The Road to Integrating Science and Management: Planning Your Next

Before getting into the gritty details ofobjectives and assessment points, let’s carryour vacation-planning analogy a bit further.We can have a very general destination inmind (e.g., somewhere out West), or a veryspecific destination (e.g., Grandma’s houseat 1916 Organic Avenue, Bozeman, Mon-tana). Arriving at our desired destinationrequires different types of planning andpreparation, depending on where wedecide to go. If we choose the general desti-nation, then there are many possible routeswe could follow; all would get us to wherewe want to be. A trip to Grandma’s house,however, would require more detailed plan-ning and navigation. Needless to say, wewould never give someone generalizeddirections to a specific destination: “To getto Grandma’s house, just head west.” Thoseinstructions might get us headed in theright direction, but more details will be

required along the way. An objectives hier-archy functions in much the same manner:broad, overarching goals are defined, andsupported with finer levels of detail later,depending on the desired objectives.

Now imagine that we have started ourroad trip and, unbeknownst to us, someonehas removed all of the road signs in NorthAmerica. It will be much harder to reacheither destination without clues along theway to tell us where we are and which waywe need to go. If objectives are akin to thetravel directions in this analogy, then assess-ment points are the road signs. Assessmentpoints essentially capture the current condi-tion of a resource (i.e., where you are) andprovide perspective on whether that condi-tion is good or bad (i.e., Are you traveling inthe correct direction?). In this paper, wediscuss three types of assessment points:those that identify desired condition, those

The George Wright Forum78

The Road to Integrating Science and Management:Planning Your Next Trip Using HierarchicalObjectives and Assessment Points

Shawn L. Carter and Robert E. Bennetts

IntroductionPROPER ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP IS A LOT LIKE PLANNING A ROAD TRIP. We generallyconsider the following things before traveling: “Where do I want to go?” “How do I getthere?” “How long will it take?” “How much will it cost?” The same can be true for environ-mental management. Managers need to plan around goals and consider the consequences ofchoices that they make. Sometimes they also are required to make quick decisions withoutthe luxury of forethought and planning, just as we might race to the hospital during an unex-pectedly early labor. Nonetheless, there are tools (such as objectives hierarchies) to help usplan for crises, while others (such as assessment points) help us navigate the best route alongthe way.

Integrating Science and Management

Volume 24 • Number 2 (2007) 79

that provide early warning (“Slow Down”or “Danger Ahead”), and those that signalimminent loss of the resource (“Stop!” or“Go Back!”). More extensive detail on thedefinition of and rationale for using assess-ment points can be found in Bennetts et al.(this issue). The goals of this paper are tointroduce the concept of an objectives hier-archy, to identify different types of and usesfor objectives, to show how objectives andassessment points are inherently linked, andto encourage the use of explicit, a prioriobjectives and assessment points in naturalresource management and planning.

Objectives hierarchiesKey concepts. An objectives hierarchy

is an exhaustive set of statements, from ageneral vision statement to statements ofspecific, technical objectives, that providesthe framework for achieving and maintain-ing a set of goals. In fact, a complete objec-tives hierarchy looks like an “inverted treeof goals, branching downward from a value-laden vision statement ... to technically stat-ed ecosystem and institutional goals” (Biggsand Rogers 2003). Each level of the frame-work describes, in some form or scale, adesired future state or condition of the sys-tem, starting with the primary mission, orvision statement. The subsequent levels allfeed from that broad foundation and help toestablish, in more specific contexts, thegoals and objectives that will contribute toachieving the overall mission or vision.

Objectives hierarchies are already com-monly used in National Park Service (NPS)planning processes, where tiered objectives,such as those contained within an objec-tives hierarchy, can connect seemingly dis-parate documents (Figure 1). For instance,the kinds of broad, value-laden purpose ormission statements found in foundation-

planning documents (comparable to thetop-tier objectives in a hierarchy) are sup-ported by descriptions of fundamentalresources and values. More-specific goalsand objectives describing desired condi-tions for fundamental park resources (com-parable to the second-tier objectives) areused in general management plans. Finally,detailed technical objectives and targets(comparable to subsequent-tier objectives)are used for achieving short-term, specificgoals, and may be found in resource-imple-mentation or annual plans.

Objectives hierarchies are less com-monly used to link management, planning,and science goals. One excellent model thatachieves this integration originated in themanagement plan for South Africa’s KrugerNational Park (Biggs and Rogers 2003;KNP 2006). There, objectives are ex-pressed as a hierarchy ranging from abroad, value-laden vision of the park’s mis-sion to explicitly stated objectives needed torealize this broader vision (Keeney 1992;Biggs and Rogers 2003). The vision identi-fies key elements that reflect the socialneeds and values for Kruger, such as biodi-versity, human benefits, wilderness, natural-ness, and custodianship. In contrast, entriesat the finest level of the hierarchy areintended to represent explicit operationaltargets, ultimately manifested as “thresh-olds of potential concern” (Biggs andRogers 2003; see Bennetts et al., this issue),similar to what we are calling “assessmentpoints.”

Developing a hierarchy of objectivescan be a large undertaking, as one goal ofthe hierarchy is to capture all levels of detailfor existing information. In most cases, notenough information is known to get usexactly where we wish to go (i.e., there areno road signs), but the purpose of the

framework is to help us prioritize objectivesand to capture the current state of knowl-edge. In addition, we do not need to buildthe objectives hierarchy all at once; theoverall strategy can be developed over time.However, because the different componentsare interdependent, the broader-level com-ponents usually must be developed beforewe can realistically and effectively developmore-specific ones.

Also, although the overall hierarchyhas strategic value beyond the sum of itsparts, the individual parts have inherentvalue in and of themselves. Therefore, evenif we don’t have the information needed toconstruct a complete and detailed hierar-chy, there is considerable value in develop-ing the parts for which we do have the nec-essary information. Constructing thebranches for one component (e.g., biodi-

versity goals for zone X) may help us to seelogical pathways for another (e.g., culturalvalues).

The National Capital Region exam-ple. Figure 2a depicts an abbreviated objec-tives hierarchy for the National CapitalRegion Inventory and Monitoring Network(NCRN), fleshed out in Figure 2b to showactual objectives for one example. Theoverall framework begins with the broadNPS mission to conserve resources andbecomes increasingly specific dependingon the resource area of interest. While thehierarchy includes several NPS programs(e.g., cultural resources, natural resources,and interpretation), our example (Figure2b) highlights a specific aspect of naturalresources (but see also Hubbard et al., thisissue, for application to cultural resources).Objectives become increasingly more tech-



Figure 1. The relationships among NPS planning documents with respect to the level of detail found inobjectives, and the intended timeframe. The intended results (shown in gray) are relative to the partic-ular plan being considered.



nical and detailed as one moves down thehierarchy. It is important to note that thehierarchy is cross-linked at many levels. Forexample, objectives for forest vegetation arerelevant not only to objectives concernedwith focal species, but also to objectives forair (e.g., in terms of pollutant impacts),ecosystem (e.g., habitats), and water (e.g.,watershed protection). The level of detail islimited by the current amount of under-standing.

Distinctions among objectivesObjectives related to planning. Man-

agement objectives (e.g., those related toplanning) define the desired state, condi-tion, or dynamics of an ecological system,and can be located throughout an objectiveshierarchy. A myriad of terms can be used toportray some sense of what we want toachieve in the future (e.g., desired condi-tion, target condition, acceptable condition,management target, management objective,range of natural variability, range of accept-able condition). Unfortunately, differentorganizations often tend to use the sameterms (e.g., “desired condition”) in dis-parate and highly specific ways in theirplanning efforts. The same terms also canbe used differently within an organizationwhen they are related to different scales(e.g., park- or zone-specific). As long as weoperationally define our terms so that oth-ers may understand exactly how we areusing them, we believe that establishing anobjectives hierarchy can help us to movebeyond semantic differences and towardmore strategic thinking, because it helps usto explicitly visualize these terms and thescale within which they are being applied.

That stated, even the most generalobjectives can be hard to define. To be use-ful for decision-making, management objec-

tives need to be specific, measurable,achievable, results-oriented, and time-fixed(Williams et al. 2007). Furthermore, regard-less of how much time is spent defining andjustifying them, management objectives arelikely to change as new issues and prioritiesarise. It is important to recognize that objec-tives can differ in level of detail, intendedtime-frame, and primary purpose. Also,each type of objective can inform multipletypes of planning (Figure 1).

Objectives related to learning. Moni-toring and research objectives (i.e., thoserelated to learning) tend to be more specificthan management objectives, and oftenoccur on lower tiers of the objectives hierar-chy. Monitoring objectives define the meas-urements of the desired state, condition, ordynamics (as defined in management objec-tives). In this context, monitoring objectivesdirectly inform management decisionsbecause the two are linked (Yoccoz et al.2001). We discuss an example of linkedobjectives later in this section.

Research objectives help to informwhat is not known by promoting learningand understanding about the nature anddynamics of ecological systems. Othershave classified these sorts of objectives as“scientific” (Yoccoz et al. 2001). Whateverthe classification, these objectives tend toaddress the “why?” questions, as well ascausality: “What is the response?” or“What is the consequence of doing noth-ing?” Research objectives have the potentialto be invaluable to monitoring and manage-ment efforts because they help to quantifythe significance (i.e., effect size) of impor-tant variables.

Research objectives also can be used toevaluate different management options.This is at the heart of what is often referredto as “adaptive management” (Holling

1978; Walters 1986; Lee 1993; Williams etal. 2007).1 To do this, researchers applyalternative management actions in a studycontext in exactly the same way that theywould otherwise apply experimental treat-ments. The intent is to explicitly evaluatethe response of these alternative manage-ment actions in order to determine which

are more effective at achieving managementobjectives.

Differences of purpose, rigor, anduncertainty. While an objectives hierarchyunifies differences in detail and time-frame,individual objectives can differ with regardto purpose, uncertainty, and rigor (Table 1).Different program areas have different rea-



Figure 2a. An abbreviated objectives hierarchy for the National Capital Region based on the frame-work of Biggs and Rogers (2003). Statements for each level of the hierarchy range from value-ladenand general (vision statement) to detailed and technical (objectives).



sons for collecting environmental data.Each need may be equally valid and inform-ative, yet how one controls uncertainty anddefines an acceptable level of effort (rigor)can be quite different, according to his orher objectives. For example, a programcharged with monitoring population abun-dance for forest insect pests (e.g., gypsy

moths) will use objectives and a samplingdesign appropriate for detecting populationtrends or rates of change while also ensur-ing a desired amount of statistical precision.However, a management objective meant tocontrol pest outbreaks, or a research objec-tive meant to examine the implications of anoutbreak, each has a different fundamental

Figure 2b. A selection of hierarchical objectives for seedling regeneration, expanded from Figure 2a.Objectives become more detailed and explicit as one moves down the hierarchy. Note that Manage-ment Objective 1.4.3.1.3 is directly linked to the data provided by related monitoring and manage-ment objectives. Desired condition, early warning, and impending-loss assessment points relating to theregeneration objectives are shown in Figure 8.

purpose, and requires a different level ofrigor, design, and analysis.

Linking management, monitoring,and research objectives. Management,monitoring, and research objectives shouldcomplement one another, but are not thesame, and are not each defined at everylevel. The suite of these three objectivesshown in Figure 2b illustrates how objec-tives can be used to gain complementaryinformation. In this example, to best under-stand regeneration in the National CapitalRegion, research examines the potentialcauses of decline (herbivory, insect pests,and invasives). Monitoring documents thecurrent condition and trend of indicatormeasures (seedlings), and managementevaluates actions that use research andmonitoring results.

As another example, using stratifica-tion and covariates that are meaningful tomanagers can help to improve monitoringinference. To derive inference for an entirepark unit, for instance, all of the areas of thatpark must have at least some chance of

being sampled. Stratification is often usedto partition the areas that are more likely torespond similarly to change. If strata relateto management regimes (e.g., planningzones), then additional information can bederived about the effects of those manage-ment regimes. Similarly, we can oftenimprove our precision for estimating trendsby accounting for some of the sources ofvariation. For example, bird populationsoften respond to changes in vegetation; byaccounting for changes in vegetation, weimprove our estimates of trend in bird pop-ulations. When we can connect thesesources of variation to management actions,we can derive additional information aboutthe effects of those actions.

How objectives should be usedStrategically and proactively. Object-

ives are most effective when used within astrategic, forward-looking approach, where-upon the bulk of the work is done up front(i.e., “strategic adaptive management,”sensu Biggs and Rogers 2003). Strategic



Table 1. An example of how particular program areas might consider a particular monitoring indica-tor. Each program can have fundamentally different, yet equally valid, objectives for collecting andusing similar data.



adaptive management differs from tradition-al adaptive management in that objectivesare not necessarily linked to specific man-agement actions. Instead, emphasis isplaced on increasing understanding aboutecological phenomena before action is war-ranted. The formalization of what is known,or what needs to be known, as early as pos-sible maximizes the window of time forsecuring funding and garnering support forpotential management actions in the future.

A priori objectives can be extremelypowerful, do not require a wealth of scientif-ic data, and help us to gain the data weneed. When linked to early warning assess-ment points (see below), a priori objectivesensure that relevant data are collected beforemanagement action is required. The timespent synthesizing information up-frontpays dividends later in terms of identifyingresearch needs and collecting monitoringdata. Allowing for the maximum window ofopportunity in which to collect dataimproves the quality of the options availablewhen action is required.

To express a hypothetical desiredstate or condition. How objectives are stat-ed is very important. To return to our trip-planning analogy, people often disagree notabout where they want to go (i.e., thedesired condition of the resource), but howthey want to get there, or whether they canget there feasibly within their logistical orfinancial constraints. Therefore, objectivesthat strive to bring about or explain adesired condition should be adaptable andaccommodate different paths toward thesame end result. Whatever its goals, eachobjective should be considered as a hypoth-esis that is open to debate. Treating objec-tives as hypotheses is essential for refiningcertain assessment points (see below).Assessment points meant to indicate reach-

ing a desired condition may shift in timeand space, which may lead to uncertaintyabout whether we have achieved our objec-tives. As we navigate to our intended desti-nation, the negotiation of objectives, desiredcondition, and assessment points requires asimilar negotiation in determining that“Yes, we have arrived.”

Historically, the objectives (especiallymanagement objectives) developed byagencies within the Department of theInterior have been constructed based onactions, rather than a desired state, out-come, or condition. For example, an objec-tive for fire management might be stated as,“to burn the grassland habitat of a givenpark every seven years.” This objective isfine, if the intent is to account for the activi-ty of park personnel. If, however, the intentof burning is to reduce the encroachment ofshrubs, then this objective does little toensure that result. An alternative objective,expressed as a desired state, might be,“using fire as the primary tool, maintain amaximum of 20% shrub cover on the grass-land habitat.” An objective expressed as adesired condition provides a much strongerbasis for evaluating how well the intent ofthe action was achieved. Using our tripanalogy, adopting an action-based objectivewould be similar to stating that our objec-tive was to drive, but failing to expresswhere it was we wanted to go.

Cross-linked and iterative. Effectiveenvironmental stewardship will incorporatemonitoring, management, and researchobjectives such that they complement andreinforce one another. Monitoring objec-tives in the absence of management objec-tives will be of limited value, and buildingan effective research strategy that willinform management decisions requires hav-ing some sense of management goals. If you

don’t know where you are, then you won’tknow where you are going.

Assessment pointsIf an objectives hierarchy expresses

where we want go, then assessment pointshelp us to navigate the way. Assessmentpoints are predefined and often negotiatedvalues that signal important changes to theresource being monitored. They can bedefined even in the absence of empiricaldata, and crossing a point does not implythat immediate action is warranted.Assessment points are forward-lookingtools that advise us, as in the road sign anal-ogy, when we should pay attention andbegin making adjustments (Caution; SlowDown; Stop!). By linking our objectiveshierarchy with a series of assessment points,we directly link desired-condition objec-tives (i.e., those related to management) tolearning objectives (i.e., those related tomonitoring and research), thereby linkingthe management, planning, and monitoringfunctions of the National Park Service.

Assessment points can tell us where weare, which routes makes the most sensegiven where we want to go, and how long itmight take us to arrive. Let’s imagine thatwe can construct a set of objectives thatdefine resource condition along a spectrum,from complete degradation to no impair-ment. This can be a straightforward exer-cise if we know what the destination(desired state or condition; say, “no impair-ment”) looks like (i.e., we have been there),which is seldom the case. In the absence ofthat knowledge, however, we can definepoints of interest along the spectrum indi-cating important transitions (e.g., changingfrom a desired state to a less-desirable one).In this section, we describe three types ofassessment points that are useful for natural

resource stewardship and planning: (1)points that describe desired condition, (2)points that serve as an early warning, and(3) points indicating imminent loss of theresource (Figure 3). We must make twoassumptions when constructing these typesof assessment points. First, we assume thatwe can meaningfully define the continuumfrom undesired to desired condition (i.e.,we have an idea of where we want to go).Second, we assume that we can accuratelyobserve when the transitions occur (i.e.,that road signs exist and we can read them).

Data, especially those collected fromrigorous monitoring protocols, are criticalto the use of assessment points. We canimagine monitoring data as repeated snap-shots of ecological condition over time;each monitoring event tells us where we liealong the full spectrum of possible condi-tion. In this context, our status bar providesan upper and lower limit to condition, andmonitoring data indicate where we are,where we are headed, and (ideally) how fastwe will get there.

Desired-condition assessment points.The first type of assessment points we con-sider are those that represent the upperbound of what is considered acceptable(i.e., “desired”) condition. If these pointswere road signs, they would read, “Wel-come to your destination!” or, conversely,“You are now leaving D.C.” Desired condi-tion does not necessarily imply a pristineecological state. In some instances, it maybe impractical or unreasonable to use anecological standard that may not be reachedin the foreseeable future. For example,national parks within urban settings face anonslaught of stressors that are generatedoutside park boundaries (e.g., polluted airor water entering the park). That is not tosay that desired-condition assessment





points do not have an ecological basis insuch places; they do. However, a desiredcondition may be one that minimizes exter-nal threats, instead of eliminating them.

The benefit of identifying a less-than-pristine desired condition is prioritization;doing so sets a more reasonable benchmarkfor restoration and management activities(Figure 4). Setting a reasonable standard forrestoration allows managers to shiftresources more easily than if they were con-tinually trying to achieve pristine condi-tions that are unrealistic. It also allows someflexibility in defining the upper limit of pris-tine when natural and cultural mandatesconflict. For example, a historic battlefieldpark may be required to maintain a culturalsetting (e.g., pasture land, fields, smallwoodlots) that is at odds with an unman-aged community (e.g., an oak–hickory for-est; Figure 5). Setting a desired-condition

assessment point that is slightly less thanideal allows for such conflicts to exist.

An alternative approach is to use thedesired-condition assessment point as aconservative upper limit that may be revisedupward as new information is acquired.When scientific evidence is scant or equivo-cal, it may be more practical to set the upperbound where definitive information existsthat is locally relevant—so-called “regionalbenchmarks.” In this context, the desiredcondition does not refer to the ideal condi-tion of a particular indicator, but to the bestcondition that exists within a more region-ally defined area.

Early warning assessment points.The second group of assessment points isused to signal potentially harmful trends inresource condition. These points are proac-tive in nature, and are critical because they(1) synthesize current knowledge, (2) gen-

Figure 3. Generalized status bar spanning wholly degraded to pristine resource condition (conditionimproves moving left to right). Three types of assessment points related to relative condition are shown:(1) desired condition, (2) early warning, and (3) imminent loss.

erate a research agenda to refine points, and(3) are the most cost-effective because theyare the road signs that say “Slow Down,”“Caution,” or “Trouble Ahead,” allowingmanagers to take action while restoration isstill feasible.

Detection of an early warning does notnecessarily trigger management action.What it does trigger is a meeting in whichthose collecting the data (via a monitoringprogram, for example) brief those using thedata to make decisions (resource man-agers). “How confident are we with thesedata?”, “How fast are conditions degrad-ing?”, “What are the management op-tions?”, and “How much could restorationcost?” are all questions that could be

addressed during this briefing. We cannotstress enough the importance of using earlywarning assessment points to get the atten-tion of resource managers; given the widevariety of crises faced by land managers onany given day, early warning points give sci-entists and managers alike the opportunityto stand back, take a breath, and evaluatethe current situation (Figure 6).

Scientists and managers must negotiateearly warning assessment points in advance;that is, they must agree about where thepoints should be located. Regardless ofwhether a given point will be based on anecological threshold, a user capacity stan-dard, a desired condition, or some otherparameter, scientists and managers need to

decide, together, how cautious theywant to be, and what degree ofassessment will be warranted at agiven point. Do managers want to benotified only when a point of con-



Figure 4. Status bar showing assessment points (APs) as related to management actions. Research thatrefines understanding of desired ecological condition is prioritized when status is good (above AP #1).Identifying funding options and defining management strategies that mitigate impairment or restore con-dition are prioritized when condition is declining (moving from AP # 2 to AP #3). Restoration action isrequired when condition is poor (below AP #3). Assessment point #1 (desired condition) does not ne-cessarily define a pristine state, but rather serves as target for management and restoration actions.

Figure 5. National parks meant to preservehistoric events may also contain significantnatural resources, which often requires man-agers to balance competing objectives topreserve both natural and cultural re-sources. Photo courtesy of Tom Paradis.



cern is imminent, or well in advance of anyconcern? When should a synthesis of theexpected consequences be conducted, andconducted by whom? Is there a need to syn-thesize the evidence for expected responsesto alternative management actions? Thesedecisions should all be negotiated andagreed upon between scientists and man-agers. As a matter of course, early warningassessment points are likely to differ amongparks to reflect different resource situationsand different judgments of individual scien-tists or managers.

It should be recognized, from the out-set, that a primary purpose of assessmentpoints is to enable more informed deci-sions. This is most likely to come aboutwhen it is done in such a way as to be mutu-ally beneficial. The process of scientists andmanagers working together to determinewhat would work best in their situations has

the additional value of beginning a dialoguethat should help scientists to better under-stand the information needs of managers,and help managers to play a stronger role inunderstanding the strengths and limits ofthe scientific process as well as making thescience more relevant to their needs.

Assessment points used to preventloss. To many ecologists, assessment pointsgenerally evoke the idea of “ecologicalthresholds” (Bennetts et al., this issue). Ofthe three types of assessment pointsdescribed here, those used to prevent lossare most closely related to that concept,because they indicate a fundamental changein the functioning or sustainability of theecological system. In contrast to other kindsof assessment points, which may representthe bounds of a desired condition or othersubjectively defined state, these mark thepoint of potentially irreversible loss of the

Figure 6. Invasive species are more difficult to eradicate after they are established, making early detec-tion of outbreaks highly important for managers. Photo courtesy of Tom Paradis.

resource and, therefore, should be consid-ered as a special class wherein managementintervention to prevent the loss or reversethe trajectory is unequivocally warranted.

Unfortunately, these types of points areoften the result of complex, non-linearinteractions of ecosystem components thatare difficult to predict. Consequently, theytend to be retrospective in nature, and areused for crisis management. They signifythe breaking point of irreparable loss orimpractical restoration (Figure 4). Manage-ment options are generally very limited,costly, and tend to be less effective at thesepoints. As such, if the expectation of suchan ecological threshold is the basis for theseassessment points, then a more conservativeand aggressive approach to assessmentsprior to these points’ being reached is war-ranted (Figure 7), likely requiring more fre-quent and/or more in-depth assessmentswhen a trajectory is approaching a predict-ed ecological threshold (i.e., when the earlywarning assessment points indicate a prob-lem).

Linking objectives and assessmentpoints. In the case of the NCRN, forest

management strategies are enhanced bylinking different types of objectives to oneanother using assessment points (Figures2b, 8). The definition of a desirable state isbased upon acceptable ranges of ecologicalcondition, which is defined by the zonebetween assessment points #1 (desired con-dition) and #2 (early warning). Monitoringobjectives provide status information thatinforms management objectives. Predefinedassessment points are used to inform man-agement decisions about seedling regenera-tion and the presence of invasive speciesand insect pests.

If information is not known about adesired range for an indicator, then researchobjectives (in conjunction with covariatesand stratification) explicitly identify assess-ment points that are needed. In the NCRNexample, not enough information is knownto define the point at which the occurrenceof insect pests causes irreversible harm tothe forest community (Figure 8). Researchelucidates assessment points, monitoringuses them to provide context for ecologicalcondition, and management uses them todefine appropriate management strategies.



Figure 7. A generic resource status bar showing a potential ecological threshold (analogous to assess-ment point #3). As resource condition for a particular indicator declines, assessment points should beused more frequently and conservatively to ensure that loss does not occur.



ConclusionAn objectives hierarchy and associated

set of assessment points are not unrelatedideas; each improves the other. You canreach your destination with only a road map(i.e., a set of objectives) or by only readingroad signs (i.e., assessment points). How-ever, the trip is much easier, and probablyquicker, when you have a clear travel planand navigational aids to guide you.

The ideas we present here are not new;the NPS has established a planning frame-work that uses tiered goals and objectives(Figure 1), Kruger National Park has shownhow thresholds of potential concern (whatwe call “assessment points”) can be usedwithin an objectives hierarchy (Biggs andRogers 2003; KNP 2006), and the value ofusing interrelated objectives is a corner-stone of the adaptive management process

Figure 8. Three status bars used for monitoring indicators related to forest vegetation for the NationalCapital Region Network, measured in 2007. Current status is indicated above the resource status bar;assessment points related to desired condition are below. A large percentage of plots contain at leastone exotic species. Low seedling regeneration (<90%) and high occurrence of forest insect pests (>1%)are of concern when current status is compared to early warning assessment points.

(Williams et al. 2007). Yet, the explicit useof predefined points that define acceptableresource condition, and the process of link-ing them to planning processes, has notbecome institutionalized in the NPS. Twonew initiatives are taking on this challenge:resource stewardship strategies and water-shed condition assessments (please seewww.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/draftDO2-1.html; and www.nature.nps.gov/water/watershedconds.cfm [an internet site], andwww1.nrintra.nps.gov/wrd/Watershed/in-

dex.cfm [an intranet site], respectively].Our purpose for this paper is to encouragethe use of predefined assessment points inall levels of natural resource stewardshipplanning. Assessment points, when linkedto explicit, predefined objectives, offer aconsistent framework for characterizing andunderstanding resource condition. Perhapsa good metaphor for life may also have rele-vance to the integration of science and man-agement: the journey is as important as thedestination.



AcknowledgmentsThe ideas presented in this paper were refined by the insightful discussions that took

place at the 2006 Intermountain Workshop on Integration of Science and Management atChico Hot Springs, Montana. Previous drafts of this paper were improved by commentsfrom Kerri Cahill, Bruce Bingham, John Paul Schmit, Jim Sherald, and Alice Wondrak Biel.

Endnote1. The Department of the Interior’s definition of “adaptive management,” which was adopt-ed from that of the National Research Council (2004), is as follows: “Adaptive management[is a decision process that] promotes flexible decision making that can be adjusted in the faceof uncertainties as outcomes from management actions and other events become betterunderstood. Careful monitoring of these outcomes both advances scientific understandingand helps adjust policies or operations as part of an iterative learning process. Adaptive man-agement also recognizes the importance of natural varability in contributing to ecologicalresilience and productivity. It is not a ‘trial and error’ process, but rather emphasizes learn-ing while doing. Adaptive management does not represent an end in itself, but rather a meansto more effective decisions and enhanced benefits. Its true measure is in how well it helpsmeet environmental, social, and economic goals, increases scientific knowledge, and reducestensions among stakeholders” (Williams et al. 2007:4).

ReferencesBiggs, H. C., and K. H. Rogers. 2003. An adaptive system to link science, monitoring, and

management in practice. In The Kruger Experience: Ecology and Management of Savan-na Heterogeneity. J.T. du Toit, K.H. Rogers, and H.C. Biggs, eds. Washington, D.C.:Island Press, 59–80.

Elzinga, C.L., D.W. Salzer, and J.W. Willoughby. 1998. Measuring and Monitoring PlantPopulations. BLM Technical Reference no. 1730-1. BLM/RS/ST-98/005+1730. Den-ver: Bureau of Land Management, National Business Center.

Foxcroft, L.C. 2004. An adaptive management framework for linking science and manage-ment of invasive alien plants. Weed Technology 18, 1275–1277.



Groffman, P.M., J.S. Baron, T. Blett, A.J. Gold, I. Goodman, L.H. Gunderson, B.M.Levinson, M.A. Palmer, H.W. Paerl, and G.D. Peterson. 2006. Ecological thresholds:The key to successful environmental management or an important concept with nopractical application? Ecosystems 9, 1–13.

Holling, C.S. 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. New York: JohnWiley and Sons.

KNP [Kruger National Park]. 2006. Kruger National Park Management Plan. On-line atwww.sanparks.org/conservation/park_man/kruger.pdf.

Lee, K. N. 1993. Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the Environ-ment. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

National Research Council. 2004. Adaptive Management for Water Resources Planning.Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Walters, C.J. 1986. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. Caldwell, N.J.: BlackburnPress.

Williams, B.K., R.C. Szaro, and C.D. Shapiro. 2007. Adaptive Management: The U.S.Department of the Interior Technical Guide. Washington, D.C.: Department of theInterior Adaptive Management Working Group. On-line at www.doi.gov/initiatives/AdaptiveManagement/documents.html.

Yoccoz, N.G., J.D. Nichols, and T. Boulinier. 2001. Monitoring of biological diversity inspace and time. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16:8, 446–453.

Shawn L. Carter, National Park Service, Center for Urban Ecology, 4598 MacArthur Boule-vard NW, Washington, D.C. 20007; [email protected]

Robert E. Bennetts, National Park Service, Southern Plains Network, New Mexico High-lands University, P.O. Box 9000, Las Vegas, New Mexico 87701; [email protected]

The Road to Integrating Science and Management: Planning Your Next

Documents

Transcript of The Road to Integrating Science and Management: Planning Your Next