Environmental Relationship (ecological perspectives)

Environmental Relationship (ecological perspectives)

1) Changing forest value and ecosystem management
A growing number of social scientists and other observers have discerned a fundamental shift in environmental values in recent decades. A "new environmental paradigm" of humans and nature is challenging the longstanding constellation of values, attitudes, and beliefs that form the "dominant social paradigm" through which many in industrialize societies view the world.' The dominant social paradigm emphasizes economic growth, control of nature, faith in science and technology, ample reserves of natural resources, the substitutability of resources, and a dominant role for experts in decision making. In striking contrast, key themes of the new environmental paradigm include sustainable development, harmony with nature, skepticism toward scientific and technological fixes, finite natural resources, limits to substitution, and a strong emphasis on public involvement in decision making.
Professional forestry in the United States is also in the midst of a paradigmatic challenge- a new resource management paradigm-that is related to the above shift .The old paradigm, "multiple-use sustained-yield"' forest management, or traditional forestry, has guided public forest managers for many decades. Sustained yield dates back to the 18th and 19th century central European tradition of forest management that aimed to maximize and sustain the yield of a single resource~ommercial timber (Behan, 1991). The introduction of sustained-yield forestry to North America in the 1890s was an important innovation, intended to ameliorate the devastating exploitation of forests in the 19th century. Multiple-use forestry began to be discussed in the 1930s, but was not seriously considered until after World War I1 when demand for recreation, wildlife, water, and other nontimber forest resources began to increase. The basic idea of multiple-use forestry was to broaden forestry's traditional focus on timber production to include the production of other commodities. Multiple-use forestry was required by law on the national forests beginning with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960. But the practice of multiple-use forest management has fallen short of the ideal-the long-held doctrine of "timber primacy" has continued to dominate forestry practice (Clary, 1986;Gliick, 1987; Hays, 1988; McQuillan, 1990; Shepard, 1990). As late as 1992, the president of the Society of American Foresters wrote ". . . timber comes first" (Barton, 1992). Shands (1988) has argued that "multiple use has become a pejorative term that many people believe is synonymous with management that emphasizes timber production to the detriment of other forest resources" .The emerging forestry paradigm that is challenging traditional forestry is called by various names: new forestry, new perspective forest ecosystem management, holistic forestry, sustainable forestry, multi-resource forest management, multi-value forest management, kinder and gentler forestry, and, by its detractors, a "gimmick" (O'Keefe,1990), "glossy dogma" (Kerr, 1990), and "hype" (Zuckerman, 1992).

New forestry is probably the most widely used term to date, but the more descriptive "forest ecosystem management" is becoming more common. Alternative definitions of ecosystem management are even more numerous than its names. Clark and Stankey (1991) conducted a Delphi mail questionnaire that, among other things, asked participants what they felt should be included in a definition of new perspectives (ecosystem management). Almost 90 wide-ranging items were suggested by respondents as elements to be considered in a definition. These elements were grouped into six distinct categories. Some respondents defined ecosystem management primarily as an ecologically based approach to forest management, which would apply ecological information and principles. A central theme of this view is that ecosystem management should follow nature's lead, i.e., mimic natural disturbance patterns and recovery strategies, leave biological legacies such as standing live and dead trees and fallen logs, and so forth. Others viewed ecosystem management primarily as a socially based approach to forest management that would focus on changing public values associated with forests. A central theme of this view is that ecosystem management should recognize these values and make forestry practices more responsive to them. Other categories of definitions contained certain elements of the ecologically and socially based definitions: an integrative approach, more participatory decision making, and improved scientific understanding. The final group of respondents were skeptical of ecosystem management and questioned the motives of those promoting the concept. Despite the wide range of views, respondents expressed a surprisingly high level of agreement about the diverse definitions in a subsequent questionnaire, indicating an appreciation of other perspectives.