Adaptive Management

From Larry Susskind’s blog on the Consensus Building Approach

Most environmental advocates and planning professionals know that every effort to manage natural resources or deal with threats to public health and environmental sustainability ought to proceed on a step-by-step basis.  The systems involved are so complex that most efforts to “solve problems” are likely to have unanticipated results. Policy-makers act like they “understand the problem fully” and “know the best solution” when they pass legislation or adopt new regulations. Those of us most knowledgeable about the human-ecological systems involved, however,  realize that the complexity of these systems makes it impossible to anticipate what’s going to happen with much certainly. There are just too many factors and too many interactions we don’t understand.  So, an adaptive management approach is what is called for.  That is: take one modest step at a time; make a best approximation of what’s causing the problem, choose an initial response that seems like it might help, monitor everything to determine what the impacts of the initial move are, and then make adjustments and try again. Plan on doing this repeatedly until everyone involved learns enough about the system involved to approximate the desired solution.

Of course, for an adaptive management approach to work, all the relevant parties (especially those with the most at stake) need to be involved — helping to diagnose the scope of the problem, assisting in the selection of the initial actions to take, specifying what can and should be learned from the monitoring efforts, reviewing the real-time output of whatever monitoring is done, interpreting the findings together with the others involved, and sharing responsibility for making successive rounds of adjustments.  Adaptive management requires ongoing consensus building.  Unless all the relevant parties agree on what to do at each step and what’s happening along the way, policy-makers and experts will just zig-zag from one strongly held view to another depending on who has the most money and energy to invest in lobbying.  It would make so much more sense if all the parties committed ahead of time to a process of shared learning through jointly managed experimentation.  Such efforts are best facilitated by professional neutrals.  They have to be designed collaboratively from the outset.

Consider the case of the recently released report of the special court created to review the claims that childhood vaccines cause autism.  The three “special masters” determined that there was insufficient scientific evidence to substantiate the claims in the law suits that motivated this review.  In the end, though,  the people who were upset in the first place were not convinced by the special court’s conclusions.  Instead, why not invite representatives of all the groups involved to work together to formulate whatever analyses of existing data (or the design of a new study) everyone agrees would be dispositive? Why not involve all the relevant stakeholders in selecting a panel of experts to guide such studies or such a review?  Why not subject the preliminary findings produced by the jointly selected experts to review before the panel makes its findings public?  We might even have approached the current effort to formulate a Stimulus Package in this way.  The economy is too complex to know what will and won’t work.  So, why not talk about first steps (rather than what will “solve the problem,” what will be measured and how, what benchmarks all “sides” agree to use to gauge progress, and what the membership of a bipartisan panel should be to monitor preliminary results and suggest the next round of adjustments? In the Consensus Building Handbook (Sage, 1999) my colleagues and I outline what we consider to be best practices when it comes to joint fact finding and a consensus building approach to adaptive management. 

                        author

Larry Susskind

Lawrence Susskind was born in New York City in 1947. He graduated from Columbia University in 1968 with a B.A. in English Literature and Sociology. He received his Masters of City Planning from MIT in 1970 and his Ph.D. in Urban Planning from MIT in 1973.  Professor Susskind joined the… MORE >

Featured Mediators

ad
View all

Read these next

Category

Overcoming The Sunk Cost Fallacy and Its Untoward Impact on Settlement Dynamics

“You just don’t get it,” the client explains. “I have great claims and I’ve spent over $300,000 in legal fees and two years of my life to get here. Obviously,...

By Christopher Nolland
Category

Being Transparent

PGP Mediation Blog by Phyllis G. PollackWe are all facing a “new normal.” Most of us- over 75%- are working remotely from home trying to adapt very quickly and competently...

By Phyllis Pollack
Category

The Pandemic’s Silver Lining for the Courts

The coronavirus has led to inconvenience, case backlogs, and court closures across the nation. Yet thanks to Zoom and other videoconferencing platforms, commercial mediators and arbitrators have stepped up to...

By Michael Diliberto

Find a Mediator

X
X
X