Sustained forests; sustained profits
evolving since March 30, 1999
A unit of Lasting Forests
Sustained forests; sustained profits
evolving since March 30, 1999
of an Alternative Wildlife Resource Management
| [ HOME | Essentials Home | Table of Contents | The Finder | Glossary ] |
The Status Quo
There is another option of course. That option is not to change, to retain the status quo (The existing condition or state of affairs. [Latin; state in which]). This may be necessary if there are no means seen for change, no resources, no creative option. The status quo may be pleasing to so people. A generally bad situation may prevent an agency from doing a particular "good" that is offensive to some group or individual. Some people have been said to "stir the pot" as a strategy to prevent action. Preventing action may be the intent; it can lead to analyses (such as those conducted by the Government Accounting Office)that can lead to major agency changes or their abolition ... not intended.
It is difficult in some societies to admit that there are no solutions to a problem or situation and no hope for one emerging. Perhaps that is the case with large, complex problems with a long history and strongly felt needs and objectives having profound conflicts. The natural resource domain may be just one such problem. Herein, the underlying assumptions are that this is just such a problem and that there is no solution. The status quo is not acceptable and thus another condition will be sought. It is unlikely that it will be judged to be good, only judged better than the former condition.
Optimization
Like many words loosely used, "optimization" sounds good but it has some hidden evils. It means (to me) a mathematical process of analyzing a system and finding a condition in which all of the variables, when in the right condition produce a state that perfectly achieves the stated objective. The procedures always require a very explicit objective, typically to maximize..., to minimize..., or to stabilize. (These three things are universal, all that any system design can do.) Suppose we want bread. We know the ingredients. We solve the equation for bread-making, attempting to maximize the net gains from mixing, baking, and selling bread. The objective seems fairly easily stated. We can imagine mixing all possible combinations of flour, yeast, etc. at different costs to produce different loafs of bread. Some will be expensive, some taste bad, some "flat." Each will have an approximate price, including zero for those that will not sell. We can study with the aid of a computer all of the costs and all of the "output" loaves and their selling price and state an optimum.
Strangely, even a simple problem of profits from good bread can become very complicated if profit is an objective. My experience in natural resource optimization is that the process can usually suggest a 10 to 20 percent better solution than a human's best guess. In bread-making, a 10% difference in profits can attract attention from investors. I'm convinced from personal studies as well as reports of others that improvements of this magnitude are waiting within natural resource areas. I do not know why they have not been sought but I can list reasons: unaware of the potentials, the methodology of optimization is difficult, there have been few demands, many variables (e.g., flour for bread) are not easily quantified, and there is no expressed objective. I think the last reason is dominant. What will we maximize? or minimize?
Forestry boxed itself in years ago with "sustained yield" slogans. One interpretation is that there be a constant supply of wood from forests. Constant or continual or continuous are words that can be bantered but no matter what the decision, the intent was for wood production. Sustained wood production when prices are falling can lead to bankruptcy! A lumber mill with no market will be very quiet very soon. The point of this is only that it is very difficult to state objectives within wildland and other natural resource fields. "More deer" meets "less deer damage to crops and seedlings" "more wood" meets "declining prices for over-supplies" and "better roads" for some recreationists meets "closed roads" for other recreationists.
Conventional decision making requires an objective. Optimization is a manifestation of such decision making. It has been very difficult to formulate objectives within wildland management circles. There are many reasons but they will not be explored here. Without a clear objective, then any solution or set of actions will suffice. With no destination in mind, any trip...or staying at home...is equally as good. "Good" has typically produced the response Vas compared to what?" and the answer, after much discussion, is usually "as compared to this set of objectives."
Precise Objectives
Precise objectives are so difficult to produce and so infrequently used that I have decided, reluctantly, not to try to work with them any longer. I seek an alternative and now work on describing the means for deciding on a satisfactory condition. From one perspective, this is little more than defining a set of constraints, (one type of objective described elsewhere as a Type 4 or Policies and Constraints). There are differences, however, and these are in lack of precision in stating a desired state but stating only existence within a decision space or volume, multiple conditions being satisfactory, reliance upon predictive modeling of the probable consequences of any major change in a system, acceptance of reasonable boundaries, acknowledging a reluctance to change, willingness to make gradual change, curiosity about ";new" things, and attention to risk-taking strategies of people.
The Procedure
People live in a perceptual or mathematical space. Here it is shown as a 3-dimensional box but it needs to be imagined as a complex volume, like a many-facet jewel tumbling along. The arrows suggest that conditions have been exceeded outside of the box. People want to stay within the box. This is what they know, where things are safe, where they know what their parents and their history and culture have taught. This is where their survival skills work. A simple box has three dimensions, and for people these might be food, housing, and clothing. Outside the box might be inadequate food or poisoned or polluted food. A little pollution may not be too bad but if it exceeds a threshold, then sickness or even death might result. A reasonable person or group wants to avoid the thresholds, the limits. The closer to the center of the box the better. The sides of the box are not very precise. Many variable, including the variation in the health and abilities of the people within the group influence the limits of the box. It a limit is threatened (e.g., effects of a toxicant) but no one knows the exact limit, then it is reasonable to make decisions to avoid coming close to such limits. The limits are fuzzy; the center is safe; avoiding the limits is conservative. The more the dimensions and the more complex the limits, the more like a sphere the space probably becomes (because of the uncertainties at the intersections of the planes and surfaces.
Consequences
Every action in the wildlands has many consequences. A tree is cut, the soil erodes; as the soil erodes nutrients are removed from the area. Nutrients removed is a consequence of cutting a tree. Each consequence can be estimated based on studies and experience. (We do not have to do a study to confirm that water runs downhill!) Every action has many consequences, some more than others. Some consequences are trivial or at least with our present knowledge we cannot imagine a significant measurable effect or consequence. The more we learn, the more connected the consequences will become. We decide that, admitting to consequences that we do not know or cannot measure well, we will deal only with a maximum of 5 levels of influence. Levels might be
We can imagine several more levels, effects on plants, then effects on insects feeding on them, then effects on pollination, then effects on contributions to the mix in the litter layer, and on and on. These are the studies of and tales of ecologists that believe that everything is connected. Many things are but within this concept of the satisfactory condition, everything cannot be known; there is no time or money for studying everything; many things have effects that are not significant (no-effect as an hypothesis cannot be rejected as a finding). Decisions are to be made in a timely fashion. The time to develop a meaningful consequence table for every major action can be very long. The computer analysis can take only a little time but preparation for the run can be costly and delaying.
A computer simulation is said to be a means to compute answers to "what if...?" questions. The consequence table is a report of multiple consequences of an action; multiple runs of a simulation. "What if I cut this stand of trees; what will be the consequences?" The consequence table is a means to list the major significant areas for which a report is needed.
It is important to realize that the words used can lead us astray. It may be that "consequences" are categories of interest and maybe these are re-phrased objectives. We may want to know the consequences of an act on the calcium in the soil. but the reason we selected calcium was that we know it is vital to plant and animals growth and health. Stabilizing or increasing the supply of calcium may be an objective. Maybe we are only approaching objectives through the backdoor.
If the consequences of an action seem bad, approaching an undesirable threshold, adding excessive costs, or requiring major capital developments, than the action can be viewed as bad and not to be undertaken. The answers suggest whether the person or group will be able to remain within "the box". People want to know what will happen, what will be the consequences of proposals or actions. They know full well that precise statements are usually unwarranted so they will ask for "odds" or probability statements.
Risk Zones
All consequences in this formulation being described are estimates of future conditions, thus predictions of likely consequences if an action is taken. The farther away from the present, the less becomes the confidence. The confidence bands are curvilinear. The things being predicted typically have a non-linear pattern over time (e.g., the growth in volume of a stand of trees). Rarely is "plus or minus X" appropriate since the bounds are rarely the same. The lower limits of probability may be more easily estimated than the upper limits. The results in a consequence table are estimated as high and low probabilities. Central values are meaningless for they are merely human concepts of points within the fuzzy surfaces of the box. Staying within the interior limits of the fuzzy container, the space delimiter, is the role of the decision maker.
Equifinality A concept within general systems theory, equifinality deals with the observation that there are several ways to arrive at the same end state. In arithmetic, the example is clear. To get 9 we can multiple 3 by 3. We can also get 9 by dividing 27 by 3, similarly by adding 4 and 5. Different numbers and processes can lead to the exact same outcome. This is true (but rarely noted) in the wildland sciences. There are many pathways to a mature oak tree, an adult deer, a mossy rock. A lot of water and a little fertilizer can result in the same crop yield as a little water and a lot of fertilizer. The emphasis here is that there are many ways to get to a desired end state, a position near the center of "the box." Many different abilities, tastes, backgrounds, and experiences, even objectives , can exist within a group as long as they recognize the space that they occupy as suitable. They may complain, test the limits, step outside and return, or live a relatively contented life...all different but all describable as being within the fuzzy limits of the space.
Shopping
A person "shops", not having a specific objective. They buy something, achieve their objective, then "shop." There is fun in looking around, seeing what is available, evaluating whether things seen as new can be used effectively within the life space to improve it, reduce risks, reduce costs, provide amusement, achieve an alternative social status, or provide power to do work later. Rarely are big purchases made while shopping. Informatioin is gained, then after pondering a purchase, the big buy is made. The big buy takes more thought, more complex decision making. There may be things available in the shopping area that will expand the space, reduce costs, improve the quality of life within the living volume. Shopping probably has survival value. Shopping is deifferent from the "big buy."
The Enterprise Paradigm
How do we get to operating as if groups of resource users exist in the fuzzy space? What is the paradigm for the satisfactory condition and how do we get there from the present condition, the situation?
Perhaps we cannot. Perhaps we are already outside the box and will only make incremental changes as opportunities seem to arise to fix things, make adjustments, and appease vocal or influential individuals. Some, however, believe that the situation has not been seen clearly, that options for gaining satisfaction are available, and that the benefits of effective efforts may excede the costs.
Under development, current thought centers on the Lasting Forests Paradigm.
R.H. Giles, May 2001
Go to the top.
| Quick Access to the Contents of LastingForests.com |
|---|
Last revision July 24, 2000.