patch, local, regional, national or continental or global scales?
Specify the geographic and political dimensions of the largest area of concern for the analysis.
Delineate, in general, the specific ecosystems and political boundaries within the larger area that are expected to be impacted by the problem or issue.
Who should be involved in the analysis?
Who makes policy?
Who defines the policy options?
Who chooses the options?
Who sets the management goals?
Who implements the management practices intended to achieve the goals?
Who pays and in what currency?
Who benefits and in what ways?
System Geography and Temporal Dimensions. Spatial and temporal attributes of ecological systems must be clearly characterized, even if they are sometimes ambiguous and arbitrary, so that all stakeholders in the analysis process understand and agree upon underlying assumptions about the system. Appropriate levels or scales must be defined in hierarchical schemes that describe soils and sediments, organisms, climate, water, energy, economics, patterns of individual behavior, communities, institutions and organizations, and political, legal, and regulatory jurisdictions. Careful matching of hierarchical levels also is essential for avoiding conflicts among scales. These attributes must be described explicitly because generalizations and abstraction are of no more than heuristic value and are often the cause of needless (and endless) debate and misunderstanding.
Accomplishing the goals of analysis and synthesis requires rigorous description of the current state of specific ecological systems, their history, culture, and the nature of proposed or continuing stresses and the nature of current and proposed management systems. Indeed, the specific questions and problems will dictate how the systems are bounded and characterized. The geographic (spatial) and temporal dimensions of the ecosystem must reference specific problems and questions, for example, will biological invasions be expressed at the regional, landscape, or patch scales over periods of seasons, years, decades or centuries?.
Figures 5a and 5b represent a concept of past, current, and future ecosystems and types of information (indicated in the peripheral boxes) needed for proper analysis. As an ecosystem changes through time, its spatial expression also may change with respect to its biological, physical, economic, political, and social attributes. The important attributes must be described and quantified where possible with careful attention given to the appropriate hierarchical arrangement of each attribute. Assumptions about important but poorly understood factors must be clearly stated. Following description of the current state of the ecosystem, that system must be placed in a historical context (e.g., What is its successional status? Does it represent a major departure from "natural" seral stages? Is it a completely exotic system? Has natural disturbance history or management significantly altered its successional trajectory?) Clear descriptions of the historical, current and desired ecological systems are essential for evaluating issues ranging from effects of global change, loss of biodiversity, or the sustainability of any ecosystem.
Current ecosystems
What are the current conditions or states of the ecosystems and human communities within the larger area?
Are the current ecosystems completely exotic?
Do the current ecosystems represent a major departure from "natural" conditions?
What are the directions and rates of change within the human communities?
Describe the following features of the important current ecosystems and communities.
Boundaries for each ecosystem and community
Boundaries for management goals
System structure
Structural dynamics
Relationship to other systems
Disturbances
Residuals from former systems
Historical ecosystems
What are the trends (system histories) in system driving variables and system structures (states)?
What are the natural disturbance regimes in the ecosystems and what are their characteristics or indicators?
What are the human-caused disturbance regime and what are their characteristics or indicators?
Has human intervention significantly altered the natural disturbance history of the ecosystems?
Are the human-caused disturbances analogs of natural disturbances?
Describe the following features of the important historical ecosystems and communities.
Boundaries of former ecosystems and communities
Changes in structure (natural or land-use)
Spatial extent of management goals
Disturbances
Relationship to other systems
Residuals from former ecosystems and communities
Desired ecosystems
What are the goals for the ecosystems) of interest (What are the desired ecosystems)?
What products are desired from the ecosystems) and communities?
List all the possible products?
What are the agreed upon products?
What are the services desired from the ecosystems) and communities?
List all possible services.
What are the agreed upon services desired from the ecosystems)?
What values are desired from the ecosystems) and communities?
List the full array of values desired from the ecosystems) and communities?
What are the agreed upon values?
What ecosystem characteristics (ecological endpoints) are desired now and for the future?
List all desired characteristics.
What are the agreed upon characteristics?
Describe the following features of the important desired ecosystems and communities.
Geographic boundaries
Political boundaries
Structural feasibility
Size needed for sustainability
Acceptable variability in structure
Disturbance regimes
Spatial requirements for management goals
Interactions with other systems
Impact analysis and Stakeholder Identification. Along with development of the fundamental problem statement and establishment of the spatial and temporal scales of specific problems, the basic impact or "cause and effect" assessment and stakeholder identification phase of the analysis must be accomplished. "Causes" include changes in management practices brought about by changes in goals, anticipated or unanticipated changes in other environmental or social/economic factors, or , even, "if left alone what will happen?" analysis. "Effects" include any significant change caused by an cause or impact in a physical, biological, economic, and social factor that is deemed in analysis. Table 1 lists some examples factors that require evaluation in an analysis. Factors listed will serve as "mind prompts" which will lead to identification of other factors that are important to the specific analysis. This step of the analysis must be based on the strongest theoretical foundations of the natural and social sciences and the most complete information about the specific ecological systems. Furthermore, the most reliable ecological, economic, and social/cultural data bases and expertise available must be utilized.
Examples of issues addressed in this step are: anticipated impacts of management goals on specific uses and users of ecosystems; policy and management implications associated with potential changes in global, regional and local climate; identification of key organizations or individuals responsible for defining policy and management goals, and implementing management decisions; identification of parties bearing the costs and realizing the benefits of ecosystem changes; and description of biological, physical, economic, and social constraints.
New methods of information and data management and visualization are available or in developmental stages that help tremendously in identifying, organizing, integrating, and displaying the vast amount of information necessary to adequately portray knowledge of ecological systems. Since a major task of the TERRA is to link the best science and expert knowledge from the biological, physical, economic and social sectors the TERRA will foster use of this current and developing technology where ever possible.
What are the expected changes that will occur within the ecosystems as a result of the primary driving force?
List the possible first order or direct effects.
What are the agreed upon first order effects?
What are the expected changes that will occur within the ecosystems as a result of the first order or direct effects?
List the possible n-th order or direct effects.
What are the agreed upon n-th order effects?
What management practices will be implemented to achieve the goals (desired ecosystems)?
Identify potential management practices.
What are the agreed upon management practices that will be implemented?
Who will be involved in implementation of management practices?
What physical, biological, economic, and social characteristics (ecological endpoints) will indicate success or failure of the management practices?
Identify all significant characteristics (ecological endpoints).
What are the agreed upon characteristics (ecological endpoints)?
Are there keystone constraints to achieving the desired goals (ecosystems and communities)?
Are there significant political, financial, or social impediments to implementing policies, regulations, or management goals?
Are there significant natural or human-caused changes in the biophysical controls of the system that might interfere with achieving the desired outcome?
Are there significant economic, social, or institutional factors that might interfere with achieving the desired outcome?
Conceptual System Characterization. After diverse interest groups are identified and their viewpoints adequately represented, work can begin on resolving issues such as: What is the starting point of the "system"? Is the system being evaluated holistically? What are the characteristics of disturbance? What are the characteristics of desired ecosystems and communities? What are the likely effects of the stress or disturbance that places the desired ecosystems and communities at risk? What are the indicators of disturbance or change? What are indicators of sustainability of the desired ecosystems and communities? Are the current ecosystems and communities the desired systems? Is some historical condition the desired benchmark?
People involved in the analysis process must develop a conceptual system characterization or model of the ecological system of interest. The conceptual model should explicitly account for all pertinent factors identified in the impact analysis and stakeholder identification activity that can influence attainment of desired goals. Linkages between factors need to be clearly described including analysis of the interaction of soils and sediments, organisms, climate, water, energy, economics, patterns of individual behavior, communities, institutions and organizations, and political, legal, and regulatory jurisdictions. These factors are interactive and interdependent, and none should be ignored without thoughtful consideration and documentation. Driving variables and their temporal and spatial characteristics must be included. Following description of the factor-level conceptual model, submodels that describe the dynamics within components should be developed. Internal controls and feedbacks within each component should be emphasized.
During this conceptual modeling phase, questions such as, "What are the key constraints to achieving the desired goals?" can be addressed. Ecosystem analysis needs to evaluate the efficacy of implementing management practices and regulations that are intended to ensure a reasonable chance of attaining the desired goals. Are there significant political, financial, or social impediments to implementing policies, regulations, or management goals? Are there significant natural or human-caused changes in the biophysical controls of the system that might interfere with or aid in attaining ecosystem sustainability? Similarly, are there significant economic, social, or institutional factors that might interfere or aid in attaining ecosystem sustainability? These and similar questions need to be an explicit part of any analysis.
This step requires exceptional attention to the process of system (including physical, biological, economic, and social/cultural factors) modeling and how that process can be aided by computer visualization and collaboration technology.
Formal Modeling and Model Analysis. Upon completion of the collaborative conceptual modeling phase, a formal mathematical or expert systems modeling effort should be established if evaluation of system dynamics is needed. The Modular Modeling System (MMS) described by DeCoursey (1993) is designed to support the SAM by including a variety of simulation models that are pertinent to the problem at hand. New methods of visualizing and evaluating modeling results, empirical studies, intuition, and common sense can aid analyses and integration of all the steps above. Finally, model results must allow scientists, managers, policy-makers, and representatives of the public need to interact, debate, discuss, and form as much consensus as possible in evaluating model results, especially if those results are to be used in developing management strategies for achieving goals such as; ecosystem sustainability, mitigating the factors causing global climate change, or maintaining or increasing biodiversity.