EVOLVING PUBLIC AGENCY BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS TOWARD ECOSYSTEM -BASED STEWARDSHIP

James J. Kennedy
Special Assistant Office of the Director
Bureau of Land Management
Washington, DC 22209

and

College of Natural Resources
Utah State University
Logan, UT 84322-5215

Michael P. Dombeck
Acting Director
Bureau of Land Management
Washington, DC 22209

INTRODUCTION

Western-world conservation movements were forged in the transition and turmoil of rural, agricultural societies becoming urbanizing, industrial states. So too was the concept, function and social role of science-based natural resource professionalism. We meet at this conference in the socio-political turmoil of Western-world transition into the urban, post-industrial stage of its socio-economic development. The fundamental assumptions and core-beliefs about public natural resource agency management and managers are being challenged once again for more relevant, enduring values and vision for the 21st century. Recognize that in these closing years of the century our colleagues in medical, religious, business or military professions are meeting in similar confusion, wonder, fear and hope as they try to understand and adapt to a changing world.

Our paper is an introspective examination of traditional and emerging core-beliefs that define and direct public natural resource/environmental agencies, management and managers. We will often focus on the evolution of traditional public forestry and forester beliefs, but address similar evolution in public wildlife, range, watershed or generic environmental management and managers. We conclude by exploring public agency adaptation options to succeed in the next century.

PERCEPTION AND PARADIGM SHIFTS IN TRADITIONAL NATURAL RESOURCE/ENVIRONMENTAL CORE-BELIEFS

One of the reasons public natural resource/environmental agencies in the Western-world are experiencing difficulty adapting to the advent of the 21st century is they have been so successful in this one. Sustained-yield flows of goods and services, managed by increasingly specialized and often distant professionals, based on traditional scientific and professional values, had its era of power and prestige. It's renewal time again for many natural resource/environmental beliefs, professions and agencies. Time to descend from the lofty heights of Mt. Olympus and mix with the mortals in rediscovering and plotting new world-views, visions and institutional designs to contribute to the 21st century. The expansive and inclusive perspectives of ecosystem-based stewardship is an important part and promising direction in this era of rediscovery.

This section uses National Forest and forestry examples to explore three interrelated paradigm shifts likely required of natural resource/environmental agencies and professions to embrace ecosystem-based stewardship. The most difficult and painful first initial stage of many of these shifts is unlearning and letting go of past comfortable, dependable beliefs and roles.

Machine-Model Thinking Evolving to Organic-Model Perspectives

It is not surprising that a very young industrialized USDA Forest Service (USFS) would be fascinated with a machine model view of reality. This model is defined in Table 1. It views the world in rather simple, compartmentalized, cause effect, goal-oriented and mechanistic terms, that can be understood separately by standard efficiency or optimization analysis (Taylor 1957, Schiff 1966). Such USFS machine-model thinking was manifested in 1) narrow forest ecosystems perception (e.g., simple site productivity models), 2) forest or fire management (e.g., intensively managed plantations, forest pest wars, or out before 10 AM fire rules), 3) agency organizational structures (e.g., line-staff, generalist-specialist, or strict functionalism), 4) organizational behavior (e.g., Kennedy and Thomas 1992, "dog loyalty" to line, or mechanistic employee spouse-children response expected in USFS transfers), 5) public relations (e.g., an educated, objective and benign USFS "educating" the public on proper, scientific national forest management), or 6) functional, reductionist research scientists and their projects. Control-oriented people and organizations usually find order and comfort in viewing and living in a machine-model world (Schiff 1966, Eaufman 1960).

Ironically, complex post-industrial societies (created by the more simple industrial eras of the first two-thirds of this century) have made much machine-model thinking obsolete. More complex, diverse and interrelated organic-models are necessary to understand and adapt to today's physical, biological, economic or socio-political world (Table 2, column 2). This is true of public and private organizations, on both sides of the rusting Iron Curtain. The disintegration of machine-model institutions iQ eastern Europe, the near extinction of Chrysler Corporation, or the current difficulties of Sears or IBM corporations are examples of simple, rigid values and organizations (in the Communist or capitalist world) that must adapt to Current changes and challenges(Bennis 1966). This socio-political change also requires national forest and other environmental managers to discard the illusion of control and mastery offered by simple machine-models of reality for the inclusiveness, validity and ....

Table 1. Two contrasting world-views: machine-model and organic model perspectives

Machine-Model PerspectiveOrganic-Model PerspectiveWorld understood as simple, similar systems .World composed of complex, diverse systems.Reduce complexity to isolated and separate subsystems.Understand integrated and interrelated systems realities.Linear, cause-effect relationships dominateMulti-faceted, cyclical and synergistic relationships are the norm -- with chaos wildcard possibilities.Deductive logic and simple efficiency optimization models appropriate.Inductive, integrative logic and complex, inclusive simulation models appropriate.

lThis table design is not intended to illustrate separate, dichotomous choices, but rather part of an evolutionary continuum of machine-model thinking expanding to recognize and include a more complex, interrelated world.

Table 2. Newtonian, Machine-Model vs. Quantum, Organic-Model Views of Forests, Forestry and Related Systems

NEWTONIAN, MACHINE-MODEL FORESTS & FORESTRY -- First 3/4th of 20th CenturyQUANTUM, ORGANIC-MODEL FORESTS & FORESTRY--Beginning of the 21st CenturyUnderstand component parts(things) and foresters understand the entire forest systemUnderstand binding & adapting relationships (processes) & one begins to learn within the systemForest composed of discrete, identifiable parts--with clean dimensions and boundariesForest of intertwined subsystems, that have fuzzy, changing boundariesForest parts can be separated, studied independently, & reconstructed without losing critical meaningSince much system meaning is in relationship, reductionism is often distorting & unintentionally distractingLinear, cause-effect models are valid representations of forests subsystemsDynamic, synergistic models are closer reflection of forest systemsA host of hostile, entropy forces lurk in outside forests(e.g., fire, insects, recreationists, uneducated publics)Forests are open, renewing systems--accustomed to many forces we might initially perceive as disruptive & chaoticMistrust & suspicion of nature's (and society's) complexity, diversity & adaptabilityAppreciation, respect & partnership in nature's designs & life-forces(e.g., role of fire, integrated pest management)