In a paper co-written by Robert L. Fischman, the Richard S. Melvin professor of law in the IU Maurer School of Law, the common calculations apply adaptive management in ways that nevertheless fail to promote learning.
The approach is called “AM Lite,” according to an IU press release.
“Everyone agrees adaptive management is the right thing to do, and the agencies all make express promises to do it,” Fischman said in the release. “Our study shows there is a troubling gap between the theory and the practice.”
The paper, “Judging Adaptive Management Practices of U.S. Agencies,” is being published by the journal “Conservation Biology” and is now available online. Fischman’s co-author is J.B. Ruhl, the David Daniels Allen distinguished chair of law at Vanderbilt University.
Adaptive management is an approach to managing natural resources that incorporates monitoring of the consequences of decisions and methods for adjusting a management plan as it continues to be implemented, according to the release.
Managers ideally create experiments that reveal whether decisions are effective, Fischman said in the release.
Such plans also include provisions for monitoring, clear thresholds for deciding when management should change and detailed provisions for how it will change.
Managers often implement “passive” forms of adaptive management that allow them to learn whether their management plans are succeeding and to make changes if they are not. Often, the study finds, agencies settle for “AM Lite” approaches that short-circuit the managers’ ability to learn as they go, according to the release.
The paper cites several examples in which judges overturned resource management decisions because of flawed approaches to management.
In one, a judge rejected a plan for managing California central valley irrigation systems because it didn’t specify thresholds to trigger additional protections if an endangered fish’s habitat declined too much, according to the release.
While resource managers could do a better job with adaptive management, Fischman and Ruhl suggest revising statutes and administrative law to provide better guidance and clarity.
“We think adaptive management is not more expensive,” Fischman said in the release. “But it does require a steady stream of funding for monitoring, which is not how agency funding typically works.”
Alyson Malinger
