Ecosystems management can be viewed as an explicit attempt to build and manage interorganizational networks. A review of environmental management literature, however, reveals very little use of network organization models. For environmental professionals who encounter diverse stakeholders in their practice, this article offers a conceptual framework and case study that demonstrate the utility of approaching ecosystems as networks. Virtual network and learning organization models, combined with holographic (systems) thinking and generative learning paradigms, help explain how collaboration among multiple stakeholders in ecosystems management can work. The case of “Monroe 2020,” the process for generating and implementing the comprehensive plan for Monroe County, Pennsylvania, provides a real-life illustration. The Monroe 2020 plan focuses on environmental quality and community economic goals, melded with resolution of long-standing conflict and commitment to a shared vision of the County's future. It emerged through a deliberate effort to build a broad-based, long-term constituency and tools for implementation. Monroe 2020 as plan and process represents a practical, mutually reinforcing alignment of natural ecosystems management and management of the built environment for human settlement. By fostering better understanding of how to create and manage effective collaborative partnerships, the ideas expressed here can contribute significantly to improved ecosystems management.
Effective stewardship of the planet requires input from multiple disciplines, as demonstrated at the recent Ecological Society of America (ESA) meeting in Austin, Texas. However, one field pivotal to Earth Stewardship seems to have been mostly left out of ESA's disciplinary buffet. We speak of economics, the so-called “dismal science”, which lies at, or very near, the root of every man-made environmental problem. Deforestation and forest fragmentation, for example, often result from poverty-stricken people harvesting charcoal fuel to help feed their families. Climate change is exacerbated because people generally choose fossil fuels over more costly alternatives. At the core of economics is the principle that financial incentives play a major role in motivating human consumption. Do you want less oil to be consumed? Then raise the price of oil. Recent price spikes motivated people from all walks of life to reduce their carbon footprint voluntarily by driving less, flying less, shipping less, and so on. Simultaneously, people began to use public transportation more often and to buy hybrid cars, while investors poured money into alternative energy projects. These environmentally beneficial changes in behavior were driven not by improved consumer education, strict government policy, or heightened environmental sensitivity, but rather by pure economic self-interest. Non-economic solutions to environmental problems too often have limited power, or else they result in a system in which the environment has to compete against business. Economists have been justly criticized for failing to appreciate the full environmental costs of economic growth, and for treating such costs as externalities. These criticisms, however, are no reason for ecologists to discount economics; after all, the average person on the street pays much more attention to economics than to the environment, especially in the developing world and especially during tough economic times. From our experience, many economists are willing to consider the environment far more than ecologists give them credit for. An authentic collaboration between these two disciplines may represent society's best hope for achieving a continuously high standard of living without sacrificing the planet. Indeed, the seeds of collaboration have already sprouted (eg The Natural Capital Project – www.naturalcapitalproject.org). We now highlight three specific research objectives that deserve greater collaborative attention. First, ecologists should involve economists whenever policy recommendations are proposed. For example, economists should have had a more prominent seat at the table in the 1980s, when the decision was made to ban the international ivory trade. Although based on solid elephant population ecology, the ban predictably increased financial incentives for poaching, which reduced some elephant populations even further. Failure to consider economics too often brings unintended secondary effects. Second, the complicated relationship between gross domestic product (GDP) and environmental impact needs greater clarification. Every dollar spent is counted equally by economists, but the environmental impacts of those dollars can differ drastically. Greater integration of economic and environmental indicators would allow us to account simultaneously for economic development and environmental change. Third, and most important, collaborators should investigate how to internalize environmental costs and benefits. Several internalization mechanisms already exist, such as cap-and-trade markets and the granting of property rights. Economists should feel motivated to collaborate, because the existence of economic externalities is a recipe for market failure – especially when externalities are large. Although environmental externalities are difficult to quantify, we know the aggregate effects of production on the environment are enormous. A collaborative study led by the economist Robert Costanza (Nature 1997; 387: 253–60) concluded that the global value of ecosystem services is at least comparable in magnitude to the entire global GDP. Imagine an economic system structured so that decisions made by purely self-interested individuals result in environmentally beneficial outcomes. Imagine a system that rewards businesses seeking to achieve more than simple compliance with environmental regulation. Such a system is possible if prices accurately reflect the magnitude of environmental costs and benefits. In such a system, innovation that improves environmental performance would mean more than just good public relations; it would improve a company's bottom line. Everyone would win. Is this overly idealistic? Perhaps. Assessing and internalizing environmental costs is logistically complicated, and many businesses, political leaders, and individuals would certainly resist such changes to market prices. By not internalizing environmental costs and benefits, however, an economic system – one that continues to reward exploiters and punish effective stewards of the environment – is preserved. The time is therefore ripe for ecologists to recruit economists and business leaders in the Earth Stewardship movement. Only then can our society adequately address the thorny roots of man-made environmental problems now and in the future.
The study and successful application of organizational change strategies is assuming an increasingly timely relevance in this era of rapid change and increased pressures for competitiveness. Organizational change, whether focused on people, structure, processes, or technology, is inextricably linked with culture change. Much of the practitioner-oriented literature on organizational change treats culture as a tool that can be controlled, manipulated, and integrated by a senior management team and consultants. This paper draws upon lessons learned from cultural anthropology and organizational theory and offers a more complex view that takes into account the strength of organizational subcultures. A framework is presented for creating lasting organizational change that incorporates an appreciation for chaos theory. Secondly, the underlying organizational dynamics that defeat planned change efforts are examined through the unique perspective of Grendel's mother (from the Old English prose poem, “Beowulf”). Grendel's mother provides a provocative image to heighten awareness of the dynamics of organizational life that defeat change efforts. The role of the change agent is explored as Beowulf with a ‘realpolitik’ perspective. Two examples from organization development fieldwork (a failed effort and a successful change program) illustrate the power of chaos theory, the force of Grendel's mother, and the role of Beowulf in planned change programs. By combining theory and practice, this paper seeks to facilitate the dialogue between academics and practitioners about creating lasting organizational change.
Manring, S., and S. Pearsall. 2004. Creating an adaptive ecosystem management network among the stakeholders of the lower Roanoke River, North Carolina, USA. Ecology and Society 10(2): 16. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01459-100216
Effective and sustainable ecosystem management is becoming a vital societal issue. Increasingly, there is a growing mandate among all sectors of society—public, governmental, business, civic, and environmental—to become collaborative stakeholders in dialogues about the management of ecosystem resources. What has been missing, however, is an explicit analysis of interorganizational networks for sustainable ecosystem management as emerging learning organizations. This article demonstrates the explanatory and diagnostic power of applying the concepts of virtual learning networks to sustainable ecosystem management to guide stakeholders in cocreating a shared conceptual infrastructure for generative learning, consensus building, and collaborative decision making. Related dynamics of collaboration and power and the diffusion of rules and practices are also explored. Next steps are indicated for further development, demonstration, and documentation of the applicability and utility of this model to sustainable ecosystem management.
'%3e%3cg id='b'%3e%3cpath id='a' d='M0-3v3h1.5z' transform='rotate(18 0 -3)'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' transform='scale(-1 1)'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23b' transform='rotate(72)'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23b' transform='rotate(144)'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23b' transform='rotate(216)'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23b' transform='rotate(288)'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3cpath d='M0 12h18v12H0z'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3cg fill='%23d21034'%3e%3cpath d='M18 0h18v12H18z'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23c' x='18' y='12'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)