

ET AL .



Conclusion: Knowledge and Skills for Professional Practice
Tim W. Clark Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, Institution for Social and Policy Studies at Yale, Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative Murray B. Rutherford Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative Kim Ziegelmayer Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies Michael J. Stevenson Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies

Most professionals beginning their careers in species and ecosystem conservation conceive of their future work in terms of hands-on tasks in the field (“doing something important in the real world”). Whether on the domestic or the international scene, typically the forester sees themselves laying out timber sales, the fisheries biologist looks forward to surveying streams, and the range specialist expects to be classifying grasslands. Current curricula in most universities largely mirror this common view. We train future foresters to address logging problems in the Pacific Northwest or in the tropics, or conservation biologists to design a reserve or study an endangered species. But in actual practice, most professionals spend only part—and sometimes a small part—of their time attending to technical tasks in the field. Professionals, over a career or a lifetime, participate in many activities well beyond fieldwork, and there is much more to building a successful professional practice today than skills in technical work in the field. But what specifically are these other activities? What theories, approaches, and skills are needed to be successful? What are the standards of effective, efficient, and ethical practice? In this concluding chapter, we provide our answers to these questions by (1) presenting what we view as a broader and more realistic conception of a modern professional’s natural resource practice; (2) reviewing the interdisciplinary problem-solving approach discussed throughout this Bulletin; and (3) demonstrating the usefulness of this approach in professional practice, using examples from the student papers included in this volume. THE MODERN INTERDISCIPLINARY PROFESSIONAL If you look at the literature of conventional natural resource conservation, most of it is unrelated to the performance of interdisciplinary professional functions. Stated more broadly, most of the knowledge and skills that have been developed for natural resource conservation are not connected to solving social and policy problems at multiple scales. This is because natural resource

Professionals, over a career or a lifetime, participate in many activities well beyond fieldwork, and there is much more to building a successful professional practice today than skills in technical work in the field. But what specifically are these other activities? What theories, approaches, and skills are needed to be successful? What are the standards of effective, efficient, and ethical practice?

  



   

conservation, as a profession, evolved originally to deal with narrow disciplinespecific problems. Conceptions of these disciplinary problems were based on social goals and values that have subsequently shifted and metamorphosed into produce different issues of contemporary social concern. For example, where previously the focus of conservation might have been on a single species or a geographically localized issue, today the public is calling for ecosystem management and biodiversity conservation as major public policy goals. But many natural resource professionals do not understand or are resisting these new goals, or do not know how to adjust their practices to achieve them (Grumbine 1994; Cortner and Moote 1999). What are universities and in-service agency training programs doing to prepare professionals for the need to change, understand change, and participate in and guide change effectively? Unfortunately, in contrast to the new societal demands, much of our current university training and agency inservice training still teaches conventional concepts and techniques of technical natural resource management, and conventional professional norms and problem-solving approaches. Many of these are irrelevant to understanding and performing critical interdisciplinary professional functions in today’s rapidly changing world. Natural resource conservation is a problem-solving profession. It functions in translating knowledge, values, and ideas into fair, workable plans and, ultimately, on-the-ground actions. Professionals require a set of concepts, theories, and working methods (or “practices”) that permit them to grasp the socio-political as well as the ecological dimensions of the problems they face. They must have the skills to understand the contexts in which they operate, the objectives to be achieved, and the obstructions likely to be encountered; and they must have some appropriate method of making decisions or choices. In short, they need to have a way of clarifying and understanding goals and values at all levels, from the smallest decisions to the largest societal policies, to determine what the problems are and how they should be resolved. This is not to say that the technical problem-solving concepts and techniques taught in most universities are unimportant, but they are of limited usefulness in this task. As Jones et al. (1995: 166) observe about the challenges faced by professionals attempting to conduct ecosystem management: “Although natural resource managers schooled in traditional programs may have the technical proficiency to manage the physical resource, they lack the skills to identify and interpret societal demands.” Professionals need to be both good builders of natural resource conservation projects and good architects who design what should be built in the first place. The basic conceptions and procedures useful to both tasks are the essential subject matter of the policy sciences (Lasswell 1971; Lasswell and McDougal 1992), the comprehensive approach to the study and practice of decision and policy matters used throughout this Bulletin. This volume is about successful professional performance and the vital conceptual and

Natural resource conservation is a problem-solving profession. It functions in translating knowledge, values, and ideas into fair, workable plans and, ultimately, on-the-ground actions. Professionals require a set of concepts, theories, and working methods (or “practices”) that permit them to grasp the sociopolitical as well as the ecological dimensions of the problems they face.

 

 applied tools of the policy sciences that will contribute to a rewarding professional life. It is designed to contribute to improved problem-solving capabilities for all natural resource professionals and for society at large. TOOLS FOR THE MODERN PROFESSIONAL Those of us in the natural resource profession who share the perspective of the policy sciences come from many different backgrounds, cultures and languages, but we have all experienced the difficulties of trying to apply conventional disciplinary concepts, norms and problem-solving approaches to modern conservation problems. Our common objective is to promote, use, and refine an alternative approach to natural resource conservation which enables each individual professional to carry out problem solving, contextual mapping, and decision activities with the greatest efficiency and responsibility possible. As we have demonstrated throughout this Bulletin, the instrument for achieving our objective is the policy sciences, a set of existing conceptual and applied tools that can serve natural resource professionals and can be applied in any setting. These tools have “contemplative, explanatory, evaluative, predictive and manipulative or interventionist applications” (Reisman 1989-90: 232). The policy sciences are a theory about, rather than a theory of natural resource conservation. This means that the policy sciences do not directly dictate the outcome that should be pursued in any given setting, but instead guide the professional as to what kinds of information will be useful and what procedures should be followed in making decisions about the best outcome to pursue and how to pursue it. The components of the policy sciences are tools, and with these tools in hand the natural resource professional can better contribute to decision making that meets the promise of sustainable natural resource conservation in the common interest, a goal being sought by societies all over the planet. Note that the tools of the policy sciences are justified only in terms of how they contribute to the attainment of the ultimate goal of human dignity—which, given current trends in the world, demands improved natural resource conservation. Using the policy sciences, the modern natural resource professional can contribute to the continuing clarification and implementation of the common interest, in a world that is multi-cultured and manifestly divergent in major values orientations. Let’s look again at the theory of the policy sciences and the full range of tools at the disposal of a professional who wishes to promote better species and ecosystem conservation (see Figure 1). The tool kit is made up of four major components: 1. The first component, observational standpoint, is designed to make the person using the tool more effective. It requires that the professional carry out several operations to critically assess his or her own viewpoint and role.

ET AL .



Those of us in the natural resource profession who share the perspective of the policy sciences come from many different backgrounds, cultures and languages, but we have all experienced the difficulties of trying to apply conventional disciplinary concepts, norms and problem-solving approaches to modern conservation problems. Our common objective is to promote, use, and refine an alternative approach to natural resource conservation which enables each individual professional to carry out problem solving, contextual mapping, and decision activities with the greatest efficiency and responsibility possible.

  



   

Figure 1

An illustration of the interdisciplinary approach to understanding and participating in the policy process. Participants should carry out a thorough problem orientation. They should observe and understand the social and decision process of which they are a part. And they should be clear on their observational standpoint. All participants in social and decision process reflect the eight base values.

2.

The second component, problem orientation, concerns how the professional orients to the situation and issues at hand. They must determine what they want to have happen (goals), verify that it is unlikely to happen by itself (trends), identify pertinent conditions that are causing or contributing to trends, make projections of the probable future if conditions are not changed, develop and evaluate alternatives and ways to achieve them, and then select the preferred alternative and calculate actions needed to implement that alternative. This portion of the process aids the professional in gaining better perspective on the “problem” at hand, and thus in defining the issue both more expansively and with fuller detail. The third component is called social process or contextual mapping. It concerns how the professional looks at the target community of interest. A collection of participants is usually involved, with some shared and some conflicting perspectives, interacting in some situation,

3.

 

 which can be identified in terms of spatial location, degree of organization, and perception and duration of crisis, using bases of power, which may be tangible and/or symbolic, and using those bases in a host of strategic ways and programs with a variety of outcomes and longer range effects. These first three components of the toolkit are observational tools, and can be likened to a set of lenses which are used to look both at the person doing the observing and at the targets of observation. A good set of lenses serves as both a telescope and an electron microscope. The lenses should be both comprehensive and selective. Note that not only does the observer look at, or seek to influence, a process or context, but in turn the process or context influences the observer and the decision-makers. 4. The fourth component of the toolkit is called the decision process. It is made up of the actual techniques or functions of decision or choice over time. As a consequence of the social process, decisions are made and actions undertaken comprising the conservation policy process in question. A decision is a “choice and a lawful decision is a choice made in conformity with appropriate procedural and substantive norms” (Reisman and Schreiber 1987: 7). Each choice is made up of distinct functions, operations, and phases, all inherent in the term “decision.”

ET AL .



These components of the toolkit—observational standpoint, problem orientation, social process/context mapping, and decision process—must be unpacked and made ready for application in the real world of species and ecosystem conservation. The discussion to this point has reviewed the outline of the theory for performing professional tasks. These concepts provide a way of examining yourself and your work, the social process in the communities you want to influence, and a set of operations for actually making choices. Together, they constitute an effective and well-equipped toolkit for understanding, a toolkit which can guide constructive change. The real power of the components of the toolkit, though, becomes apparent when they are coordinated and used together as a single tool, sometimes called the “framework.” The policy sciences’ framework is an extremely powerful tool to effect improved outcomes in species and ecosystem conservation. It may seem strange to some readers to think of concepts as tools. Some people think of tools only in terms of tape measures, computers, and the like. Broadly, however, a tool is any artifact used to carry out a task. The coordinated concepts or methods described, employed, and promoted in this Bulletin are artifacts based on decades of experience and refinement by many people, especially Harold Lasswell and his colleagues and students. These concepts— observational standpoint, problem orientation, social process/contextual map-

These first three components of the toolkit are observational tools, and can be likened to a set of lenses which are used to look both at the person doing the observing and at the targets of observation. A good set of lenses serves as both a telescope and an electron microscope. The lenses should be both comprehensive and selective.

  



   

ping, and decision process—serve as tools for all people wishing enhanced understanding of, and influence on, decision-making choices, including choices about species and ecosystem conservation. THE POLICY SCIENCES’ FRAMEWORK AND THE MODERN PROFESSIONAL AT WORK It may be helpful to review again the components of the toolkit in systematic detail, using examples from the papers in this Bulletin as illustrations. Lasswell (1971), Brewer and deLeon (1983), Reisman and Schreiber (1987), Lasswell and McDougal (1992), and others have introduced and described the components of the policy sciences’ framework in great detail in the past. Much of the following is based on Reisman and Schreiber’s descriptions, which in turn were based on Lasswell’s many books and papers. We can begin to demonstrate the usefulness of the framework for the kinds of non-technical, non-field problems a practicing natural resource professional is likely to encounter by considering a hypothetical generic example. Imagine yourself as a newly minted natural resource professional assigned to a rural community. There is much technical work to be done, such as watershed analysis, habitat improvements, and community education. In performing your technical work, you are aware that you must work with the community and enlist their support if you are to be successful. How do you begin to understand the new situation or context of your assignment? Because of your training and the assigned task, you may begin with a scientific perspective, by examining the biological conditions in the natural areas surrounding the community. It is likely, though, that the residents could assist you in this endeavor; and in fact, much of the information you want may have already been gathered. What do you need to know? What do you ask? Who do you ask? If you are to enlist the support of the community for natural resource conservation, and accomplish your work effectively, you will need a picture of the community, its behavior, and how it makes decisions. In order to construct a reliable picture, you will need to understand your own perspective and biases. Critical self-examination is crucial to this process, for it is only by consciously examining your own standpoint that you will be able to make a valid effort to comprehend the perspectives of others. Your success will largely be determined by the community. As you orient to the present, you need to constantly consult the past. You need to identify key individuals and groups in a concrete way, what they did in the past, what conditions existed that might have influenced them, what conditions are likely to exist in the future, how different individuals and groups responded, and the effects of each on your goal of natural resource conservation. You must also understand the process by which decisions are made in the community so that you can estimate how officials and non-officials will respond to your initiatives. This kind of information will help you to fashion a course of action for yourself that will increase the likelihood of achieving your conservation aims.

We can begin to demonstrate the usefulness of the framework for the kinds of non-technical, non-field problems a practicing natural resource professional is likely to encounter by considering a hypothetical generic example. Imagine yourself as a newly minted natural resource professional assigned to a rural community.

 


How do you learn about these processes? At first, you might employ some methods of science, but these dynamic human interactions do not lend themselves to easy measurement. Moreover, you are not merely an observer and recorder in the traditional scientific sense; you are now part of the process—both observer and participant. One challenge of any new context is to find out exactly which individuals and organizations make decisions. These things cannot be learned by consulting your wildlife biology or forestry and range management texts. In real life, designated officials as well as influential citizens, groups, and, more broadly, the general populace determine how decisions are made. These groups are not always in agreement, and there are often distinctions between formal and effective power. You may find out that they are indeed separate in your community. How should you proceed in both formal and informal decision-making arenas? What are the ethical issues you will face? This example demonstrates that to deal effectively with a problem in context requires information about basic social structure and decision-making processes. The kinds of information needed to understand and participate in these processes require a type of inquiry that is neglected by traditional natural resource education programs. In the social sciences the terms “process,” “system,” and “decision” refer to the many interrelated features of human behavior—biological, psychological, sociological, and ecological. Your work in the community will require your successful understanding and participation in the many social and decision-making processes found there. WHO IS LOOKING AND HOW? OR: WHAT ARE THE ASSUMPTIONS OF THE OBSERVER AND THE OBSERVATIONS, AND THE IMPORTANCE OF SELF SCRUTINY (OBSERVATIONAL STANDPOINT)? As a natural resource professional you are at the heart of management and conservation activities. So let’s focus on you for the time being. You are at the center of all efforts to solve problems and understand and affect the social process for improved natural resource conservation. You are often both the instrument of observation and the instrument of decision. You are an individual with a distinct personality and intellect and these interact to influence perception and choice. You have a unique vantage point from which you comprehend problems and observe the social and decision processes. That is, you are an observer and it is important to understand the viewpoint of your observation. You also have a way of thinking about what you observe. Hopefully, you are always trying to improve your observational and critical thinking skills with regard to the world and problem solving within it. By doing so you will increase your personal and professional effectiveness. Philosophically and practically, you can never actually take a vantage point outside of yourself. Nevertheless, you can and should try to take a standpoint “outside” the conservation group, management organization, or disciplinary tradition of which you are part.

ET AL .



One challenge of any new context is to find out exactly which individuals and organizations make decisions. These things cannot be learned by consulting your wildlife biology or forestry and range management texts. In real life, designated officials as well as influential citizens, groups, and, more broadly, the general populace determine how decisions are made.

  



   

Remember that you are the instrument of observation. Accordingly, one target of observation in the overall policy process is you. You need to observe yourself from this outside viewpoint. You, like all the other people in natural resource conservation, are subject to many influences. Each person is subject to a host of psychological, sociological, and other factors and forces that shape their perceptions and choices. Any or all of these factors and forces can potentially be distorting. Four major sources of distortion are commonly recognized. The first is emotional bias, which is a basic human property, but which can sometimes include neurotic behavior. The second is parochial bias, which is a result of socialization within language, cultural, or political groups (for example, small rural conservative America). The third is disciplinary bias, which often comes about as a result of in-depth technical and/or university training (for example, in forestry or soils science). The fourth is institutional bias, which occurs because people identify with the employing organization or other institution with which they are affiliated, and adhere to its standard cultural values, cognitive outlooks, and policy preferences. A responsible observer/participant in any social process should be keenly aware of these sources of distortion, and possess methods of self-scrutiny and compensation. All individuals are subject to emotional, parochial, disciplinary, and institutional biases, which can and do distort observation and choice. The social sciences have examined each of these biases extensively, and numerous methods exist to study and account for these common characteristics. As Socrates said, “Know thyself.” In each of the full length student papers included in Part II of this Bulletin you will find a statement clarifying the author’s standpoint with reference to the topic. For example, in both Barry Muchnick’s analysis of wolf policy in Minnesota and Jonathan Padwe’s land management case in Paraguay the authors played the role of participant-observer. For them it was especially critical that they understood and were explicit about their values and motivations, as they could directly influence outcomes. Moreover, each had a personal interest in the way the processes and outcomes were evaluated and reported. Muchnick worked at the International Wolf Center in Ely, Minnesota as a naturalist intern. In conducting his policy analysis, he needed to be cognizant of, and candid about, the possible influence of his affiliation with that institution, and his training as a naturalist, on his understanding of the wolf issue and his views about other participants in wolf management in Minnesota. Padwe worked as a community development extensionist in Paraguay in cooperation with the Fundación Moisés Bertoni, the agency whose policies he was evaluating. He actually developed the policy proposal which was eventually implemented in his case. Although it is highly unlikely that he could completely eliminate the influence of these factors on his analysis, by paying careful attention to his own standpoint he increased the likelihood that his evaluation would be valid and useful. In addition, by being explicit in reporting his standpoint he has provided readers with crucial information to assess his

A responsible observer/ participant in any social process should be keenly aware of these sources of distortion, and possess methods of self-scrutiny and compensation. All individuals are subject to emotional, parochial, disciplinary, and institutional biases, which can and do distort observation and choice.

 

 reasoning. All of the other authors in this Bulletin also attended to the task of carefully scrutinizing their own observational standpoints (although all of the papers do not expressly discuss this task). LOOKING AT WHAT? OR: WHAT IS THE CONTEXT OF THE ISSUE? (PROBLEM ORIENTATION) As a professional, you want to make constructive changes to resolve problems in conservation. In order to determine what you should do, you must ask and answer several questions. You must ask yourself: What goals or ends, biological and social, do I want, and what does the community want? What has happened regarding these goals historically, and what is happening currently? What has caused or influenced these trends? What is likely to happen in the future if these causes or influences do not change? What alternatives are possible, which of them is the most desirable, and how can it be implemented? Asking and answering these kinds of questions is called problem orientation, which can be summarized as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Clarify goals (normative standpoint), Describe trends (historic standpoint), Analyze conditions (scientific standpoint), Make projections of the future (projective standpoint), Invent, evaluate and select alternatives (operational standpoint)

ET AL .



Problem orientation is not done just once at the beginning of a problemsolving effort. It is an endless process—once you work through these five tasks, you will need to repeatedly review, refine and redefine both questions and answers, over and over as long as time and resources permit. In the most comprehensive sense, natural resource conservation is the practice of problem solving for yourself, your clients, or for society at large, and problem orientation is a fundamental tool in problem solving. In their paper on conserving biodiversity in Hawai’i, Jonathan Scheuer and Tim Clark focus mainly on problem orientation. They argue that the major participants in the conservation policy process in Hawai’i have not adequately oriented to the problem of biodiversity loss, and as a result have been working from flawed definitions of the problem. These weak problem definitions have led participants to develop strategies that are inadequate to halt losses of species and ecosystems. Scheuer and Clark begin their analysis by discussing a goal that is widely agreed upon by most of the participants: conserving Hawai’i’s unique biological diversity. Then, after a brief theoretical discussion of the nature of problems and problem definition, they review historical trends, including

Problem orientation is not done just once at the beginning of a problemsolving effort. It is an endless process—once you work through these five tasks, you will need to repeatedly review, refine and redefine both questions and answers, over and over as long as time and resources permit. In the most comprehensive sense, natural resource conservation is the practice of problem solving for yourself, your clients, or for society at large, and problem orientation is a fundamental tool in problem solving.

  



   

massive losses of Hawai’i’s flora and fauna, and current patterns of ongoing loss. They argue that a major condition underlying these trends is “the lack of a coherent, comprehensive definition of the policy problem that would garner broad political support” and that would motivate changes in behavior. Their review and critique of the dominant existing definitions of the biodiversity loss problem in Hawai’i supports their argument. Clark and Scheuer make the projection that if present trends continue, Hawai’i will “lose the majority of its remaining taxa and communities by the middle of the [21st] century.” They propose an alternative definition of the problem: “We suggest that the core difficulty is that human values are not being maximized by protecting biodiversity and that the overall policy problem is how to form a large political coalition that will be effective in biodiversity conservation.” The authors conclude by recommending four alternative strategies to address the problem as they have redefined it: (1) improve understanding and integration of both the ecological and socio-political aspects of the biodiversity loss problem; (2) build trust among participants; (3) build problem-solving capabilities, including analytical, critical thinking and communication skills; and (4) build and test prototypes, or small scale experimental interventions, designed to learn about and improve conservation in specific local settings. Mazur and Clark’s paper on zoos and conservation is another good example of problem orientation. First, the authors clarify “zoo policy aims” (goals), by discussing competing conceptions of the goals of zoos, and comparing formally promoted goals with actual performance. In doing so, they begin to outline some of the important historical trends in the bio-physical and social context in which zoos operate, such as world-wide declines in many species and ecosystems, changing human values and attitudes toward conservation and the role of zoos, and ongoing conflict about the relevance of zoos and their ability to contribute substantially to conservation. Mazur and Clark discuss five main conditions that have caused or influenced these trends: 1. The widely held perception of zoos as old fashioned places of entertainment rather than modern centers of science, education, and conservation—to which zoo managers have reacted by developing defensive policy responses (a related condition). Weak policy analysis skills among zoo decision makers and their advisors, which hamper their abilities to define and resolve the problems they face. Inappropriate organizational structures—especially bureaucratic and corporate structures—for achieving zoo goals.

The authors conclude by recommending four alternative strategies to address the problem as they have redefined it: (1) improve understanding and integration of both the ecological and socio-political aspects of the biodiversity loss problem; (2) build trust among participants; (3) build problem-solving capabilities, including analytical, critical thinking and communication skills; and (4) build and test prototypes, or small scale experimental interventions, designed to learn about and improve conservation in specific local settings.

2.

3.

 


4. An emphasis on single-loop learning (correcting perceived mistakes without addressing flaws in underlying premises or norms), rather than double-loop learning (using mistakes to learn about and revise underlying premises and norms). Structural impediments within zoo organizations that prevent key staff from applying their knowledge and skills to zoo problems.

ET AL .



5.

If these conditions are not addressed, the projection of the future for zoos is fairly clear: continued conflict, marginalization, and ineffectiveness in conservation. The authors’ alternatives are linked directly to their analysis of conditions, and are discussed together with their treatment of conditions. For each problematic condition they identify, they propose a strategy designed to alter the condition or alleviate its detrimental effects. In their study of the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative (Y2Y), Tim Clark and David Gaillard use explicit problem orientation to develop strategies to make the Y2Y partnership more effective. Although the aims of Y2Y had not been definitively spelled out, they found general agreement on the goals of preserving species and improving wildlife connectivity in the Northern Rocky Mountains. They discuss demographic, social, economic, and conservation trends in the region, many of which are discouraging for the members of Y2Y and other conservationists. Conditions underlying the trends include an aging and wealthy population that is moving to the region seeking quality of life; weak or inappropriate institutional structures that cannot adequately manage rapid growth; regional, national, and international economic forces that are shifting the area toward a service-based economy; and habitat destruction, habitat fragmentation, and direct human-caused mortality of species. The authors’ projections are that the region will become much more heavily populated, that the perspectives of the population may become more parochial, that the economy will be dominated by tourism, recreation, and other servicesector operations, and that species and ecosystems will suffer. Clark and Gaillard’s own problem orientation provides a strong foundation for their evaluation of the efforts of Y2Y. Their systematic analysis of the problem makes it immediately apparent that, at least at the time they conducted their research, Y2Y’s biologically-oriented strategies were not effectively addressing the major demographic, social, and economic conditions causing the problem: “Y2Y has articulated a broad vision about sustainable human systems and practices, but without much detail in areas other than conservation biology. Participants acknowledge the importance of the social, economic, and other contextual forces, but do not have a comprehensive vision or a practical plan to address them in detail.” The authors suggest a number of alternative strategies designed to remedy this failure, taking advantage of the diverse skills present among the Y2Y partnership.

In their study of the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative (Y2Y), Tim Clark and David Gaillard use explicit problem orientation to develop strategies to make the Y2Y partnership more effective.

  



   

In each of these cases, careful orientation to the problem exposed the inadequacies of existing problem definitions and generated effective alternative problem-solving strategies. Remember when considering the five intellectual tasks of problem orientation that they should not be treated as a simple sequence. In real life, you may go through all five tasks many times. The order in which the tasks are presented here is a guide to the order in which they should be undertaken, but as you get into history (trends), science (conditions), or projections you may decide that your preferences were ill considered in the first place. As a result you will need to re-evaluate them. In natural resource conservation, as in all aspects of life, the five intellectual tasks of problem orientation should be ongoing and continuous throughout the conservation effort. Note also that in society there are individuals and institutions that specialize in each of the five tasks of problem orientation. For example, philosophers are specialists in goal clarification. Historians are specialists in trends analysis. Scientists are specialists in the analysis of conditions. Futurists are specialists in projections. Several different professions claim to specialize in evaluative analysis—with mixed success. Individuals, disciplines, and whole communities are organized around these problem orientation tasks. LOOKING AT WHO? OR: WHAT ARE THE TARGETS OF OBSERVATION? (SOCIAL PROCESS) The purpose of undertaking the tasks that we have been discussing is to make changes in the “world out there.” That is, to effect improved conservation of species and ecosystems in the real world. You want to change behavior in society to bring about a more desirable distribution of values, according to your goals and those of the community. The processes you want to influence are “out there,” and can be systematically examined. We all have notions of how the world works—what we think is going on—but these notions are only “pictures in our heads,” incomplete representations of the real world (Lippmann 1965). Mapping the social process or context of a problem is essential to improving your representation of the world outside—the representation on which you base your choices. The policy sciences’ framework includes a complete set of categories for mapping social process, to ensure that your picture of the world has not omitted or under- or over-emphasized any important dimensions. Recall that social processes can be thought of as being made up of seven elements. You can describe each of them to the extent that is necessary for your purposes. To review, the seven elements are as follows (based on Lasswell 1971: 15-26): 1. Participants: Who are the relevant actors (individuals or groups, unorganized or organized, producers or sharers of values)?

In each of these cases, careful orientation to the problem exposed the inadequacies of existing problem definitions and generated effective alternative problem-solving strategies. Remember when considering the five intellectual tasks of problem orientation that they should not be treated as a simple sequence.

 


2. Perspectives: What are the subjectivities of the participants (identifications, expectations concerning the past, present and future, value demands, myths)? Situations: In what settings are the participants interacting (spatial dimensions, temporal dimensions, organized or unorganized, value inclusive or exclusive, crisis or inter-crisis)? Bases of Power: What are the resources, or values, being brought to bear in the particular interactions in order to influence outcomes? Strategies: How are those resources being manipulated and used (diplomatic, ideological, military, or economic)? Outcomes: What are the short term, culminating events of the interactions (indulgences and deprivations of values)? Effects: What are the long term results of the interactions (value accumulation and distribution, institutional and societal change)?

ET AL .



3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

In your observation of social processes it is imperative to develop a good understanding of what outcomes are being sought by different actors, individual and group actors . Outcomes are the things or events that people want, and generally people want more of everything: “In the contemporary world community, there appears to be an overriding insistence, transcending most cultures and climes, upon the greater production and wider distribution of all values” (McDougal et al. 1988: 834). What are the values that people are seeking? Lasswell (1971) devised a list of eight types of values that describe all basic human desires. The eight value categories are: power, wealth, enlightenment, skill, well-being, affection, respect, and rectitude. Most people do not articulate what they want explicitly in terms of these eight types of values, but nevertheless, the demands of all people can be characterized in these terms. In real life all people want some mix of these values, but some people want more of some than of others. People express their value preferences in many different ways and terms, but all human beings want to have at least some of all of the values (for example, to be healthy, receive and give affection, and be respected). From your viewpoint, as a person who is interested in bringing about change, and from the scholar’s viewpoint, as one who is interested in studying change, knowledge of the values that people demand and the values they possess as bases of power is essential. All social processes can be thought of in terms of participants interacting cooperatively and competitively, using their bases of power to get a more desirable distribution of values for themselves and others. This is called the maximization postulate: all organisms seek to act in

What are the values that people are seeking? Lasswell (1971) devised a list of eight types of values that describe all basic human desires. The eight value categories are: power, wealth, enlightenment, skill, well-being, affection, respect, and rectitude. Most people do not articulate what they want explicitly in terms of these eight types of values, but nevertheless, the demands of all people can be characterized in these terms.

  



   

ways that they believe will leave them better off than if they had not carried out those behaviors. At any moment in time all people possess some mix of the eight values. Once acquired, these values can be used as bases of power to attain more of the same or other values. For example, wealth can be invested to gain more wealth. Or wealth can be exchanged to gain other values. College students use their wealth to pay for education, to obtain enlightenment, skill, and respect, often in the hope that these enhanced values will get them interesting, rewarding, and important jobs which also embody these values. The greedy real estate developer may try to maximize their wealth at the expense of their own well-being, affection, or respect. The overly zealous conservationist may seek maximal skill or rectitude as they fund and manipulates research to support their ethical position. It should be clear by now that people’s demands and activities can be effectively described in terms of the eight value categories. People, individually and collectively, make demands on institutions in society for particular distributions of values. For example, many members of the public belong to conservation organizations such as The Wilderness Society, which may promote certain values of rectitude, enlightenment, and respect. The U.S. Forest Service, the National Rifle Association, or an animal rights group all also promote values, but each represents a different mix of demanded values and uses different combinations of values as bases of power. All of these institutions promote various mixes of values and represent and serve different segments of society. To repeat, individuals and collectives make demands on institutions in society in diverse ways, and it is these institutions that very much affect how a society distributes values to its citizens. An institution may withhold values or share values with its members or citizens. Which values are withheld and which are shared with which segments of society by the National Park Service? Do wealthy and poor citizens receive the same kinds of values from recreational opportunities on public lands in the United States? What about from educational and social institutions? For dramatic comparison, which values are withheld and which are shared with which segments of society by the Ku Klux Klan or the Neo-Nazi Party? Institutions differentially withhold or share values for various reasons. The entire policy process at the national level or the local level can be understood in terms of value shaping (production) and sharing (distribution) activities. Which institutions have been shaping and sharing what values through reintroducing wolves into Yellowstone National Park? In considering your answer, think in terms of value demands of key participants: the National Park Service, conservationists, ranchers, and others. The point is that once you know about this spectrum of values, you can describe any process, including all natural resource conservation efforts, in these terms in whatever detail is needed. In any particular conservation matter, you can see the outcomes sought by various participants in terms of the real distribution of values at issue: power, wealth, enlightenment, skill, and so on.

The point is that once you know about this spectrum of values, you can describe any process, including all natural resource conservation efforts, in these terms in whatever detail is needed. In any particular conservation matter, you can see the outcomes sought by various participants in terms of the real distribution of values at issue: power, wealth, enlightenment, skill, and so on.

 


The insight provided by this method helps you to identify and work toward changes that will result in more desirable distributions of values from your point of view. Tracy Scheffler’s paper on faith-based stewardship in Chesapeake Bay clearly demonstrates the importance of understanding social process when addressing conservation problems. In that case, which involved exploitation of the blue crab stock in Chesapeake Bay, the major organizational participants were the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. These organizations shared the perspective of positivistic science. The values which they tended to demand, and use as bases of power, were enlightenment, skill, respect, and power. As Scheffler points out, “These values are embedded in the common goal of wanting to wisely manage the Bay’s living resources. Also, each of the three organizations strives for long-term conservation and management of the Chesapeake’s blue crab stock, through maximizing their value outlook.” The principal individual participants in the faith-based stewardship case were the watermen of Tangier Island, and other members of the small community of which they were a part. As it was the fishing practices of the watermen that were at issue in the case, let us focus for a moment on the roles of those watermen in the social process. Most of them shared a perspective which included a strong sense of pride in their knowledge of Chesapeake Bay and their ability as fishers (enlightenment, skill), and in their personal and community history in the region (respect). They demanded not only the maintenance of their income (wealth) but also the preservation of their lifestyle (well-being, respect), and the ability to participate in decisions which could potentially affect their interests (power, respect). They perceived a problem in that, in contrast with their demands, their values were being deprived rather than indulged in the management of the blue crab fishery, and their expectation was that these value deprivations would continue. Importantly, most of the watermen shared a strong religious conviction (myth— remember that there is no negative connotation to this term, myths may be true or false) which dictated certain norms of moral conduct (rectitude). The interactions of the watermen with other participants took place in organized and unorganized situations, including board meetings of the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (which the watermen felt were exclusive of their values), church services and gatherings, other public meetings, and on the water. The possibility of impending crisis was evident in the banners put up by watermen criticizing the regulatory authority, and in their violation of fishery regulations. Their bases of power were similar to their value demands. They possessed little wealth or direct power, but had important experiential knowledge about the fishery and the Bay (enlightenment), some degree of respect from other participants (for this knowledge and for their skills and community history), and the mutual affection and sense of rectitude that

ET AL .



Most of them shared a perspective which included a strong sense of pride in their knowledge of Chesapeake Bay and their ability as fishers (enlightenment, skill), and in their personal and community history in the region (respect). They demanded not only the maintenance of their income (wealth) but also the preservation of their lifestyle (well-being, respect), and the ability to participate in decisions which could potentially affect their interests (power, respect).

  



   

could bind them together in a common cause. Their strategies prior to the policy intervention discussed in the case study were mainly counterproductive: violating fishery regulations, hanging banners, and grumbling. The outcomes included escalating conflict and possible over-harvest of the blue crab stock; the eventual effects might be deterioration of the resource, with negative consequences for all participants, and diminished faith in the democratic process. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s attempts to develop an environmental ethic on Tangier Island failed because they did not understand the social process, particularly the fundamental differences between the science-based perspective which they were promoting and the perspectives of the residents of the island. In contrast, by structuring an approach to conservation that fit well with the perspectives of the watermen, and particularly with their religious beliefs and sense of rectitude, Susan Drake Emmerich’s intervention was more successful. Note that she introduced the idea of biblically-based stewardship at a joint session of the two churches on Tangier Island—important institutions which shape and share multiple values, especially rectitude, well-being, affection, and power. The Watermen’s Stewardship Covenant, FAIITH, and the Tangier Island Watermen Community Stewardship 2020 Vision indulged demands of the watermen and other Tangier’s residents for all eight values, but especially rectitude, respect, well-being, affection, wealth, and power. Scheffler notes, however, that there is still some ongoing dissent from a minority of watermen who do not share the religious myth and rectitude values of those who support the Covenant. Drake Emmerich found an excellent “intervention point” in the social process on Tangier Island, which she used to advance her goals and those of the broader community of Chesapeake Bay. Social process mapping often brings to light such intervention points. In this brief example, we have focused on the watermen, but a more comprehensive map of the social process might reveal other opportunities for successful policy intervention. Michael Stevenson’s paper on managing introduced species in the Galapagos Islands makes a series of recommendations aimed at improving decision processes, but his analysis is also based on a solid understanding of social process. For example, he discusses the conflict between the Charles Darwin Foundation, which insists on the enforcement of government fishing regulations around the islands (reflecting its demands for rectitude, respect, wellbeing, and possibly power), and the local fishers, who violate the regulations and fish illegally (reflecting their demands for well-being, wealth, and power). Meanwhile, the government of Ecuador demands respect and power in its dealings with the islands, but because of its demands for wealth, it draws funds away from conservation. Other participants have different perspectives and demand different combinations of values. Policies designed to eliminate introduced species on the islands have been ineffective because policy makers have failed to understand or address this social process. Research information is not communicated to locals (depriving

Michael Stevenson’s paper on managing introduced species in the Galapagos Islands makes a series of recommendations aimed at improving decision processes, but his analysis is also based on a solid understanding of social process.

 

 them of enlightenment and respect). Top-down legislation introduced by the national government is not enforced by local governments because they have not been involved in the legislative decisions (thereby being deprived of respect) and their value demands have not been incorporated. Local fishers and other residents violate the legislation because they know it will not be enforced, and in any event they do not see how it reflects or indulges their own values. “Educational outreach” or propaganda programs are ineffective at changing their behavior because these programs do not connect with local perspectives. Technical solutions, such as attempts to eradicate feral goats, fail because they do not address the social factors that lead to reintroductions. Meanwhile, demands for wealth and well-being are bringing many more people to the Galapagos Islands, a trend that is exacerbated by political conflict in Ecuador. Stevenson’s recommendations are designed to change decision processes in the region to deal more appropriately with this social process. They include involving diverse participants in decision making, and providing economic and social alternatives for locals who will otherwise suffer value deprivations because of conservation. As Stevenson concludes, “To best achieve goals to eliminate or reduce invasive species, human social interactions and their impact on the biology of the islands must be factored into both analysis and management.” In the paper by Alejandro Flores and Tim Clark on finding common ground in biological conservation, the authors focus selectively on one aspect of social process. They discuss the tendency in society for people with similar perspectives to group together, “excluding and confronting” those who have different perspectives. At a broad level, this leads to the practice of classifying people’s perspectives according to dichotomous mutually exclusive categories, such as “anthropocentric” versus “biocentric” views of conservation. After discussing some of the conditions that foster this tendency, Flores and Clark show that there are many possible areas of common ground among what appear to be mutually exclusive perspectives on conservation. They suggest strategies to move toward more flexible and integrative perspectives. These examples, and all of the other papers in this Bulletin, show that inquiry into the social process or the context of a natural resource problem is a crucial task. The social process can be at any scale, small or large (for example, a local landscape planning group, a state wildlife management agency, or a national government). It is important to discern who has effective power and how it is used. You need to identify not only how decisions are made, but also how decisions are made about the decisionmaking process itself (the latter is called the “constitutive decision process” and is discussed in the next section). You also need to understand the outcomes and effects of decision.

ET AL .



These examples, and all of the other papers in this Bulletin, show that inquiry into the social process or the context of a natural resource problem is a crucial task. The social process can be at any scale, small or large (for example, a local landscape planning group, a state wildlife management agency, or a national government). It is important to discern who has effective power and how it is used.

  



   

Recall that you observe a social process or the context of a problem using “lenses.” What are the appropriate observational tools you need? Should you start with a microscope or macroscope? Social processes and scientific and management problems rarely come in neat, well-defined disciplinary packages with clear labels: “This is a population viability problem,” “This is a watershed problem,” or “This is a community-based planning problem.” All problems have a multiplicity of dimensions and boundaries in terms of discipline, space, time, complexity, interrelationships, and so on, which each discipline sees as “real” relative to its own traditional viewpoint. Unfortunately, the actual problem rarely conforms to the viewpoint of any one disciplinary perspective. Two approaches must be taken simultaneously: comprehensiveness and selectivity. You must make an effort to be comprehensive, taking in the full view of the problem at hand. But time and resources are always limited, forcing you to also be selective in what you examine. It is vital to keep both a comprehensive and a selective view in mind on all species and ecosystem conservation problems. To summarize: • Focus comprehensively. • Focus selectively in detail on relevant features of: a. the environment, b. the processes of effective power, c. the process by which legal decisions are made, and d. the outcomes in terms of production and distribution of things (the benefits or burdens or values) that decisions involve, including the effects on the environment. Subjectivity also affects focus. Subjective factors figure prominently in individual behavior. People often say and write one thing and do something different. Understanding how and for what purposes this happens is critical. A balanced view is needed, taking account of what people say and what they in fact do. This includes a view of expectations on everyone’s part, especially expectations about what is “right.” Expectations about what is actually going to happen and expectations about what is effective are also important considerations. Having a useful theory or framework is vital in making observations, because it helps you avoid omitting or mis-emphasizing any aspects of the phenomena that you are observing. Science is typically reductionist and positivistic, and seeks fundamental laws to explain events and processes. Good observers of real social processes or contexts may not be scientific in this sense, but they are no less empirical or systematic; they seek fundamental explanations of events and processes. Differences in the philosophic bases of observation can lead to different observations, conclusions, and explanations. Clearly, having a useful framework in hand to focus on the social process, or the problem’s context, is essential.

To summarize: • Focus comprehensively. • Focus selectively in detail on relevant features of: a. the environment, b. the processes of effective power, c. the process by which legal decisions are made, and d. the outcomes in terms of production and distribution of things (the benefits or burdens or values) that decisions involve, including the effects on the environment.

 


LOOKING AT HOW? OR: WHAT ARE THE PROCESSES OF AUTHORITY AND CONTROL? (DECISION PROCESS) Natural resource conservation progresses through decision-making processes. Good decisions advance conservation, bad decisions set it back. Decisions may be made in an explicit, systematic fashion, or quickly with little thought. Many personal, professional, and organizational decisions are made hastily and without much analysis, often based on precedent or “standard operating procedures.” Other decisions, such as choices about people’s careers or other weighty matters, are made after much more time and deliberation. Societallevel decisions about natural resource conservation involving the coordination of millions of people may take years, if not decades, to make. As mentioned in the previous section, there are two main types of decision processes: “constitutive” and “ordinary” (Lasswell 1971). Constitutive decision processes produce the rules and procedures which govern how other decisions—the ordinary decision process—are to be made. Thus, higher-order constitutive decision processes establish the rules for lower-order ordinary decision processes. For example, a natural resource professional setting up a new conservation program, such as an endangered species recovery project or an interagency task force for cross-jurisdictional watershed management, makes many choices about institutional design and how future decisions will be made. This is constitutive decision making. The subsequent day-to-day choices made by the recovery team or the interagency task force, in accordance with the rules and procedures under which they have been constituted, are ordinary decision making. You should also be alert to the difference between “authority” and “control” in decision making: “To be authoritative is to be identified as the official or agency competent to act; to be controlling is to be able to shape results” (Lasswell 1971: 99). It is the expectations of those who are governed or affected by the decisions that matter. For example, the U.S. Forest Service may have the legal mandate to govern off-road vehicle use in the National Forests, but may not have the staff or resources to enforce its decisions. If the Forest Service decides to restrict off-road use in an area and that decision is ignored by users, the decision is authoritative but not controlling. If, however, a group of armed conservationists is successful in blocking off-road users from an area that the Forest Service has declared open to off-road use, the conservationists’ decision is controlling but not authoritative. Good decisions are both authoritative and controlling. Decisions are at the heart of all change, good or bad. A single big decision or the accretion of many smaller decisions can amount to a major policy shift. This in turn may result in a substantially different distribution of values than that which existed before the new policy was put in place. It is obviously imperative, then, that natural resource professionals develop a thorough understanding of how decisions are made, and how they should be made.

ET AL .



Natural resource conservation progresses through decision-making processes. Good decisions advance conservation, bad decisions set it back. Decisions may be made in an explicit, systematic fashion, or quickly with little thought.

  



   

Policy scientists analyze decisions by examining the constituent functions, or phases, which are involved in all processes of decision making. In the two papers in Part I of this Bulletin, Tim Clark introduces and describes a model of decision process that includes six phases: initiation, estimation, selection, implementation, evaluation, and termination. This model is used by most of the authors in this Bulletin, and is also outlined in our discussion about the policy sciences toolkit earlier in this paper. To review, the phases are as follows (Brewer 1973; Brewer and deLeon 1983; Brewer and Clark 1994: 400): 1. Initiation: Recognition of a problem; creative thinking about it; preliminary investigation of concepts and claims. Estimation: Scientific study of the problem, likely impacts, and outcomes; normative assessments; development of outlines of a programmatic response. Selection: Focused debate on the issues; choice about a program to solve the problem. Implementation: Development and application of a specific program. Evaluation: Comparison of estimated performance of the program with what was actually attained; reconciliation of the differences. Termination: Ending the program or modifying it to be more effective or to solve a new problem.

2.

3.

4. 5.

6.

By mapping decision phases, you will be able to determine how decisions are being made, who is participating in which aspects of the process, whether all phases or functions are being adequately attended to, and where breakdowns are occurring. You will be able to evaluate decision processes in terms of recognized standards for the performance of each of the phases (see, e.g., Lasswell 1971).

This six phase model of decision process is an easily understandable simplification of a slightly more detailed seven phase model originally developed by Harold Lasswell and his colleagues (Lasswell 1956, 1971; Lasswell and McDougal 1992). The original model is also still used by many policy scientists. Sue Lurie and Tim Clark, for instance, use Lasswell’s original seven phase model in their paper on sustainability planning in Teton County, Wyoming (discussed below). The model of decision process is the final component of the policy sciences’ framework. It applies to both constitutive and ordinary decision making. By mapping decision phases, you will be able to determine how decisions are being made, who is participating in which aspects of the process, whether all phases or functions are being adequately attended to, and where breakdowns are occurring. You will be able to evaluate decision processes in terms of recognized standards for the performance of each of the phases (see, e.g., Lasswell 1971). In addition, you will be able to watch for commonly occurring weaknesses or pitfalls, which have been identified and catalogued for each phase by the many policy scientists who have previously used the framework to evaluate

 

 other decision processes (see, e.g., Brewer and deLeon 1983; Ascher and Healy 1990; Clark 1997; and see Table 4 in the second paper by Tim Clark in Part I of this Bulletin). There are many examples of decision-process analysis in this Bulletin. Jonathan Padwe’s paper about land conflict in Paraguay maps the decision process that led to implementation of an effective policy by the Fundación Moisés Bertoni (FMB), managers of the Mbaracayú Nature Reserve. In the initiation phase, many participants became aware that there was a problem in the region, evidenced by conflict between the indigenous Aché people and a group of new colonists who had settled between the Aché lands and the Nature Reserve, in which the Aché held traditional rights to hunt. Other indications of the problem included alleged damage by the Aché to colonists’ land and alleged poaching by colonists in the Nature Reserve. Padwe describes how the decision process soon moved into estimation, in which the parameters of the problem were more clearly defined, through research into the impact of Aché hunting within the Nature Reserve, studies of deforestation on or near the colonists’ lands, and meetings held by the FMB with the Aché and with the colonists. During this phase the policy of purchasing the colonists’ lands and transferring title to the Aché was proposed. In the selection phase, the FMB chose to implement the proposed policy of purchasing the colonists’ land. The choice was made in part because of pressure from the Aché, support from other participants, and apparent feasibility. To implement the policy, the FMB obtained funds, purchased the lands, helped to arrange the title transfer to the Aché, and assisted the colonists with relocation. Padwe says that evaluation took place in discussions among the parties and in reports given to the donors who funded the policy, but his paper itself is also a detailed evaluation of the decision-making process. Unlike many decision processes, a clear termination occurred when all of the colonists had been moved and the Aché once again had unimpeded access to the Nature Reserve. In contrast, in Barry Muchnick’s paper on wolves in Minnesota, the author analyzes a decision process which he depicts as a failure. The initiation phase of the wolf management process that he discusses began when the passage of the Endangered Species Act made wolf management in Minnesota a national problem. Since then the decision process has gone through several estimation and selection phases, such as when the status of the wolf was reclassified from endangered to threatened in 1978, when the recovery plan was revised in 1992, and when the current proposal for delisting was made. Muchnick argues that these phases have been characterized by over-emphasis on pure biological data without adequate consideration of socio-political factors, and that they have occasionally been dominated by special interests such as the livestock industry. For instance, he describes the estimation process for the 1992 revision of the recovery plan as follows: “Drastically oversimplifying the problem of wolf conservation into purely numerical terms, information was only collected about wolf biology, and the complex matrix of social, economic, organiza-

ET AL .



There are many examples of decision-process analysis in this Bulletin. Jonathan Padwe’s paper about land conflict in Paraguay maps the decision process that led to implementation of an effective policy by the Fundación Moisés Bertoni (FMB), managers of the Mbaracayú Nature Reserve.

  



   

tional, and political issues in which the wolf issue is embedded was ignored.” Muchnick claims that implementation of wolf management decisions has been flawed by poor coordination among agencies and “inconsistent and irregular enforcement,” and that evaluation has been weak or non-existent. His own evaluation concludes that “the current organization of wolf management in Minnesota has a distinct and pervasive tendency to focus on the technical, biological aspects of wolf recovery instead of reviewing the process’s own successes and failures.” His analysis suggests that it is premature to propose termination—in this case, delisting—and he recommends a number of strategies to involve a broader range of participants and to otherwise improve the decision-making process. As a final example of decision-process analysis, Sue Lurie and Tim Clark’s evaluation of sustainability planning in Teton County uses the seven phase model, and the criteria Lasswell proposed as standards for the performance of each of these phases (Lasswell 1971). They discuss how the intelligence phase (gathering, processing and disseminating information) of planning for Teton County was not sufficiently comprehensive or creative, in that it failed to find and include adequate information on key socio-economic variables, costs of growth, wildlife populations and habitat, commercial development, and potential transportation needs. The promotion phase (debate over alternative courses of action) was described by some participants as “neither open nor inclusive,” and special interests may have dominated the debate. According to the authors, “the inadequacy of the intelligence activity left gaps in information that made it difficult or impossible to develop a broad range of supportable alternatives” in the promotion phase. Lurie and Clark found that the prescription phase (stabilizing expectations and enacting rules) was sufficiently open to allow input from interested participants, but produced overly complex regulations that the public and even county staff have had difficulty understanding. This has led to problems in the invocation and application phases (interpreting and enforcing, or putting into practice, prescriptions—approximately equivalent to implementation), because the complexity of the regulations precludes many citizens from evaluating and giving feedback on proposed developments, and planners are unable to interpret and apply the rules uniformly. The appraisal phase (evaluation) suffers from similar problems: “The plan is too complex to invite meaningful discussion by average citizens about its overall adequacy or about specific requirements. This forecloses equitable access to discussion and appraisal.” Like many other public decision processes, the Teton County planning process did not provide for a termination phase, although the plans do include provisions for review. The authors make recommendations to restructure public planning and decision processes in Teton County to share power and meaningfully involve the public, toward the goal of clarifying and securing the common interest: “A policy process that integrates social process, problem orientation, and decision-making—and includes genu-

As a final example of decisionprocess analysis, Sue Lurie and Tim Clark’s evaluation of sustainability planning in Teton County uses the seven phase model, and the criteria Lasswell proposed as standards for the performance of each of these phases (Lasswell 1971).

 

 ine power sharing by citizens and government—can help in clarifying and securing the common interest and producing flexible, effective policies to sustain a thriving community.” CONCLUSION In concluding this volume and by way of a summary, we draw your attention again to Figure 1, which illustrates the four major components of the policy sciences’ framework, a comprehensive guide to professional operation and participation in decision making and policy-making. This simple framework can direct your attention, thought, and action in species and ecosystem conservation. Considering all components and their interaction simultaneously in the real world of conservation problems is the professional challenge before each and every one of us. To omit consideration of one or more of these components is to invite failure. Neither the professions nor natural resources (e.g., forests, coral reefs, biodiversity) can long endure sustained failure. With the framework as your guide, you can bring about improved professional problem solving and enhanced natural resource management. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank our colleagues, students, and other collaborators throughout the world who are working together to conserve species and ecosystems. We especially acknowledge our indebtedness to the developers of the contextual, problem-oriented, and multi-method approach to problem solving that is the policy sciences.

ET AL .



Considering all components and their interaction simultaneously in the real world of conservation problems is the professional challenge before each and every one of us. To omit consideration of one or more of these components is to invite failure.

LITERATURE CITED Ascher, W., and R.G. Healy. 1990. Natural resource policymaking in developing countries: Environment, economic growth, and income distribution. Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina. Brewer, G.D. 1973. Experimentation and the policy process. Pp. 151-163 in 25th Annual Report of the Rand Corporation. Santa Monica, California. Brewer, G.D., and P. deLeon. 1983. The foundations of policy analysis. Dorsey Press, Homewood, Illinois. Brewer, G.D., and T.W. Clark. 1994. A policy sciences perspective: Improving implementation. Pp. 391-413 in T.W. Clark, R.P. Reading, and A.L. Clarke, eds., Endangered species recovery: Finding the lessons, improving the process. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Clark, T.W. 1997. Averting extinction: Reconstructing endangered species recovery. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. Cortner, H.J., and M.A. Moote. 1999. The politics of ecosystem management. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Grumbine, R.E. 1994. What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology 8(1):27-38. Jones, J.R., R. Martin, and E.T. Bartlett. 1995. Ecosystem management: The U.S. Forest Service’s response to social conflict. Society and Natural Resources 8(2): 161-168. Lasswell, H.D. 1956. The decision process: Seven categories of functional analysis. Bureau of Governmental Research, College of Business and Public Administration, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.

  



   

Lasswell, H.D. 1971. A pre-view of policy sciences. American Elsevier Publishing Company, Inc., New York, New York. Lasswell, H.D., and M.S. McDougal. 1992. Jurisprudence for a free society: Studies in law, science, and policy. New Haven Press, New Haven, Connecticut. Lippmann, W. 1965. Public opinion. The Free Press, New York, New York. McDougal, M.S., W.M. Reisman, and A.R. Willard. 1988. The world community: A planetary social process. University of California Davis Law Review 21(3): 807-972. Reisman, W.M. 1989-90. Theory about law: The New Haven School of jurisprudence. Institute for Advanced Study Berlin, Jahrbuch 1989-90: 228-242. Reisman, W.M., and A.M. Schreiber. 1987. Jurisprudence: Understanding and shaping law. New Haven Press, New Haven, Connecticut.
TIM W. CLARK earned his doctorate in zoology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is president of the board of directors of the Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative in Jackson, Wyoming. He is an adjunct professor at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies and a fellow at the university’s Institution for Social and Policy Studies. He is also affiliated with Idaho State University in Pocatello. Tim Clark, P.O. Box 3906, Jackson, WY 83001. Phone: (307) 733-1727; Email: timothy.w.clark@yale.edu MURRAY B. RUTHERFORD is a Ph.D. candidate at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, and a research associate with the Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative in Jackson, Wyoming. He has a law degree from the University of British Columbia and has practiced law in Vancouver, British Columbia. He also has a Master’s degree in Resource and Environmental Management from Simon Fraser University. His other work experience includes exploration geology, and teaching at the university level. Murray B. Rutherford, 7205 Skyline Crescent, Saanichton, British Columbia, Canada V8M 1M4. Phone: (250) 544-1448; Email: mruth@pinc.com KIM ZIEGELMAYER is currently enrolled at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies and expects to complete her Master’s degree in Environmental Management in 2001. She received a Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology from Rhode Island College in 1995, and was the recipient of the James Houston Award for Excellence in Anthropology. Previous experience includes sole ownership and management of rental property, sole ownership of a sub-contracting business specializing in historic property renovation, partnership in a franchise enterprise in Atlanta, Georgia, over-theroad truck driver, and extensive world travel. Kim Ziegelmayer, 217 John Mowry Rd., Smithfield, RI 02917. Phone: (401) 231-9454; Email: kim.ziegelmayer@yale.edu MICHAEL J. STEVENSON obtained his Master’s degree at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. His professional and academic interests include interdisciplinary approaches to ecosystem and watershed management, and restoration ecology. He has worked in the past with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, Jones and Stokes Associates, and a variety of private consultants in California. Michael J. Stevenson, P.O. Box 73871, Davis, CA 95617-3871. Phone: (530) 750-2870; Email: michael.stevenson@aya.yale.edu or michael_ j_stevenson@yahoo.com

 