In the mid-1970's, but more boldly in the mid-1990's, a phrase "adaptive management" became popular. It symbolized a complex working idea related to natural resource management. The idea is still discussed (and even debated) but in the context of present understand and use within Guidance, we hold that adaptive management is primarily an emphasis on the feedback component of general systems theory. As such, and with useful emphases, it has the characteristics of:

1. Having tentative actions.
2. Having observed consequences that, if not as intended, result in changes that are made by managers.
3. Having several actions that are tests to determine and codify the best practices for the future.
4. Therefore, having some actions that are viewed as less than best (a peculiar plan for things that may be, with the one exception of the perfect action, "wrong").
5. Having minor adjustments made continually and quickly to move the system to a desired condition.
6. Having local knowledge potentially useful.
7. Having a feeling of optimism and vague, unfulfilled potential.

There is a sense that it is may be better to manage land units (forests, ecosystems, etc.) using localized, idiosyncratic, and particularistic approaches rather than uniform, institutionalized standards and guides in order to make practices fit the needs of local conditions. There is growing awareness that after a century of "scientific forestry", an alternative is needed, one that deals with unique places and events, extreme and diverse values, multiple outcomes, and often unexpected results of actions.

Wildland management problems are always large and complex. They are called by some "wicked*quot; problems. They are not readily solved or even approached well by classical science that usually insists on tight controls and reducing variables, and answering questions about parts of systems or problems. May points of view are needed and within Guidance analyses based upon several of those points of view are displayed.

Different knowledge and beliefs shape some views and to the extent that a document can present the best current knowledge about a wildland, some debates and misunderstandings may be centered elsewhere than on the apparent conflict. Nevertheless, beliefs and values are strongly held, are valid, and need to be addressed. Several alternative values are usually displayed within Guidance sections.

Adaptive management has been tried and has flaws but they can be overcome. We respond to the flaws noted throughout the system, in particular by working to achieve:

1. Creating sound study designs
2. Clarifying measured objectives
3. Adequate monitoring
4. Connecting results of past studies as well as monitoring to (a) model improvement and (b) corrective action to achieve the objectives
5. Developing long-term funded efforts
6. Assuring adequate funding (or not starting into "adaptive management")
7. Assuring adequate risk-taking levels to allow provisions for test actions
8. Willingness to be suboptimal in some work to achieve information for improving the system over a longer planning period
9. Willingness to be financially competitive (to tackle "threats to existing interests" when appropriate"
10. Stepping outside of a classical scientific paradigm into a rationally robust paradigm.

Adaptive management as a part of comprehensive sophisticated wildland management, as proposed throughout Guidance and the Lasting Forests, when seen as intensive feedback, can have profound effects on wildlands. We recommend such a point of view, but recognize with Stankey and Shindler that it is at odds with the stronger and current programs with their well-developed reward systems for managers. These systems themselves will eventually be adapted towards whether measured production matches well with that which is desired.

Adaptive management is seen by Guidance staff as feedback which can be applied at different levels of intensity. We do not see it as being appropriate for only some types of problems, but active throughout all systems.

Critical to management action is gaining local knowledge and values. In few places do people realize that there must be a responsible decision maker to integrate or simply to decide to use such information. When a person is given the authority and responsibility of decisions, then that person needs to be able to decide and assume the risks of such decisions. Conflicting opinions are common, but decisions do have to be made and some one or some group must be held, will be held, responsible and rewarded or sued. Opinions without willingness to take the responsibility for them are valueless. As we engage experts, consultants, local people and advisors of all types we are continually evaluating the levels of their beliefs and their willingness to take the responsibility for any negative consequences of using their thoughts or knowledge. Responsibility for an input in which we believe, has been omitted from discussions about public participation in resource decisions. We intent to make it prominent again.

This Web site is maintained by R. H. Giles, Jr.
Last revision January 17, 2000.