Table 3 Criteria used to judge the merits of states’ programs relative to
supporting the conceptual practice of ecosystem management
a
1. Interdisciplinary approach based on sound science, socioeconomics, and institutional arrangement.
2. Adaptable institutions capable of cooperative and coordinated actions.
3. R ealistic appreciation of the two aspects of sustainable development.
4. Capable of forming partnerships with interested stakeholders and the public and carrying out democratic
decision making. 5. Combined administration for managing renewable
natural resources and protecting other components of the environment.
6. Appreciation of the role of environmental education, ethics, and biodiversity stewardship in ecosystem
management. 7. Academic support from in-state universities capable of
advising and training within the interdisciplinary context of ecosystem management.
a
The criteria are based on the most important principles and characteristics of the ecosystem management concept as
reflected by existing programs.
ecosystem management being the policy of the federal land management agencies, it is natural
that state governments are turning attention to ecosystem management.
2. Ecosystem management and state programs
The survey of ecosystem management policies in state governments discussed here took two
forms; first, locating state policies designated as being ecosystem management, and second, a
search for random policies, programs, and activi- ties in state governments that can serve as compo-
nents or
building blocks for an
ecosystem management policy. To identify existing policies
or components that can be used as future policies, criteria were adapted to reflect the concept of
ecosystem management as embraced by the F ed- eral
Ecosystem M anagement
Initiative, and
shown in Table 1. Based initially on Table 1, state government
programs were searched for the most common and minimal set of common criteria that appeared
useful for the ultimate task. The results of that second step appear in Table 3 which lists seven
principles and characteristics of ecosystem man- agement policies, programs, and activities consis-
tent with the F ederal Ecosystem M anagement Initiative IEM TF , 1995; OEP, 1995; PCSD ,
1999 as well as the professional literature e.g. TK C, 1996; Vogt et al., 1997; M alone, 1998a,b;
Szaro et al., 1998; Cortner and M oote, 1999 that were drawn upon with the results shown in Table
1. Characteristics of the emerging Enlibra doc- trine Table 2 were not used because no state
ecosystem management programs exist based on Enlibra. The programs of the three Pacific coastal
states reflect the federal program far more than they do the WG A’s doctrine.
R eaders interested in economic ecology and social sciences will note first off that such disci-
plines are represented in Table 1 by only the last entry. M oreover, in Table 3 even that single entry
was not used because the principle of sustainable development too seldom appeared among state
policies and programs to be useful. Beyond the traditional
economic concept
of costs
and oped. In fact, it was in the Pacific N orthwest
where federal ecosystem management first was applied because of the spotted owl and logging
controversy in the 1980s and the 1990s Yaffee, 1994.
Aside from California, Oregon, and Washing- ton, western or southwestern states have not pro-
gressed significantly toward ecosystem manage- ment. In the eastern half of the U S, some progres-
sive and enlightened state governments are adopt- ing ecosystem management policies, perhaps for
more sincere reasons than might turn out to be the case in the west. The eastern states all have far
less federal presence than do the western states, and federal and state governments do not com-
pete as significantly regarding land use policy in the east as in the west. N otable among the non-
western states that are moving toward ecosystem management are F lorida, Illinois, N ew York,
N orth Carolina, M innesota, and Wisconsin. As ecosystem-based management of renewable natu-
ral resources takes hold, more states are likely to adopt similar stewardship policies to foster sus-
tainable development. G iven the public’s growing interest in environmental resources, and with
benefits, progressive tenets of economic theory such as ecological economics seldom should be
considered in ecosystem management e.g. TK C, 1996; Vogt et al., 1997; Szaro et al., 1998; Cortner
and M oote, 1999. The same applies to other more traditional social sciences, a matter dis-
cussed later.
Ecosystem management is of interest especially in the western and southwestern U S because of
the Enlibra doctrine of the WG A. The doctrine was adopted in late 1998 by the WG A in response
to states’ concerns about the F ederal Ecosystem M anagement Initiative that applies to national
public lands. The survey reported here was per- formed in the fall of 1999 by searching all 50-state
governments for evidence of programs that em- body elements of ecosystem-based management.
Programs were surveyed on the world wide web WWW by searching states’ home pages. A list of
the addresses taken from the WWW and used for the survey is provided in Appendix A. The merits
of the programs thus accessed were judged rela- tive to their contributions as building blocks for
ecosystem-based approaches for managing natural resources and protecting the environment. The
criteria used for this task Table 3 reflect generic and reasonably common attributes of ecosystem
management as well as what is important in polit- ical and administrative contexts within state
government.
Among all 50 U S states, the 14 listed in Table 4 have elements of ecosystem management and
stewardship programs. Eleven of the state pro- grams have more than five of the seven ecosys-
tem-based program elements listed in the table. Three states, M ichigan, M issouri, and Tennessee,
have at least three program elements that would serve as components of ecosystem management
programs. States with less than three elements were not considered sufficient for listing in Table
4. F or that group of 36 states, the 14 states that are listed merit consideration as potential models
for other states to examine with respect to pro- gressing toward ecosystem management on a par
with
the F ederal
Ecosystem M anagement
Initiative. Of all states, F lorida has the strongest ecosys-
tem-based program on the basis of the state’s
Table 4 Western and non-western states that meet the evaluative criteria in Table 3 well enough to compliment the objectives of ecosystem
management State
Criteria 4
3 2
1 7
6 5
Partici. Sus. D ev.
Instits. Support
Ethics Interdisc.
Integr. W estern states
− ++
− ++
+ +
+ California
++ Oregon
+ ++
++ +
+ −
+ ++
+ +
++ −
Washington −
N on -western states
++ ++
++ ++
++ ++
F lorida ++
+ −
+ G eorgia
− +
+ +
++ ++
− +
Illinois ++
+ +
+ +
+ M aryland
+ −
+ −
− −
+ ++
M ichigan −
− +
+ +
+ M innesota
+ −
+ +
M issouri +
− −
− +
+ −
++ −
N ew York +
+ −
+ ++
+ +
++ −
N orth Carolina ++
+ ++
− −
− −
+ +
Tennessee +
+ +
+ −
+ Wisconsin
+ ++
1993 Environmental R eorganization Act. The act merged functions of environmental regulation and
natural resources management and provided a mandate for the F lorida D epartment of Environ-
mental Protection D EP to protect ecosystem functions. Through the Office of Ecosystem M an-
agement, the D EP is engaged in enhancing coor- dination of public land acquisition and land use
planning programs that are consistent with the criteria listed in Table 3 and used for Table 4.
Public and stakeholder participation is a hallmark of the F lorida program in that decisions are not
made by experts alone. Another indication that ecosystem management is taken seriously by the
F lorida state government is that the OEM ’s pro- grams have influenced the academic programs of
the U niversity of F lorida’s College of R esources and Environment. This raises the issue of the role
of higher education in fostering ecosystem man- agement within state government, e.g. by provid-
ing
trained professional
for staffing
state government programs.
Several other states are well along in developing programs that include aspects such as resources
stewardship, environmental education programs, and interaction with state universities. Among the
more progressive state programs developed in this respect are the three Pacific coast states, Califor-
nia, Oregon, and Washington Table 4. D espite the WG A’s Enlibra doctrine, these are the only
western states that have natural resources policies and practices compatible with ecosystem manage-
ment and were undertaken for salmon fisheries and timber resources. The programs follow from
the spotted owl controversy Yaffee, 1994 and appear to be biased toward present-generation
economic interests and lacking in a more balanced approach to sustaining natural resources such as
that of the F ederal Ecosystem M anagement Ini- tiative. This raises a flag of caution regarding the
western states’ Enlibra doctrine Table 2.
The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, approved and funded in 1997 by the state legisla-
ture, crosses the administrative lines of state agen- cies
involved. Its
essential elements
are coordinated agency programs, community-based
action, monitoring status and achievements, and taking corrective measures. In California, ecosys-
tem management has become the organizing prin- cipal for land use planning and management at
the state level and the California R esources Agency has ecosystem management field projects
underway. An especially notable one is the Cali- fornia Sierra N evada Ecosystem Project. Various
state universities and agencies participate in the project which is a visible and popular one
throughout the state. The Washington D epart- ment of N atural R esources recognizes natural re-
sources stewardship that emphasizes the human as opposed to the scientific side of ecosystem man-
agement. The crown jewel of the state govern- ment’s ecosystem-based management effort is the
Salmon R ecovery Program and its F orests and F ish R eport. Similar to the Oregon Plan for
Salmon and Watersheds, the Washington counter- part is based on the principles of ecosystem man-
agement and integrated natural resources and economic development.
Aside from F lorida in the eastern half of the U S, G eorgia, Illinois, M aryland, M innesota, N ew
York, N orth Carolina, and Wisconsin have rea- sonably well-developed state programs that com-
pliment ecosystem management. Interdisciplinary approaches and an awareness of a balanced per-
spective toward sustainable development are ap- parent in each state, but more so in N orth
Carolina. M ost importantly, the six states have integrated environmental protection with natural
resources management into a common depart- ment as F lorida has done. U nlike F lorida, how-
ever, there is no mandate in other states to adopt an ecosystem approach and less emphasis is
placed on public and stakeholder participation in resource management decision making. States
that meet less than five of the criteria in Table 4 are M ichigan, M issouri, and Tennessee. In M ichi-
gan, the state government maintains a traditional commodity and recreational approach to natural
resources and lacks recognition of ecosystem stewardship.
G eorgia, M issouri, and Tennessee have state government departments that include both re-
sources management and environmental protec- tion, but the programs are not yet well integrated
and coordinated. Also, the authority to regulate according to the tenets of ecosystem management
does not yet exist in the three states. F or M issouri, the authority seems to follow from the N atural
R esources M anagement Plan envisioned by the state within its F iscal Year 2000 Integrated Strate-
gic Plan. It is not apparent what the plans in G eorgia and Tennessee are in this regard, but
intentions toward natural resource and environ- mental stewardship appear promising for the future
in both states. M aryland shows promise for build- ing a foundation for ecosystem-based management
from the federal and state programs associated with the Chesapeake Bay region and the U niversity of
M aryland Center for Environmental Science.
3. Discussion
