A Systems Ecology Approach for Community-Based Decision Making

doi:10.1017/9781108655354.011

10 - A Systems Ecology Approach for Community-Based Decision Making

The Structured Analysis Methodology

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 February 2021

Robert G. Woodmansee and

Sarah R. Woodmansee

Edited by

Robert G. Woodmansee,

John C. Moore,

Dennis S. Ojima and

Laurie Richards

Show author details

Robert G. Woodmansee: Affiliation:
Colorado State University
John C. Moore: Affiliation:
Colorado State University
Dennis S. Ojima: Affiliation:
Colorado State University
Laurie Richards: Affiliation:
Colorado State University

Book contents

Get access

Summary

The Structured Analysis Methodology (SAM) is an application of the systems ecology paradigm (SEP). SAM was built as a “tutorial” to guide community-based, collaborative stakeholder groups through analysis and resolution (decision-making) of complicated and complex natural resource, environmental, and societal challenges. Stakeholders are scientists, managers, policy decision-makers, and citizen leaders. SAM was initially created to address landscape- to regional-scale ecosystem management challenges, but it can be applied to many other complex problems. During the problem analysis phase of SAM several critical steps must be accomplished (e.g., SAM requires precise, transparent, and agreed-upon statements of problems and goals; detailed descriptions of associated space, time, and institutional dimensions of the problem must be made; SAM demands inclusion of important stakeholders; and as the problem analysis develops, the stakeholder group initiates and refines conceptual models of how the defined ecosystem functions and behaves). Conceptual models often require systems or simulation modeling for further analysis and clarification. Following the analysis phase, the stakeholder group develops management options (e.g., ecosystem management), chooses among them (decision-making), and implements one or more. The implemented plans must be monitored and if they are not working make adaptations. Adaptation may require reiteration of part or all of the SAM.

Keywords

collaboration framework community-based decision making collaboration technology environmental problem analysis natural resource problem analysis systems ecology paradigm ecosystem management conceptual modeling simulation model ecosystem scaling

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Natural Resource Management Reimagined
Using the Systems Ecology Paradigm
, pp. 300 - 334
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108655354.011 [Opens in a new window]
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Achenbach, J. (2015). The age of disbelief. National Geographic, 227, 30–47.Google Scholar

Balram, S., Dragicevic, S., and Feick, R. (2009). Collaborative GIS for spatial decision support and visualization. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(6), 1963–5.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). (1989). Little Snake Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Craig District, Little Snake Resource Area, urn:oclc:record:1048789307. https://archive.org/details/littlesnakeresou3740unit (accessed August 20, 2018).Google Scholar

Christensen, N. L., Bartuska, A. M., Brown, J. H., et al. (1996). The report of the Ecological Society of America committee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecological Applications, 6(3), 665–91.CrossRef Google Scholar

Faber, B. G., Watts, R., Hautaluoma, J. E., et al. (1994). A groupware-enabled GIS. GIS, 94, 3–13.Google Scholar

Forrester, J. W. (1968). Principles of Systems. Cambridge, MA: Wright-Allen Press.Google Scholar

Fox, D. G., Faber, B. G., DeCoursey, D. G., et al. (1992). The Terrestrial Ecosystems Regional Research and Analysis Laboratory: Regional Collaboration to Address Global Change Issues. México: Montecillo, 41–6.Google Scholar

Future Earth. (2014). Future Earth 2025 Vision. http://old.futureearth.org/sites/default/files/future-earth_10-year-vision_web.pdf (accessed August 14, 2019).Google Scholar

Grumbine, R. E. (1994). What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology, 8(1), 27–38.Google Scholar

Hautaluoma, J. E., and Woodmansee, R. G. (1994). New roles in ecological research and policy making. Ecological International Bulletin, 21(21), 1–10.Google Scholar

Hicks, C. C., Levine, A., Agrawal, A., et al. (2016). Engage key social concepts for sustainability. Science, 352, 38–40.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Holling, C. S. (1978). Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar

Jankowski, P. (2009). Towards participatory geographic information systems for community-based environmental decision making. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(6), 1966–71.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Kaplan, N. E., Baker, K. S., Draper, D. C., and Swauger, S. (2014). Packaging, Transforming and Migrating Data from a Scientific Research Project to an Institutional Repository: The SGS LTER Collection. Digital Collections of Colorado. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University. http://hdl.handle.net/10217/87239 (accessed August 13, 2020).Google Scholar

Kaplan, N. E., and Newman, G. J. (2013). Data Management for NREL and Beyond: A Roadmap and Recommendations. Digital Collections of Colorado. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University. http://hdl.handle.net/10217/87381 (accessed August 13, 2020).Google Scholar

Kessler, W. B., Salwasser, H., Cartwright, C. W. Jr., and Caplan, J. A. (1992). New perspectives for sustainable natural resources management. Ecological Applications, 2, 221–5.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Lavery, J. V. (2018). Building an evidence base for stakeholder engagement. Science, 361, 554–6.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Lewis, C. S. (1955). The Magician’s Nephew. New York: Harper Collins Children’s Books.Google Scholar

Lubchenco, J., Olson, A. M., Brubaker, L. B., et al. (1991). The sustainable biosphere initiative: An ecological research agenda – A report from the Ecological Society of America. Ecology, 72(2), 371–412.Google Scholar

McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2011). Fostering Sustainable Behavior: An Introduction to Community-Based Social Marketing. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.Google Scholar

Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in Systems: A Primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.Google Scholar

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Board. (2005). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press. www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf.Google Scholar

Montréal Process Working Group (MPWG). (2015). The Montreal Process: Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests. www.montrealprocess.org/documents/publications/techreports/MontrealProcessSeptember2015.pdf (accessed August 17, 2018).Google Scholar

National Forest Foundation (NFF). (2016). Collaborative Restoration Workshop. The 2016 Collaborative Restoration Workshop, Denver Colorado. www.nationalforests.org/collaboration-resources/collaborative-restoration-workshop (accessed August 17, 2018).Google Scholar

National Research Council. (1994). Rangeland Health: New Methods to Classify, Inventory, and Monitor Rangelands. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar

Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation, 141, 2417–31.Google Scholar

Riebsame, W., and Woodmansee, R. (1995). Mapping common ground on public Rangelands. In Let the People Judge, ed. Echeverria, J. and Eby, R. B.. Washington, DC: Island Press, 69–81.Google Scholar

UN Sustainable Development Summit (UNSDG). (2015). Sustainable Development Goals: 17 Goals to Transform Our World. www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/# (accessed June 18, 2018).Google Scholar

USDA Forest Service (USFS). (2016). Northwest Forest Plan. www.fs.fed.us/r6/reo/. (accessed August 17, 2018).Google Scholar

Walker, B., and Salt, D. (2006). Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing World. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar

Waltner-Toews, D., Kay, J., and Lister, N.-M., eds. (2008). The Ecosystem Approach: Complexity, Uncertainty, and Managing for Sustainability. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Woodmansee, R. G. (1978). Critique and analyses of the grassland ecosystem model ELM. In Grassland Simulation Model, ed. Innis, G. S.. New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar

Woodmansee, R. G., and Riebsame, W. (1993). Evaluating the effects of climate change on grasslands. In Proceedings of the XVII International Grassland Congress, ed. New Zealand Grassland Association, et al. Palmerston North, New Zealand: The Association. 1191–6.Google Scholar

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.