Environmental Management: Principles and practice

Adaptive environmental management
Adaptive environmental management can mean different things to different people;
it is seen by some as a tool or approach that can be quickly modified to suit a particular
situation; systems modellers may see it as meaning the ability to explore various
‘what if?’ scenarios; or it can be an approach that is flexible and able to cope with
poor data availability, and respond to new challenges as they arise. The latter is the
most common interpretation and involves a continuous learning process that should
not be separated from research and ongoing regulatory activities. The latter approach
probably never reaches a state where there is fully satisfactory knowledge for
environmental management (Walters, 1986; McLain and Lee, 1996). A related field—
adaptive environmental assessment and management (AEAM) —has been developed
by those concerned with EIA—see chapter 6).
Adams (1990) complained of widespread ‘juggernaut’ development which was
too inflexible and clumsy, and so caused environmental and socioeconomic problems.
The best response to such development is an adaptive one which can alter to match
challenges, a strategy championed by natural resource managers in the 1970s who
borrowed ideas from operational management and management science (Holling,
1978). Mitchell (1997:82–85) outlines ‘hedging’ and ‘flexing’ strategies for decision
making where there is severe uncertainty. Hedging is a process of trying to avoid the
worst consequences, and flexing is a continuing search for other possible options
even after a decision has been taken.
Adaptive management is far better than the disjointed incrementalist approach
often adopted, i.e. just muddling through. However, it is not perfect—McLain and
Lee (1996) reviewed three adaptive environmental management case-studies and
found ‘serious flaws’, mainly in relation to how environmental management decisions
were made. They also noted a risk of ignoring non-scientific knowledge.