I've narrow-mindedly adopted, tried to take, and have taught about a "systems approach" to wildlife management (and to everything) for over thirty years. I remember the day I saw an advertisement in a magazine describing the capabilities of a company (I believe it was General Dynamics) in designing and managing large, complex systems. What they described is what I want to do! That is what I need as the manager of wildlife areas!

There in the magazine was the imagined picture for me of the managed ecosystem, decided, under computer control, optimized. From that day forward - alas, a one-page ad at the end of my Ph.D. program!- the quest began. Nothing really starts at one time. I had been prepared (I felt plowed) for the seed. I read and read and took a few classes in systems related topics at the University of Idaho. Churchman and Ackoff ( 1954) were helpful early on. Ludwig Von Bertalanffy's General Systems Theory (1968) was challenging. His work was especially motivating because he was a biologist, of fisheries fame for a growth curve, and because Bob Scott, Chief of the Wildlife Refuge System, told me of his excitement in learning from him also. A pattern was emerging, support developing.

Figure 3.1. A bimodal distribution of student acceptance of a systems approach.

I've tried to teach about a systems approach for years. My classes defy the "normal"or bell-shaped curve in acceptance. They are bimodal (Figure 3.1). About half see the meaning and importance (or at least learn how to answer test questions and give positive post-class comments); the other half develops emotions akin to hate. I've denied these observations and their consequences. I now believe that few things of importance (like the calculus, logic, econometrics) can be taught until a person is ready. Perhaps "motivators" can get some people ready, but I suspect there is an experiential level, a needed extent of cerebral triangulation needed before a large or complicated topic can be "taken in" for further work. I relieve myself of some teaching guilt by such words but the idea is not new and supported by several educators.

I am nervous around zealots. How can they be so convinced? how do they know so surely? I fear having made people nervous. I have zeal; I am very sure of the systems approach but I continue to insist that I am testing it. Within it, it has the steps or components by which it, itself, can be corrected or improved. The modifying or self-adaptive (Waters 1986) work is that of feedback.

I am narrow-minded. I see only one way that wildlife management (a vast but limited field), verily all wildland and natural resource management, can be improved to meet the needs of crisis magnitude around the world. The systems approach has been appropriate for resource management for many years. Now it is almost essential. If not it, then what? I must know ... soon.

A systems approach, like a system, is very difficult to define. There have been many attempts but, since each person doing so has had a different objective, all are incomplete, biased, or purposeful. Except for teaching and theoretical purposes, there probably is no reason to spend much time on a definition. It is best to point and to say "that is a system," or "he (or she) is taking a systems approach" then to get on with analyzing or designing it ...or living it. Describing or defining a systems approach is akin to defining a "religion." It cannot be done simply. Thousands of words are needed... and more. People are derisive of the approach, implying that if it were any good it could certainly be explained in a few words. Such derision may be the life burden of those who take (or attempt to take) or use the approach.

An "approach" is a way of doing things or mode of operation. Crooks have a modus operandi; so do mathematicians. There is an evident philosophy, , a recognizable pattern, that can be seen, a set of techniques. An approach is a paradigm, a way of work. It is the "view" taken by people; a view that can be seen by others. (Private approaches may exist but are not discussible.)

When a person takes a systems approach, there is not just one thing seen. It is a set of actions that is a whole picture, a collage that, in total, is realistic, perhaps beautiful, assembled, not piecemeal. It may be a "perspective" on life or projects, but this implies there are others, probably equal. There is a value associated with it, implying that it is good, one of the best available (or why take, or use, it?).

The pattern that is seen is that of a person who "likes" and presses for whole systems, either discussion of or full-scale employment of a system. They will typically emphasize objectives, attack them early on, grab a sub-system (but discuss where it will fit later in a larger or smaller system), and think about simulation or optimization in some form. There will probably be a computer in the works somewhere (not necessarily actively but at least a hint of potential use). Those most surely taking a systems approach will always involve feedback in some form. It flows from having objectives (which few others in society have or emphasize) and usually being involved in system improvement, using some form of corrective, adaptive action that reduces the tendency of the system to wander away from an objective. Feedforward is often present in some form, but it is not as conspicuous or as formally discussed. I'll discuss it later.

Sooner or later some type of definition of a system is needed. It is anything having the specified structure of a general system. A system is any identifiable entity existing in time and space and composed of more than two parts, having relations and processes within it, and designed to or existing so that it may provide through some process(es) output(s) of energy of matter. There have been published papers outlining more than 20 definitions of systems. An approximate definition may be all that can be achieved. I prefer: "someone taking a systems approach is actively using Figure 3.4"

A working hypothesis is that everything in the universe can be perceived as a system. Thus, systems are general. Thus, there is a general systems theory. General systems theory is a widely used phrase, now with "prior use" status, indicating a body of literature and thought that perceives that most things in the universe have similar structure and function, that is, they follow the same concepts, laws, principles and have the same general structure. In other words, they have the structure of the general system. On one hand, arrogant systems people might say: " ... we are the true, basic discipline"; on the other, humble: " ...we're just observing and we happened to note the similarities and that we might learn from each other, operate together, communicate better ... that's all." The word "general" connotes ubiquitous or universal and certainly not vague or imprecise.

Anything may be viewed as a system but everything is not one. There are degrees to which some entities meet the criteria for a system. Failure to meet the criteria does not deny the existence of a system or its potential. A system may be incomplete or inefficient.

Figure 3.2. A minimum system of three parts.

That a system may not be "working" does not deny its existence. In natural systems, inefficient stages may exist. Observations of efficiency are merely points made along an evolutionary pathway. Agencies, for example, are systems, but often are inefficient and have little feedback that is operating. A minimum system is in Figure 3.2.

An equation is a system. For example:

C = A + B

The context is assumed to be the simplistic nature of the problem as defined by the equation. A and B are inputs. The process is adding or addition (usually a verb form), and the output is C. This system has no feedback (except that which might be applied by a student of the topic being represented). Feedback questions would be: Is this the right relationship; does it reflect the true complexity of the situation?

Another simple system is:

C = f(x)

Figure 3.3. The black box diagrammed symbolizes the unknown or undescribed processes in a simple system that produce or allow C to exist, given the input of X.

This means that C is a function of x and although not specified, it means very vaguely, that if x (some input) is present, is processed somehow, then as a result, C will exist or is produced. The equation, just a short version for all of these words, is probably not complete (few things are so simple), but it expresses some truth about an incomplete system - one which, with feedback, is likely to get better - to become more truthful or useful. The obscure or unspecified relationship shown in the above equation can be called a "black box." It can be diagrammed as seen in Figure 3.3.

This means that (for the time being at least - we'll describe more later) we know that there is a relationship, we may not care very much what it is, and that this representation will suffice. We may want to know what causes A to become or produce C. We want to know what is in the black box. We have stumbled into another part of systems thought, namely, models.

Figure 3.4. A classic general system. of general systems theory.

A classic general system in shown in Figure 3.4.
 

Figure 3.5. A view of modified general systems theory as used in this book.

A general system as it has evolved and has become the basis for resource work is shown in Figure 3.5.

Some people have commented that a system (as in Figure 3.5) is too complicated. Perhaps. As compared to what? Consistently, students fail (or refuse) to reproduce Figure 3.5 on a quiz as we start off on our approach. Some say that the diagram "explains nothing." True, but it provides a structure from which explanations can be developed.

The context is the boundary problem of all systems work. Where does the pond ecosystem start and stop? The water's edge? The air pollution? The wet soil? What about birds bringing in nutrients? There are no easy or clean answers to such questions. The systems person, as I see him or her, takes a stance of tentative certainty, points and defines, and says "that pond" and moves ahead with design and management. All systems are open, there are not real boundaries, but to fail to state one tentatively and act on it leaves agencies, people and the resource stuck, unable to act, or committed to excessive projects never likely to be finished. There's risk, but sometime the systems person minimizes it, pretends that the system is closed down, then acts, aware of feedback.

The problem with the systems approach is that it cannot be written well. It is not a I, II, III; A, B, C, kind of topic. It is Figure 3.5 all at once; laid on its side; turned upside down. At this point, whatever the approach seems to be, I want to discuss feedback because that is what is used to change the scale of the discussion, the system context . Is the context too large?; too small?; fix it! Next comes objectives.

I make a distinction between Output and Objectives. Systems are classifiable as those of analysis or design. Those that are analytical (take apart, describe, break down, discriminate) express or produce output. These are relatively value-free expressions, results of an effort to "tell it like it is" without regard to importance, value, or significance. Of course, there is difficulty in such perception; perhaps it is impossible. Nevertheless, the analytical result is usually worthy. The importance to the educator and scientist of the general system is in such a value-free spirit. The alternative to analysis and output is the statement of objectives and then design of a system, using the identical categories. The system designer is involved with assembling, synthesizing, unifying and making things operational to achieve pre-stated, value-laden objectives.

When taking a systems approach, things get put into categories or compartments of the system either for further analysis or discrimination, or for assembly and use. Inputs to natural systems are sunlight, water, etc. Soil is just "there" but it is the structure and usually contributes in some analyses to whatever is of interest in the system - like beans or bears. Whole databases supply input to some decision systems; some dozens of maps are assembled in geographic information systems to produce beautiful maps of areas (the outputs), (Figure 3.6). The idea of assembling and producing are processes. (Processes are recognizable as verbs.) In natural resource systems these are activities like transporting, eroding, evaporating, photosynthesizing, spending ... and deciding. In the decision system, the decision comes in an instant, at the bang of a gavel, and it is the output. Whether the decision achieves an objective or needs to be revised or improved is the next question for action. All systems are dynamic. There is sense of completeness, but it is tentative and under the influence of feedback.

Feedback is a corrective and controlling force. It, itself, is a little subsystem. It has a standard (an objective or criterion of goodness); it senses the state of the system, compares it to the standard and, if unacceptably too far from it, makes adjustments. There is plenty of monitoring going on in natural resource management, but little feedback. Monitoring simply senses the environment - no comparison and corrections are made - as done with the more complex concept of feedback. Why? Monitoring includes no (or unclear) objectives!

Figure 3.6. Computer maps produced by a so-called geographic information system provide summaries of much data displayed in their spatial relevance. Each small spot on the map or pixel can display in relative color or shares the values of a parameter found therein.

Feedforward does not occur in biological systems, so Von Bertalanffy seemed to have missed it in describing a general systems theory. The concept is one of predicting, then adjusting the present system to get ready for that future condition. The future cannot be known, so few people will discuss feedforward. It is used by all major agencies and companies, and of course, thoughtful families planning budgets for college, nursing homes, cars, etc. for a relatively long, unknown future. Forest land owners, predicting very high hardwood prices in 50 years use feedforward as they shift from planting all areas into pines as done for many years. Feedforward is projection plus present-day action. There are plenty of futurists; the feedforward specialists make adjustments today based on perceptions of such people are from other techniques. Trying to be "right over the long-run" is not a bad slogan.

All of the little arrows in Figure 3.5 mean "do it," cause it, affect it. They are sequential pathways too. You take inputs, process them, and you get outputs. The designer and wildland resource manager establishes objectives, then finds out exactly what inputs are needed to achieve that exact objective (usually a set). The emphasis is on not one unit more or less. Then, but at the same time, the processes are considered.

Do not use a computer (processor) if all you need is a hand calculator! Don't dehumanize people for a week if you can get an answer in a day for less money from a computer. Don't buy if you can rent cost effectively. These are the types of process-related activities going on in taking the systems approach. It is as important to have good processes as to have good inputs.

I've been repulsed by "garbage in-garbage out" phrases of unknowing enemies of the systems approach. Most of the time objectives (standards) are so poorly known or stated and processes so improperly used (improper statistical tests, etc.) that limited data hardly seems worthy of note, especially since "garbage" can be sorted, cleaned, screened of noise and error, adjusted to known limits - all appropriate processes. When the whole system is used as a whole, ignoring the lines drawn around the components (as I must now do) to describe them, then as Churchman once said, the systems approach is not a bad idea.

In the taxonomy of any biological entity, a species is not discussed or explained, it is characterized. A person taking a systems approach will be characterized as follows. He or she typically:

• Sees the natural resource world as analysis or design (and later both); take it apart, describe; put it together, design;
• Sees every part of the world as having the components of a general system (Figure 3.5);
• There is a "belief" in things, all things, having great similarity and that such similarity has a universal set of words for analysis (or design);
• Begins work "at the end," analyzing the remainder of the system that produces an output or consequence, or begins by carefully identifying objectives;
• Argues for simultaneous work with all components of the general system (Figure 3.5); uses models and techniques that are not conventional or uses them in combinations for which there is not a standard name procedure (e.g., linear programming);
• Tends to deal with larger and larger systems;
• Uses the concept of isomorphism to gain efficiencies by applying a different area, a system developed in another area;
• Uses the concept of synergism to gain economies in organization and operation;
• Studies the factors to which the performance measure of any system is most sensitive and uses this to improve system effectiveness and efficiency;
• Contrasts effectiveness and efficiency, clarifying to suggest effectiveness is efficiency in achieving precisely the stated objectives;
• Works with information systems;
• Believes the system can improve communication about complex entities;
• Develops an unusual mode of thought;
• Works with sub-systems, keeping an eye on system larger and smaller;
• Looks for isomorphism, i.e., believes the same structures exist in most other aspects of life ... including natural resources;
• Works with the many dimensions (factors) of systems, analyzing them with major available statistical, mathematical, and computer science techniques;
• Recognizes that many systems, particularly ecological ones, are non-linear and deterministic; Simulates systems, often grossly, but in some cases in great detail, and often on computers;
• Uses optimization techniques, often computer-based, to achieve desired systems and their solutions, at least reasonable outputs;
• Deals with a large set (in combinations) of techniques beyond those of statistics and operations research (both of which are expansive) to include many in psychology, management, marketing, remote sensing, engineering and computer science;
• Argues ad nauseam that the approach does not mean systematic. In contrast, most systems work is not sequential, is often eclectic, and is often called heuristic;
• Emphasizes eclectic, which is rigorous in form, but is freeing in that in enables people to know by heuristically converging on truth, whether it be personal or grounded in quality of life for groups;
• Uses "heuristic" to mean an approach to solutions having a variety of procedures, not necessarily standard, and often a flow of solutions from one small system to another, eventually to a "final" answer;
• Tends to argue against any final solution, recognizes "solutions" as tentative, partial, correct-for-the-moment, and likely to undergo feedback;
• Reduces duplication and work because systems already created can often be adapted to achieve ends that were never contemplated when the system was created;
• Strives to see indices or scores of actual or potential triangulation in systems of more-than-2 relations, of sets of relations as polyhedra - at least geometric structural integrity;
• Uses energetics as a centralizing fundamental concept for all systems, giving energy budgets and entropy special attention;
• Treats feedforward, not found in non-human systems, as a major part of systems design, using views of the future to shape the present system.

There are many people who deny a systems approach. I've found a way to refute their objectives, most along pragmatic grounds. I have seen it work. I have seen systems built. It seems to have worked within my life. I have suggested observations and developmenbts emerging from its use within this book and website. The failure has been in the practice, not the concept. Many people say they take a systems approach. Some insist it merely means logical and systematic, which I interpret as sequential. That is good but not adequate for natural resource problem solving. In a room of people discussing a systems approach, there will be such differences that a taxonomist would find no joy there. The differences are in the specialists and emphases. A person interested in rainfall will describe in great detail the system developed to print rainfall records. The emphasis and life commitment is on rainfall inputs, of course, with other system components. Statisticians develop sub-specialties in some process - a type of numerical analysis. People working to produce large maps by computer can hardly discuss (or see how) setting human objectives for wood, water, wildlife, ... and black widows has bearing on their work.