Crausbay, S. D., Sofaer, H. R., Cravens, A. E., Chaffin, B. C., Clifford, K. R., Gross, J. E., Knapp, C. N., Lawrence, D. J., Magness, D. R., Miller-Rushing, A. J., Schuurman, G. W., & Stevens-Rumann, C. S. (2022). A Science Agenda to Inform Natural Resource Management Decisions in an Era of Ecological Transformation. BioScience, 72(1), 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biab102
Summary:
Globally, persistent and intensifying climate change is driving change in ecosystem structure, function, and composition. To adapt, many land managers have implemented the RAD (resist-accept-direct) decision-making framework to guide ecosystem management. Within this framework, managers can 1) resist ecological change through intervention that aims to maintain current or historical conditions, 2) accept change by not intervening, thus allowing the ecosystem to change autonomously, or 3) direct change through intervention that aims to steer the future of an ecosystem towards preferred conditions. Crausbay and colleagues present five questions that ecosystem managers should consider when deciding to resist, accept, or direct change.
- Question 1: Is ecosystem transformation a threat?
To assess the threat of change, managers should consider both ecosystem feedbacks and the rate of change. Ecosystem feedbacks can either accelerate/amplify or delay/dampen change. Ecosystem change can also be categorized as slow, fast, or abrupt. Slow change allows more time for decision-making, whereas abrupt change requires faster decisions.
- Question 2: Are resistance strategies feasible?
Resisting ecological change requires human intervention and resources, which will need to be enhanced under continued climate change. Resisting change can be costly in rapidly changing ecosystems, but more feasible in ecosystems where change is slower.
- Question 3: What are the plausible ecological futures?
Directing change in an ecosystem requires decisions to be made about the target ecological future. Predicting ecological futures can be difficult for three reasons: 1) many ecosystems are novel (including new combinations of ecological interactions), so making predictions based on historic conditions is challenging, 2) unpredictable weather events, including extreme events, can impact ecosystems, and 3) ecosystems have multiple complex processes that may not be fully understood.
- Question 4: What are the societal consequences of each decision?
Management decisions (e.g., RAD) impact how society interacts with an ecosystem and must be considered for each management pathway. Potential interactions could include: 1) changes in ecosystem services, 2) emotional and psychological implications, especially when an ecosystem holds cultural significance, 3) changes in ecological hazards, and 4) new or worsened environmental injustices.
- Question 5: How should choices be made?
Management decisions can unconsciously be influenced by institutional and social factors. A successful management decision should include involvement of relevant groups and aim for equity among groups in the decision-making process and its outcomes.
Take-home Points:
- When managers make decisions using the RAD framework to address ecosystem transformations, these five questions can help guide them through the process.
- Both societal and ecological implications should be addressed because ecosystem transformations can impact social as well as ecosystem structures.
- The RAD framework can support adaptive management strategies for evolving ecosystems.
Management Implications:
- Ecosystems are constantly evolving and thus management strategies must also evolve or adapt. The questions presented in this paper can help managers balance options and make strategic management decisions given their resource and institutional contexts.
- When making management decisions, input from all involved communities - including stake- and rights-holders - should be considered.