Lee, K.N. 1999. Appraising Adaptive Management

Kai N. Lee argues that adaptive management has been more influential as an idea than as a practical means of gaining insight into the behavior of ecosystems. [Notice how Lee uses a social science term, "behavior", to describe a biophysical process. This must have been intentional.] Lee arrives to this conclusion by reviewing adaptive management according to 4 criteria: its conceptual soundness, its technical competence, ethical implications and pragmatic concerns. He finds that the concept remains attractive, but it is often implemented in a way that is unlikely to yield results. For adaptive management to work, stakeholders first must agree on the questions being asked and the method to answer them.

Lee is sensitive to the political context in which science must be performed. He recommends that adaptive management be used in a process to resolve conflict, but only after there is consensus that science and experimental design is the appropriate way to move forward.

Both Lee (1999) and Levine (2004) emphasize that adaptive management is costly and slow. Because of these limitations, Lee suggests that natural resource managers carefully evaluate if the scientific approach is in their best interest. But the apparent challenges for managers to integrate science into their daily program only reinforces the need for researchers to reach out to them and provide support. Science can elude managers because they don't have the resources or expertise. Or, they may have the expertise but don't have the time to write and follow up because they are overburdened by other obligations. This need can be filled by timely applied research. Couldn't collaboration between a government agency and an academic institution help fill this void and simultaneously benefit both institutions?

More insight by Lee that caught my attention: Management policies should be chosen in light of the assumptions they test so that the important uncertainties are tested rigorously and early.

As with other articles in Ecology and Society (formerly Conservation Ecology), Lee ends with open ended questions for his readers. Here I highlight one that may orient my dissertation:

Adaptive management appears to be unsuitable unless there is a governmental authority that monopolizes physical access to the resources being managed. This raises the question of what can be learned under conditions of partially open access or limited enforcement of regulations.

Question on my part: What are the methods and research designs that help distinguish treatment effects from background effects (confounding factors) in field experiments? This obstacle is frequently mentioned, but it is not clear what is being done to address this problem.

Lee, K.N. 1999. Appraising Adaptive Management. Conservation Ecology 3(2):3. [online] http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss2/art3/