An Interdisciplinary Approach to Endangered Species Recovery

Cases

School of Natural Resources and EnvironmentTHE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

July/August 2002Vol. 19 No. 4pages 65-204

Applications

Concepts

SpecialIssue

An Interdisciplinary Approach toEndangered Species Recovery:

Wild bactrian camels ( Camelus bactrianus ferus ) by Richard P. Reading

Cover photos. (Clockwise from top): green sea turtle ( Chelonia mydas ) by G. McFall, OAR/National Undersea ResearchProgram, University of North Carolina at Wilmington; black-footed ferret ( Mustela nigripes ) by Charlene Bessken, BLM;red wolf ( Canis rufus ) by John and Karen Hollingsworth, USFWS; bald eagle ( Haliaeetus leucocephalus ) courtesy ofUSFWS; Florida manatee ( Trichechus manatus ) by Paul Dayton; furbish lousewort ( Pedicularis furbishiae ) by IreneStorks, USFWS. (Center): thylacine ( Thylacinus cynocephalus ) courtesy of the South Australian Museum, Adelaide.

Endangered Species UPDATEVolume 19, Issue 4

Special Issue:An Interdisciplinary Approach to Endangered Species Recovery:

Concepts, Applications, Cases

Edited by:

Richard L. WallaceUrsinus College

Tim W. ClarkYale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies

and Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative

Richard P. ReadingDenver Zoological Foundation

Northern Rockies

Conservation Cooperative

Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 19 No. 4 200268

Introduction: Interdisciplinary Endangered Species Conservation: A New Approach For ANew Century

Richard L. Wallace, Tim W. Clark, and Richard P. Reading......................................................... 70

I. Concepts

1. Making Partnerships Work in Endangered Species Conservation: An Introduction to theDecision Process

Tim W. Clark and Ronald D. Brunner............................................................................ 74

2. Solving Problems in Endangered Species Conservation: An Introduction to ProblemOrientation

Richard L. Wallace and Tim W. Clark............................................................................. 81

3. Understanding the Human Factor in Endangered Species Recovery: An Introduction toHuman Social Process

Tim W. Clark and Richard L. Wallace............................................................................. 87

4. The Dynamics of Value Interactions in Endangered Species ConservationTim W. Clark and Richard L. Wallace............................................................................. 95

5. The Professional in Endangered Species Conservation: An Introduction to StandpointClarification

Tim W. Clark and Richard L. Wallace............................................................................. 101

6. Research in Endangered Species Conservation: An Introduction to Multiple MethodsTim W. Clark, Richard P. Reading, and Richard L. Wallace........................................... 106

II. Applications

7. Organization and Management of Endangered Species ProgramsTim W. Clark and John R. Cragun................................................................................... 114

8. Learning as a Strategy for Improving Endangered Species ConservationTim W. Clark.................................................................................................................... 119

9. Prototyping for Successful Conservation: The Eastern Barred Bandicoot ProgramTim W. Clark, Richard P. Reading, and Gary N. Backhouse........................................... 125

10. Improving Group Problem Solving in Endangered Species Recovery: Using the "DecisionSeminar" Method

Richard L. Wallace and Tim W. Clark............................................................................. 130

Table of Contents

Vol. 19 No. 4 2002 Endangered Species UPDATE 69

11. The Population Viability Assessment Workshop: A Tool for Threatened SpeciesManagement

Tim W. Clark, Gary N. Backhouse, and Robert C. Lacy................................................. 136

12. Towards an Endangered Species Reintroduction ParadigmRichard P. Reading, Tim W. Clark, and Stephen R. Kellert............................................. 142

13. Implementing Endangered Species Recovery Policy: Learning as We Go?Tim W. Clark and Ann H. Harvey.................................................................................... 147

14. Conserving Biodiversity in the Real World: Professional Practice Using a PolicyOrientation

Tim W. Clark, Peter Schuyler, Tim Donnay, Peyton Curlee, Timothy Sullivan,Margaret Cymerys, Lili Sheeline, Richard P. Reading, Richard L. Wallace,Ted Kennedy, Jr., Arnald Marcer-Batlle, and Yance De Fretes........................................ 156

III. Cases

15. Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Conservation: A New Approach for a 21st Century ChallengeRichard P. Reading, Tim W. Clark, Lauren McCain, and Brian J. Miller........................ 162

16. Great Ape Conservation in Central Africa: Addressing the Bushmeat CrisisHeather E. Eves, Elizabeth A. Gordon, Julie T. Stein, and Tim W. Clark........................ 171

17. Projeto Abraço Verde: A Practice-based Approach to Brazilian Atlantic Forest ConservationScott C. Fenimore and Laury Cullen, Jr. .......................................................................... 179

18. Path of the Tapir: Integrating Biological Corridors, Ecosystem Management, and Socio-economic Development in Costa Rica

Quint Newcomer.............................................................................................................. 186

19. If the Tasmanian Tiger Were Found, What Should We Do? An Interdisciplinary Guide toEndangered Species Recovery

Tim W. Clark, Richard P. Reading, Richard L. Wallace, and Barbara Wilson................. 194

Conclusion: Becoming a More Effective Professional: The Next Steps in Learning and Applyingan Interdisciplinary Approach to the Conservation of Biological Diversity

Richard L. Wallace, Tim W. Clark, and Richard P. Reading......................................................... 201

News from Zoos....................................................................................................................................... 203


Endangered species conservation —encompassing research, policy, man-agement, and all its many facets —is a management process that requiresintegrative and interdisciplinarymethods to be most successful. Thisprocess is sometimes also called the"decision or policy process," but thelabels can be used interchangeably.In the three decades since passage ofthe Endangered Species Act of 1973(ESA), endangered species programshave faced serious challenges thathave often impeded the ability ofpeople involved to succeed. Theseinclude a preponderance of programsstrong in natural sciences researchand methods, but weak in the socialscience knowledge and individualskills necessary to effectively partici-pate in and influence the managementprocess (i.e. the series of decisionsand actions that occur within a pro-gram from its inception through itsdesign, implementation, evaluationand, if called for, termination). Whilethe level of knowledge about themanagement process has increasedmarkedly in the past decade, the levelof skill necessary for managing andoperating within it has lagged far be-hind the ecological scientific abilitiesof endangered species program par-ticipants. Consequently, endangeredspecies conservation efforts suffer

IntroductionInterdisciplinary Endangered Species Conservation:A New Approach For A New CenturyRichard L. WallaceEnvironmental Studies Program, Ursinus College, P.O. Box 1000, Collegeville, PA [email protected]

Tim W. ClarkYale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 301 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511 and NorthernRockies Conservation Cooperative, Box 2705, Jackson, WY [email protected]

Richard P. ReadingDenver Zoological Foundation, 2900 East 23rd Avenue, Denver, CO [email protected]

from a disconnect and imbalance inknowledge and skills concerningnatural science research (on the onehand) and social, organizational, andvalues-related concerns (on theother). This leads directly to manycomplex and sometimes glaring prob-lems in recovery efforts. It is gener-ally accepted now that social factors— such as leadership, organization,communication/cooperation, andmany others — play a critical role inthe success or failure of endangeredspecies conservation efforts (Clark etal. 1994, 2000, 2001; Reading andMiller 2000). Nonetheless, omissionsand oversights in the managementprocess continue to plague many on-going efforts. As a result, perhaps thegreatest problem facing these effortsis the inability or unwillingness ofsome government and non-govern-mental participants to adopt newknowledge and skills, use them effec-tively, and address the clear conser-vation challenges in a smooth andultimately successful manner. De-spite this lingering problem, there area growing number of exampleswherein people are picking up thenew tools and applying them in thefield with good effect. These inno-vative practice-based programs arepaying off.

This special issue of Endangered

Species UPDATE is the culminationof an extended program of research,education, and practice in interdisci-plinary endangered species conserva-tion. In addition to authoring a num-ber of the following articles, we arepractitioners of interdisciplinaryproblem solving methods in endan-gered species conservation. We havestudied, taught, and practiced thesemethods in endangered species recov-ery programs in the United States andabroad for more than 25 years. Wepresent this special issue for practi-tioners, teachers, and students of en-dangered species conservation in thehopes that it will help inspire moreinnovative, practical, and effectiveconservation. In this light, the articlespresented herein reflect the efforts oftheir authors to clarify, promote, andpractice endangered species conser-vation by scrupulously integrating themany variables falling under the ae-gis of endangered species "research,""management," and "policy."

This special issue is the latest in aseries of publications in EndangeredSpecies UPDATE that we began in1988. The purpose of this series is tointroduce practitioners and students ofendangered species conservation toideas and professional tools useful forincreasing their effectiveness and effi-ciency. This issue is divided into three


sections, entitled "Concepts," "Appli-cations," and "Cases," totaling 19 ar-ticles. We have reprinted all previouslypublished papers in this series andadded eight new ones featuring addi-tional work on conceptual approaches,ways to apply innovative methods inpractice, and case applications illustrat-ing the use of these methods.

The first section, Concepts, intro-duces the reader to the theories thatunderlie interdisciplinary conserva-tion. These theories are based in adiscipline known as the policy sci-ences (Lasswell 1971; Lasswell andMcDougal 1992). The policy sci-ences are "simultaneously a theoryabout society and a method of inquiryinto problems and associated socialand decision processes" (Clark2002:ix). They are immediately prac-tical when applied to improving en-dangered species recovery efforts.The Concepts section contains sixpapers that describe specific theoriesand their utility to endangered spe-cies conservation. These include:

l improving partnerships bybetter understanding the interests andactivities of participants in decision mak-ing in endangered species programs;

l clarifying what constitutes aproblem in endangered species conser-vation and how to address problemspractically while bringing in all relevantareas of expertise and perspective;

l emphasizing the importanceof social variables in endangered spe-cies programs;

l elucidating the role of humanvalues in the recovery process, includ-ing programmatic decision making andoutcomes;

l promoting the importance ofclarifying and sharing personal per-spectives on problem solving; and

l integrating methods from thenatural and social sciences in the con-text of endangered species conservation.

Taken together, these concepts pro-vide a foundation for understanding thepolicy sciences and showing how they

can promote greater efficiency,equitability, and effectiveness in con-serving species and improving the out-comes of species protection programs.

Papers in the Concepts sectionthat appeared previously in Endan-gered Species UPDATE include thoseon decision processes (1996), thehuman social process (1998), prob-lem orientation (1999), standpointclarification (1999), and integratingmultiple methods (1999).

The Applications section of thisissue features eight papers illustrat-ing ways of applying the policy sci-ences' concepts in practice. Thepolicy sciences are a branch of knowl-edge separate from either the physical/natural or the social sciences, and aresometimes referred as the "science ofintegration." The purpose of these pa-pers is to create a bridge between theconcepts and cases and to provide in-sight into how practitioners may use thepolicy sciences' integrative tools toimprove decision-making and programimplementation processes. These pa-pers include practical examples ofpolicy sciences concepts being used byprofessionals in governmental naturalresource agencies, non-governmentalorganizations, and academia. Amongthe topics covered are:

l improving the organization

and management of endangered spe-cies programs;

l promoting on-the-job learn-ing as a means of improving recov-ery programs;

l designing and undertaking"prototype" program designs to ex-plore different strategies for speciesrecovery;

l experimenting with innova-tive team-building strategies;

l promoting the use of popu-lation viability analysis (PVA);

l pursuing inventive designsfor species and population reintro-duction programs;

l reviewing experience imple-menting recovery policy under theEndangered Species Act; and

l seeking a general understand-ing of the benefits of professional prac-tice using a policy sciences, or policyorientation, approach.

Papers in the Applications sectionthat have appeared previously in En-dangered Species UPDATE includethe chapters on implementing recov-ery policy (1988), PVA (1990), orga-nization and management (1991), re-introduction (1991), professionalpractice using a policy orientation(1992), prototyping (1995), andlearning (1996).

The third section, Cases, features

Wild Bactrian camels ( Camelus bactrianus ferus ) by Richard P. Reading.


five new analyses of efforts to pro-tect species or ecosystems of specialconcern. These case studies illustrateways in which the policy sciencesmay be used by analysts and practi-tioners to evaluate and improve com-plex programs. Each case featuresone or more of the policy sciencesconcepts introduced in the first sec-tion of this issue. They are also in-tended to complement the policy sci-ences applications presented in theissue's second section. In the Appli-cations section, the respective authorsdemonstrate how to use policy sci-ences concepts in practice. In thecases that follow, the authors use theanalytical tools of the policy sciencesto evaluate various programs andmake recommendations for improve-ment. The cases address far-rangingconservation topics, including:

l black-tailed prairie dogs inthe American west;

l great apes and the bush meatcrisis in Central Africa;

l the Atlantic forest in easternBrazil;

l biological corridors in CostaRica; and

l the thylacine, or Tasmaniantiger, in Australia.

This special issue of EndangeredSpecies UPDATE was created to pro-vide guidance, where possible, forendangered species and ecosystemconservation efforts by providing

ideas and direction for practitionersand analysts. Each article representsefforts by its author(s) to share theirexperiences using the policy sciences.Accepting new and in some casesradically different approaches to en-dangered species program design,implementation, and evaluation is adaunting challenge. We hope that theinformation in this issue will help re-veal the utility in the approaches weespouse. In the concluding paper wedescribe how you might begin to ap-ply these approaches and invite youto share with us your experiences us-ing them. Finally, the literature citedthroughout this issue can guide youto more complete descriptions andmany other case applications.

This special issue would not havebeen possible without the guidance,assistance, and support of the staff ofEndangered Species UPDATE: BethHahn, Jennifer Jacobus MacKay, andMisty McPhee. Other people assistedus with various aspects of this en-deavor, including Denise Casey andBrian Miller. Funding was providedby the Denver Zoological Founda-tion, Northern Rockies ConservationCooperative, Ursinus College, andYale University's School of Forestryand Environmental Studies. Manyindividuals and charitable organiza-tions aided publication of this specialissue, including those that providedsupport to the Denver Zoological

Foundation and Northern RockiesConservation Cooperative, includingCatherine Patrick, Gilman Ordway,Hope and Bob Stevens and theFanwood Foundation, the WianckoCharitable Foundation, Kathe Henryand the Scott Opler Foundation, andStephen and Amy Unfried. We alsowant to recognize the many peoplewe have worked with us as co-work-ers in the field and in the classroom.

Literature citedClark, T.W. 2002. The policy process: a prac-

tical guide for natural resource profession-als. Yale University Press, New Haven,Connecticut.

Clark, T.W., R.P. Reading, and A.L. Clarke,eds. 1994. Endangered species recovery:finding the lessons, improving the process.Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Clark, T.W., A.R. Willard, and C.M. Cromley,eds. 2000. Foundations of natural resourcespolicy and management. Yale UniversityPress, New Haven, Connecticut.

Clark, T.W., M. Stevenson, K. Ziegelmayer,and M. Rutherford, eds. 2001. Species andecosystem conservation: an interdiscipli-nary approach. Yale School Of Forestry &Environmental Studies Bulletin 105:1-276.www.yale.edu/environment/publications

Lasswell, H.D. 1971. A pre-view of the policysciences. American Elsevier PublishingCompany, New York.

Lasswell, H.D. and M.S. McDougal. Jurispru-dence for a free society. New Haven Press,New Haven, Connecticut.

Reading, R.P. and B. Miller, eds. 2000. En-dangered species: A reference guide to con-flicting issues. Greenwood Press, Westport,Connecticut.


concepts

Red-legged frog ( Rana aurora ) by Ryan Haggerty, USFWS.


IntroductionThose committed to restoring endan-gered species can recognize years ofheroic effort (e.g., Yaffee 1982, 1994;Alvarez 1993; Clark et al. 1994;Bennett et al. 1995; Miller et al. 1996;Clark 1997). At the same time, theycan acknowledge significant short-falls in the overall effort. The ten-dency to subordinate the goal of re-covery to other interests representedin a recovery program is one reason,among many, for these shortfalls."Cooperation among scientists is notalways a simple matter" (Mares1991:59). The scientists, however,are not alone; bureaucrats, advocates,and others involved in a recovery pro-gram also have interests in additionto species recovery. A recovery pro-

gram, in other words, is a human en-deavor. It represents a noble humanconcern for other species, but it isvulnerable to goal substitutions andother human traits, including aggres-siveness, dogmatism, and worse.

The increasing number and scaleof partnerships augments both thepossibilities for successful recoveryand the vulnerabilities. Many typesof partnerships exist, focusing on dif-ferent species in different locationsfacing different biological challengeswith different people involved. Somepartnerships work better than othersfor species recovery (e.g., NationalFish and Wildlife Foundation 1993;Beatley 1994; Clark and Cragun1994; Jentoft and McCay 1995;Hutcheson et al. 1995; Roy and

Fischer 1995). Despite differences,every partnerships entails a decisionprocess through which the partner-ships attempt to clarify and securetheir common interest. Every deci-sion process must perform certainfunctions well in order to succeed,whatever the common interest maybe. An improved understanding ofthe decision process — and how toevaluate and improve its critical func-tions — can maximize the possibili-ties for successful recovery and mini-mize the vulnerabilities.

This article discusses the prob-lems and possibilities in the decisionprocesses of partnerships formed torecover listed species. It illustratesthese using the Australian easternbarred bandicoot (Perameles gunnii)


Ronald D. BrunnerCenter for Public Policy Studies and Department of Political Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO [email protected]

AbstractPartnerships are being used in endangered species conservation to improve effectiveness. Thepartnership goal is to increase cooperation, maximize resources available, and improve chances ofspecies' recovery. Ideally, partnerships are unified by a common interest — recovery. However, inpractice this is not necessarily the case as participants are differentially motivated and some carryout narrow self-serving actions within partnerships. As a result, "goal-substitution" weakens part-nerships and increases the likelihood of failure. Endangered species case examples highlight thatdysfunctionality is common to recovery programs and support our view that a better understandingof the decision process involved can improve recovery. Effectiveness of partnerships can be im-proved by teaching participants how to recognize and avert common problems, and how to build,lead, and participate in a better decision making process. The decision process is a means ofreconciling or at least managing conflicts (i.e. rational, political, and moral conflicts) among poli-cies through politics, and is comprised of seven functions: intelligence, promotion, prescription,invocation, application, appraisal, and termination. These activities are described, examples given,standards recommended, and questions to ask about each are given. The existence of a recoveryprogram does not necessarily mean that partners are using a good decision process. However, ahigh quality decision process will make endangered species conservation most effective and effi-cient, and minimize failure.

Making Partnerships Work in Endangered SpeciesConservation: An Introduction to the Decision Process

Reprinted from Endangered Species UPDATE: 1996, 13(9):1-5.


A forum for information exchange onendangered species issuesJuly/August 2002 Vol. 19 No. 4

Beth Hahn..........................Managing EditorJennifer Jacobus MacKay......Publication EditorRichard Wallace...........................Guest EditorTim W. Clark...............................Guest EditorRichard Reading...........................Guest EditorChristine L. Biela........Subscription CoordinatorSaul Alarcon............Web Page CoordinatorSteve Brechin ............................Faculty AdvisorBobbi Low.................................Faculty AdvisorEmily Silverman........................Faculty Advisor

Advisory BoardRichard Block

Santa Barbara Zoological GardensSusan Haig

Forest and Rangeland EcosystemScience Center, USGSOregon State University

Patrick O'BrienChevron Ecological Services

Hal SalwasserU.S. Forest Service,Boone and Crockett Club

Subscription Information: The EndangeredSpecies UPDATE is published six times per year bythe School of Natural Resources and Environmentat The University of Michigan. Annual rates are:$78 institutions, $33 regular, $25 students/senior,and $20 electronic. Add $5 for postage outside theUS, and send check or money order (payable toThe University of Michigan) to:

Endangered Species UPDATESchool of Natural Resources and Environment

The University of MichiganAnn Arbor, MI 48109-1115

(734) 763-3243; fax (734) 936-2195E-mail: [email protected]

http://www.umich.edu/~esupdate

The views expressed in the Endangered SpeciesUPDATE may not necessarily reflect those ofthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or TheUniversity of Michigan.

The Endangered Species UPDATE was madepossible in part by the David and Lucile PackardFoundation, Turner Foundation, Boone andCrockett Club, Chevron Corporation, and the U.S.FWS Division of Endangered Species Region 3.

and the American black-footed ferret(Mustela nigripes) recovery pro-grams. Components of the decisionprocess itself are then identified.

PartnershipsThe trend in endangered species pro-grams is toward more and larger part-nerships. Habitat Conservation Plans(HCPs), called for under the Endan-gered Species Act (ESA), are just oneform of partnership. About 50 HCPsare underway and hundreds more areunder discussion (Bob Baum 1996,personal communication). More-over, partnerships are no longer lim-ited to government agencies as con-servation groups, universities, andbusinesses are becoming moreprominent and, under some circum-stances, even taking the lead in newpartnerships. Ideally, a partnership ismotivated by the partners' common in-terest in recovery of an endangeredspecies. The expectation is that the goalof recovery is beyond the reach of anyone agency or organization; none ofthem, working alone, has the resources,such as expertise, funds, and authority,necessary or sufficient to get the jobdone. By cooperatively using pooledresources, partnerships can maximizepossibilities for species recovery.

In practice, however, recovery isnot always the primary (or even a pri-ority) goal for everyone in the part-nership. For some participants, thepartnership may be a chance to main-tain funding for an existing agencyor organization that has prioritiesother than recovery. For others, thepartnership may be an opportunity toperform basic scientific research thatmay or may not contribute to recov-ery. These types of "goal substitu-tions" make the partnerships morevulnerable to failure and the speciesmore vulnerable to extinction. Thestyle or approach that participants useto pursue their own goals can furtherjeopardize the partnership. Partici-pants who are aggressive, dogmatic,

secretive, suspicious, and vindictivecan easily dominate the partnership.Participants who are excessivelytimid, compromising, open, trusting,and forgiving may unwittinglycollude in the destruction of coopera-tion; they reinforce dominating anddestructive behavior by letting theothers get away with it. Without part-ners of good will and good sense,there is little that can be done to copewith such patterns of behavior. Abetter understanding of decision pro-cess can go a long way toward mini-mizing these potentially damagingpatterns and maximizing the possi-bilities for successful recovery.

Two cases illustrate the importanceof the decision process for successfulpartnerships and recovery programs.

Eastern barred bandicoot programThe Australian eastern barred bandi-coot program, composed of a singlegovernmental agency for over tenyears and later joined by non-govern-mental organizations (NGOs) anduniversities, was unable to obtain keyinformation needed to plan and carryout recovery. Intelligence gathering,planning, and open debate about whatto do and when to do it were limited.The partnership never clarified rulesor guidelines for its own operation orfor species recovery. After a fewyears, individual and organizationalpartners pursued separate goals andactions without adequate consider-ation of the consequences to overallspecies recovery or to the develop-ing partnerships. As a result, theimplementation — both technicallyand organizationally — was inad-equate, and the species continued todecline. Essential data were lacking,especially feedback about the efficacyof management actions as well as thequality of the program itself. Nocomprehensive program appraisalwas conducted, thus, there was littlelearning, and improvements were notpossible. In short, despite activity in


meeting rooms and in the field, thewild population continued to declineand the captive population grew little.

A "crisis intervention" appraisalof the entire program was eventuallyundertaken by several participants.The appraisal — systematic, compre-hensive, and professional — resultedin a reorganization to streamline andupgrade all decision functions. In-telligence was improved by setting upworking groups to gather scientificand social information, including acomputerized captive breeding man-agement plan. Open debate about theprogram and its future were encour-aged. Implementation was improvedby giving the working groups "theauthority, guidance, and resources todevelop and meet their own targetsusing their professional expertise," byappointing a strategic planner, and bydeveloping the first true recovery planfor the species (Backhouse et al.1994:263). Appraisal systems wereimproved by having the workinggroups meet with and report to coredecisions makers at frequent, regularintervals, by giving working groupmembers better access to decisionmakers, and by having the partner-ship conduct regular assessments ofthe program. Ongoing evaluation hasled to several refinements in thestructure and operations of the pro-gram. All in all, these efforts resultedin significant improvements in part-nerships interactions and the species'status in a very short time (Backhouseet al. 1994; Clark et al. 1995), al-though it is premature to declare thespecies recovered.

Black-footed ferret programOver the past fifteen years, the Ameri-can black-footed ferret program hasshown similar dysfunctional features:limited debate among partners abouthow to proceed, inability to obtainconsensus on rules for progress; un-productive conflict; individual behav-ior contrary to the best interests of

ferret recovery or the partnership; anda lack of appraisal, to mention a fewproblems (Reading and Miller 1994;Clark and Harvey 1998). Accordingto Miller et al. (1996) the decisionprocess functioned poorly relative tothe overall goal because of goal sub-stitution, narrow ideologies aboutpower, and the use of coercive strat-egies on the part of the lead govern-ment bureaucracy. Decision func-tions were concentrated in the handsof a few and activities were channeledin ways that were congenial to themost powerful individuals andagency. Although the powerful roleof government bureaucracies in de-cision functions is widely recognized,concentrating power over these func-tions seemed to be an end in itself inthe ferret case, and the goals of spe-cies recovery and a successful part-nership faded into the background.

These problems have not beenaddressed by federal or state authori-ties, despite widespread publicity.Due to a lack of progress and fund-ing difficulties, however, the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)asked the American Zoo andAquarium Association (AZA) to con-duct a program analysis and actionplanning process. While the appraisalfocused primarily on technical issuesand fell short of looking comprehen-sively or systematically at the deci-sion process, it did address parts ofthe decision functions and found themlacking. The appraisal's final reportis forthcoming. Regardless of theAZA's recommendations, the FWS isultimately responsible for making thepartnership's decision process servethe overriding goal of ferret recovery.

Decision processBy knowing how the decision processworks, or does not work, partners inendangered species recovery canmaintain good practices or correct apoorly functioning process. The de-cision process is a means of recon-

ciling or at least managing conflictsamong policies through politics. Poli-tics are inevitable because peopledevelop and pursue different policiesthat reflect their own interests. Yet,in many instances, like endangeredspecies restoration, people must rec-oncile policy differences to secure acommon interest. In the decision pro-cess, a working specification of thecommon interest takes the form ofrules, both substantive and procedural(e.g., what is to be achieved andhow?). There are many kinds of rulesfor many kinds of partnerships andcommunities, including informalguidelines and social norms that areaccepted in a group (e.g., norms ofdiscussion in meetings), requirementsestablished by experts (e.g., popula-tion viability analyses), laws by rep-resentatives of the people for a local,state, or national community (e.g., theESA), and rules about rule making(e.g., the U.S. Constitution). Rulesare necessary for any group of peopleto coordinate, albeit imperfectly, theexpectations and actions of its mem-bers. An action by a member is ap-propriate to the extent that it complieswith applicable rules already pre-scribed by the relevant community;it is inappropriate when it does notcomply. Fortunately, there is a largebody of experience and theory aboutdecision processes that can be applieddirectly and practically to speciesconservation (Lasswell 1971).

The decision process of a speciesconservation partnership should be anopen, flexible, and fair means to pro-duce operational rules for all partnersto follow in meeting the partners'common goal. Recovery plans, man-agement plans, proposals, coopera-tive agreements, and the like are thebasis for rules. Yet, the existence ofa recovery plan does not necessarilyindicate a good decision process oradequate rules for cooperation andrecovery. Partnerships can not workif some members seek rules that ben-


efit their own special interests at theexpense of common interest. Oncerules are specified and agreed upon, therules must be enforced against chal-lengers. The rules can be evaluated bythe partnership and changed if neces-sary — provided, of course, that therules are clear enough to be evaluated.

Although many people think ofdecisions as a precise point in timewhen commitments are made, in fact,many related decisions proceed thatmoment and many follow. Decisionmaking is better described as a pro-cess than an event. Seven functionscan be distinguished in every com-plete decision process (Lasswell1971). The best way to introducethem is to ask seven general ques-tions: (1) How is information abouta problematic situation gathered, pro-cessed, and brought to the attentionof decision makers? (2) Based on thisinformation, how are recommenda-tions promoted and made? (3) Howare general rules prescribed? (4) Howare the rules invoked against chal-lengers in specific cases? (5) Howare disputes in specific cases decidedor resolved? (6) How are the rulesand the decision process appraised?(7) How are the rules and the processterminated or modified? Table 1 listsand describes these seven functions,gives some examples, as well as stan-dards they should meet, and suggestssome basic questions that decisionmakers, other participants, and ob-servers need to ask. In any ongoingdecision process it is usually quiteeasy to identify these seven functionsand the groups that are carrying themout, and to judge how well they areworking. Consequently, it is alsopossible to intervene and improve oneor more decision functions so thatspecies recovery is enhanced and thepartnership runs more smoothly.

Although it is possible to pointto agencies and organizations thatspecialize in a given function, allpartners perform all functions to

some extent. It is apparent, too, thatmost functions are performed outsidethe organizations involved in speciesconservation. For example, as di-rected by ESA, the FWS carries outall seven functions, but many otherorganizations are involved as well.The National Biological Service[now the Biological Resources Divi-sion] and university researchers areprimarily involved in gathering intel-ligence, planning, and estimating theconservation threat (e.g., pollution,habitat loss) and what to do about it.Conservation groups and businessesare often highly visible in promotingone course of action over others, al-though it should be acknowledgedthat all groups (and often subgroupsand individuals), despite claims ofobjectivity and neutrality, take posi-tions and promote decisions that willserve their own interests. Rules areset not only by legislative bodies, butalso by agencies which have enor-mous influence in the design and ac-tual operation of recovery programs,including field team activities. TheFWS is usually joined by other agen-cies and organizations in implement-ing programs. The agencies are againinvolved in dispute resolution, as arethe courts, while the media are in-volved through reporting on con-flicts. The agencies, NGOs (e.g.,AZA in the ferret case), and the pub-lic are involved in review and evalu-ation of conservation efforts. The fi-nal decision to terminate is usuallymade by government, but many otherorganizations are involved or affectedby decisions to stop or significantlyalter programs (e.g., see the dynam-ics of grizzly bear delisting in theYellowstone region; Mattson andCraighead 1994; Greater YellowstoneCoalition 1995; Interagency GrizzlyBear Committee 1996). In the deci-sion process of any organized partner-ship we may expect to find several of-ficial and unofficial participants in-volved in one or all decision functions.

Whether part of the formal part-nership or not, people committed tospecies recovery should demand excel-lence in each decision function and inthe overall process. The decision func-tions described in Table 1 can be usedto ask hard questions and to developstandards to be applied, continuouslyand independently, by all concerned.Partnerships in endangered species re-covery would be much more effectiveand efficient when they develop high-quality decision processes, which willdepend on members learning explicitlyabout how the decision process works,how they can monitor the process, andhow to intervene to improve decisions.With a relatively complete picture ofthe decision process, based on goodintelligence and appraisal, participantscan realistically and functionally de-scribe their interactions with othermembers and explain the actual pro-cess and outcomes in their specificcases. A detailed analysis of the deci-sion-making behavior of partnershipscan reveal which values are at stake forindividual members and the overallpartnership. There must be fair trad-ing and mutual exchange among mem-bers for a partnership to work well. Insome (perhaps many) programs, how-ever, partners do not share similar val-ues, and little group effort is spent inclarifying and developing commonground. For example, while power,wealth, or special knowledge are oftennecessary for effective partnerships,these resources can distort the decisionprocess. Power can be used to central-ize, concentrate, or legalize certain de-cision functions, to the detriment ofother involved or concerned people.The consequences may be catastrophic;if the partnership becomes embroiledin destructive conflict and disintegrates,the species may go extinct.

Decision making must begrounded in real-world contexts. Itmust be comprehensive yet manage-able. The decision model presentedhere is a tool for building a map of each


Table 1. The seven decision functions essential to all endangered species conservation efforts (after Lasswell 1971).

particular process. And the map canbe used by partners to guide the recov-ery effort, ensuring, for example, ad-equate intelligence and appraisal func-tions. Decision making requires a suc-cessful pattern of thought and action,and it is this crafting and maintainingof a good decision process that is thecentral challenge to partnerships in en-dangered species conservation.

ConclusionsPartnerships are being used withgrowing frequency to tackle manynatural resource problems. The com-bined assets of government, conser-vation groups, business, and publicinvolvement are a powerful tool toaddress these challenges. For part-

nerships to be effective, considerableattention must be given to the deci-sion making process. Modern con-servation practice demands a work-ing knowledge of the seven decisionfunctions; this knowledge is neces-sary for learning how to recognizeand avert problems and how to buildand maintain rational, participatoryand equitable decision making pro-cesses to achieve species recovery.

AcknowledgementsDenise Casey, Northern RockiesConservation Cooperative, PamLichtman, Jackson Hole Alliance forResponsible Planning, PeterWilshusen and David Gaillard, YaleUniversity's School of Forestry and

Environmental Studies critically re-viewed the manuscript.

Literature citedAlvarez, K. 1993. Twilight of the panther:

Biology, bureaucracy, and failure in an en-dangered species program. Myakka RiverPublishing, Sarasota, Florida. 501 pp.

Beatley, T. 1994. Habitat conservation plan-ning: Endangered species and urbangrowth. University of Texas, Austin. 234pp.

Backhouse, G.N., T.W. Clark, and R.P. Read-ing. 1994. The Australian eastern barredbandicoot program: Evaluation and reor-ganization. Pp 251-274 in T.W. Clark, R.P.Reading, and A.L. Clarke, eds. Endangeredspecies recovery: Finding the lessons, im-proving the process. Island Press, Wash-ington.

Bennett, A., G.N. Backhouse, and T.W. Clark,eds. 1995. People and nature conservation:

Function (1) Activities Examples Standards Questions to Ask

Intelligence Information relevant to decision Field work, social Reliable, Is intelligence being collected on allPlanning making is gathered, processed, and surveys, models, comprehensive relevant components of the problem

distributed. Planning and prediction pluralistic yet selective, and its context and from all affectedtake place. Goals are clarified. discussion creative, open people? To whom is intelligence

communicated?

Promotion Active advocacy debate about what Forums, pluralistic Rational, Which groups (official or unofficial)Open debate to do takes place. Different alterna- discussion, integrated, urge which courses of action? What

tives are promoted. Resources, data, recommendation comprehensive, values are promoted or dismissedand opinion are mobilized to secure effective by each alternative and what groupspreferred outcomes. Expectations are served by each?begin to crystallize and demands areclarified.

Prescription Policies or guidelines for action are Recovery plans Comprehensive, Will the new prescriptions harmonizeSetting rules formulated and enacted. Demands are and other written rational, open with rules by which the agenciesor guidelines crystallized. Facts and their contexts and verbal agree- already operate, or will they conflict?

must be examined, rules clarified, and ments for species/ What rules does the partnership set forimplications of the rules examined. habitat conserva- itself? What prescriptions are bindingRules must be specified, communication. (these are easier to determine if theyted, and approved by the partnership, are written down)?government officials, and othersconcerned, i.e. those with authority(full support of officials and peopleinvolved) and control (a means to en-courage compliance with rules).

Invocation General rules are put into practice. Programs are Timely (prompt), Is implementation consistent with pre-Implementation They begin to be applied in actual organized, teams open, dependable scription? Who should be held account-

cases. set up, and work in characterizing able to follow the rules? Who will(research, man- facts, rational, not enforce the rules?agement, public open to abuse byrelations, analysis, individual mem-etc.) begins in bers, effectivefield, lab, andoffice.


1. The terms intelligence, promotion, prescription, invocation, application, appraisal, and termination are described in detail by Lasswell (1971).

Perspectives in private lands and endan-gered species. Transactions of the RoyalZoological Society of New South Wales,Australia. 228 pp.

Brewer, G.D. and T.W. Clark. 1994. A policysciences perspective: Improving implemen-tation. Pp 392-416 in T.W. Clark, R.P.Reading, and A.L. Clarke, eds. Endangeredspecies recovery: Finding the lessons, im-proving the process. Island Press, Wash-ington.

Clark, T.W. 1997. Averting extinction: Recon-structing the endangered species recoveryprocess. Yale University Press, New Ha-ven.

Clark, T.W. and R. Westrum. 1987. Paradigmsand ferrets. Social Studies in Sciences 3:3-33.

Clark, T.W. and A.H. Harvey. 1988. Imple-menting endangered species recoverypolicy: Learning as we go? EndangeredSpecies UPDATE 5:35-42.

Clark, T.W. and J. Cragun. 1994. Organiza-

tion and management of endangered spe-cies programs. Pp 9-33 in M.L. Bowlesand C.J. Whelan, eds. Restoration of en-dangered species. Cambridge UniversityPress, New York.

Clark, T.W., R.P. Reading, and A.L. Clarke,eds. 1994. Endangered species recovery:Finding lessons, improving the process.Island Press, Washington. 450 pp.

Clark, T.W., G.N. Backhouse, and R.P. Read-ing. 1995. Prototyping in endangered spe-cies progams: The eastern barred bandicootexperience. Pp 50-63 in A. Bennett, G.N.Backhouse, and T.W. Clark, eds. People andnature conservation: Perspectives in privatelands and endangered species. Transactionsof Royal Zoological Society of New SouthWales, Australia.

Greater Yellowstone Coalition. 1995. Courtruling a victory for the threatened grizzlybear. Greater Yellowstone Report 11(4):14.

Hutcheson, M.S., D.J. Dupuy, B. Maryas, L.McGeorge, and R. Vanderslice. 1995. Rec-

onciling science and policy in setting fed-eral drinking water standards—four stateperspectives. Regulatory Toxicology andPharmacology 22:11-23.

Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. 1996.IGBC, Forestry Sciences Lab., Missoula,Montana. 8 pp.

Jentoft, S. and B. McCay. 1995. User partici-pation in fisheries management. MarinePolicy 19:227-246.

Lasswell, H.D. 1956. The decision process:Seven categories of functional analysis.Bureau of Government Research, Collegeof Business and Public Administration,University of Maryland, College Park. 23pp.

Lasswell, H.D. 1971. A pre-view of the policysciences. American Elsever, New York. 173pp.

Lasswell, H.D. and A. Kaplan. 1950. Powerand society. Yale University Press, NewHaven. 295 pp.

Mares, M.A. 1991. How scientists can impede

Function (1) Activities Examples Standards Questions to Ask

Application Differences or deviations from the Open, pluralistic Rational (conform- Will disputes be resolved by peopleDispute rules — based on peer review, forums, internal ing to common with authority and control? How doresolution authority, or other mechanisms — are and external interest prescrip- participants interact and affect one

resolved and implementation pro- means. The courts tions), uniform another as they resolve disputes?ceeds. Participants must interpret may figure prom- (independent ofrules (prescriptions), supplement them inently, but many special interests),if needed, and integrate old and new resolutions take effective (mustprescriptions into a working program. place formally or work in practice),There must be enforcement as well informally inside and constructiveas continuous review and approval or the program. (mobilizing con-disapproval of behavior. sensus and coop-

eration).

Appraisal Efforts are evaluated and continuous Formal and infor- Dependably Who is served by the program and whoReview assessment is made of success and mal, internal and realistic, on-going, is not? Is the program evaluated fully

failure, in terms of goal achievement external evalua- independent of and regularly? Who is responsible andand responsibility and accountability tions special interests, accountable for success or failure? Byfor what happened. This requires fully contextual whom are one's own activitiesgathering information on how well (taking many appraised?past decision functions worked, factors intoassessing the quality of performance, account, includingand disseminating findings and matters of ration-recommendations to appropriate ality, politics, andpeople and publics. morality)

Termination This is the cancellation of past pre- Stopping prac- Prompt, respectful Who should stop or change the rules?Termination scriptions and frameworks for their tices that are not and consistent Who is served, and who is harmed by

implementation and the compensa- working as well as with human dignity, ending a program?tion of people who are adversely those that have comprehensive,affected by termination. This function accomplished their balanced, andis most often overlooked or under- goals, moving to a ameliorativeappreciated. new beginning.


the development of their discipline: Ego-centrism, small pool size, and evolution ofsapismo. Pp 57-75 in M.A. Mares, and D.J.Schmidley, eds. Latin AmericanMammology: History, biodiversity, andconservation. Oklahoma Museum of Natu-ral History, Norman.

Mattson. D.J. and J.J. Craighead. 1994. TheYellowstone grizzly bear program: Uncer-tain information, uncertain policy. Pp 101-130 in T.W. Clark, R.P. Reading, and A.L.Clarke, eds. Endangered species recovery:Finding the lessons, improving the process.Island Press, Washington.

Minta, S.C. and P.M. Karieva. 1994. A con-servation science perspective: Conceptualand experimental improvements. Pp 275-304 in T.W. Clark, R.P. Reading, and A.L.Clarke, eds. Endangered species recovery:

Finding the lessons, improving the process.Island Press, Washington.

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. 1993.Conservation partnerships: A field guide topublic-private partnering for natural re-source conservation. National Fish andWildlife Foundation, Washington. 39 pp.

Reading, R.P. and B.J. Miller. 1994. Theblack-footed ferret recovery program: Un-masking professional and organizationalweaknesses. Pp 73-100 in T.W. Clark, R.P.Reading, and A.L. Clarke, eds. Endangeredspecies recovery: Finding the lessons, im-proving the process. Island Press, Wash-ington.

Roy, M. and H. Fischer. 1995. Bitterroot griz-zly recovery: A community-based alterna-tive. Endangered Species UPDATE12(12):1-4.

Willard, A.R. and C.H. Norchi. 1993. Thedecision seminar as an instrument of en-lightenment and power. Political Psychol-ogy 14:575-606.

Wondolleck, J.M., S.L. Yaffee, and J.E. Crow-foot. 1994. A conflict management perspec-tive: Applying the principles of alternativedispute resolution. Pp 305-326 in T.W.Clark, R.P. Reading, and A.L. Clarke, eds.Endangered species recovery: Finding thelessons, improving the process. IslandPress, Washington.

Yaffee, S.L. 1982. Prohibitive policy: Imple-menting the federal Endangered SpeciesAct. MIT Press, Cambridge. 239 pp.

Yaffee, S.L. 1994. The wisdom of the spottedowl: Policy lessons for a new century. Is-land Press, Washington. 430 pp.

Northern spotted owl ( Strix occidentalis caurina ) by Jamesand Karen Hollingsworth, USFWS.


IntroductionEndangered species conservation iscrisis-oriented. Often, a field seasonthat is too short, an interagency con-flict threatens to stall efforts, or a pro-gram is held back by a puzzling tech-nical problem, an impending budget-ary shortfall, or a public outcry. Theseand many other problems must beovercome in recovery efforts. View-ing recovery as a series of interrelatedproblems that must be successfullyaddressed requires professionals andother people involved to be "problemoriented" in their outlook and actions.Because of the crisis atmosphere thataccompanies recovery efforts, a par-ticular kind of decision making inboth the field and office can occur thatis often not problem oriented. Deci-sion makers, for example, maychoose the one "conservation" alter-native that is most appealing or ex-pedient at the moment. This may bethe alternative that casts them in thebest possible light, produces the leastnumber of conflicts, or otherwise al-lows them to feel best about them-selves or their work (Ascher andHealy 1990).

Solving Problems in Endangered Species Conservation:An Introduction to Problem OrientationRichard L. WallaceEnvironmental Studies Program, Ursinus College, P.O. Box 1000, Collegeville, PA [email protected]


AbstractAddressing endangered species problems successfully is a complex task that involves knowledge ofthe problem itself and its context. Problem-solving decisions and on-the-ground management arecomplicated and affected by numerous considerations. We illustrate complexities of problem solv-ing in endangered species programs, using the Florida manatee recovery program as an example,and describe a practical approach for orienting to conservation problems that can help decisionmakers, other professionals, and interested people to better understand and develop recovery alter-natives that are in the best interests of endangered species conservation.

We call this sort of decision mak-ing "solution oriented." It occurswhen an individual or group is con-fronted with a problem and first de-cides which outcome is preferableand then makes a decision that willbest achieve their preferred outcome.Often this approach is based on a lim-ited view of the problem at hand. In-stead of being genuinely "problem ori-ented," the effort is focused and "solu-tion oriented," and decisions are madefor purposes other than efficient spe-cies recovery. In this paper, we exam-ine the problem oriented approach ingeneral terms, describe its features andbenefits, and illustrate its practical util-ity to endangered species conservation.

What are "problems?"There are many ways to define aproblem — all related to who devel-ops the definitions (Weiss 1989).Analysts, legislators, lobbyists, advo-cates, scientists, managers, and thegeneral public all may have differentviews of an endangered species prob-lem. In this article we focus mainlyon the behavior of federal and stateagency staff involved in species re-

covery, and especially those in posi-tions of decision-making authority.

Decision makers in endangeredspecies programs are no different thandecision makers elsewhere — theycommonly choose to pursue solutionsto problems that benefit them person-ally or professionally. As Janis andMann (1977:9) note, "self-approval isan essential requirement for being sat-isfied with a decision." However, thisis not always the best way to addressendangered species problems. By re-lying too strongly on personal fulfill-ment criteria, alternatives that betteraddress the recovery problem are of-ten overlooked or ignored. What is bestfor the decision maker is often not bestfor addressing the conservation prob-lem. Some decision makers fail to rec-ognize this point, and as a result deci-sion making is less effective than it oth-erwise could be. When this kind ofproblem includes decisions critical tothe conservation of endangered species,the difference can be substantial andhave significant long-term, and per-haps even catastrophic, effects on therecovery of the species.

Generally speaking, what is a prob-



lem? Problems result from the discrep-ancy between a desired outcome —what a decision maker wants to havehappen — and what actually occurs(Merton 1961; Kilmann and Mitroff1979; Dery 1984). For example, con-sider a federal or state agency that re-introduces an endangered species intocurrently unoccupied habitat to estab-lish a new and eventually viable popu-lation. Once the species is reintroducedinto the unoccupied habitat, however,it suffers nearly 100 percent mortalitydue to various factors. The discrepancybetween the desired outcome (estab-lishing a new viable population) andthe actual outcome (near 100% mor-tality of the introduced species) is theproblem. To address this problem, theagency's staff have a number of ap-proaches they can take. If they aresolution oriented, they may revert totheir original goal to reintroduce thespecies and choose a solution that ad-dresses it as quickly as possible, suchas attempting another reintroduction.Using a solution oriented frame ofreference to endangered species con-servation tends to recycle a miscon-ceived conservation problem overand over in ways that consistently fail.For example, this is what actuallyhappened in the endangered black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) casein Wyoming (Miller et al. 1996; Clark1997). If participants' desire to carryout reintroduction is strong enoughand they wish to save face, to not beconsidered a failure, or to accomplishan important scientific success, theymay collect selected data that indi-cates that the near 100 percent mor-tality rate was caused by factors thatare not likely to be repeated again,and thus rationalize attempting an-other reintroduction. The focus is ona single alternative, not on understand-ing the actual problem at hand, includ-ing the possibility that their own solu-tion-oriented approach may be a realproblem as well. This is being solu-tion oriented.

We believe that a better approachto conservation is to be problem ori-ented. We recommend adopting astrategy of understanding the prob-lem, including its context, rather thanfocusing on the most desirable tech-nical solution. This approach offersa range of practical alternatives foraddressing conservation problems inclearer and more realistic terms, andcan result in more effective decisionmaking for endangered species con-servation. It is also an approach inwhich action can take place despiteunderlying and potentially substantialscientific uncertainty.

In endangered species conserva-tion, science, management, andpolicy decision making is often dis-connected and in some cases evenpolarized. That is, different partici-pants are often responsible for eachof these three areas, and the strate-gies used to make decisions in eacharea are often different and in somecases may be in direct conflict withone another. For example, considera hypothetical endangered species.For our purposes, the problem at handis the species' decline. The species'needs include further research, man-agement actions to protect it and itshabitat, and policy decisions to pro-mote the continuation of its recoveryprogram. For this species at a givenpoint in time, a research decision maybe made on the basis of what data isneeded for its recovery, whereas amanagement decision might be madeon the basis of who will need to beconsulted before an action can betaken, and a policy decision such aswhich aspects of the program to cutor continue might be made on thebasis of how large a budget can real-istically be hoped for in the next fund-ing cycle. A specific outcome of eachof these three decisions might be nec-essary to further the recovery of thespecies, but there is often no commonbasis to tie these decisions together— no unifying, integrative problem

oriented approach to the species' re-covery. In fact, the research decisionmight be made on the basis of the in-terests and skills of the lead re-searcher. The management decisionmight be made on the basis of a deci-sion maker's desire to avoid consult-ing with a disliked person or agency,and the policy decision might bemade on the basis of how hard a de-cision maker is willing to battle su-periors for increased funding. In eachcase it is as likely, if not more likely,that a decision will be made on thebasis of a desired outcome such asavoiding a consultation with a dis-liked individual or a confrontationwith a superior. Decisions made onthis basis are solution oriented andrarely benefit species conservation.Unfortunately, the opportunity to begenuinely problem oriented may notexist or be possible in such settings.

The five tasks of problem orientationTo carry out sound integrated re-search, management, and policy andto avoid a solution oriented approach,Harold Lasswell (1971) proposed astrategy for problem solving that con-sists of five tasks: clarifying goals,describing trends, analyzing condi-tions, projecting developments, andinventing, evaluating, and selectingalternatives (Table 1). We recom-mend that this approach be used inendangered species conservation,though it is applicable to any kind ofproblem, conservation or otherwise.

The five tasks direct individualsto ask questions and seek out infor-mation in a fashion conducive tolearning as much as possible about aconservation problem before makinga decision to address it. This ap-proach has been described and usedon large carnivore conservation in thenorthern Rocky Mountains of theUnited States and Canada (Clark etal. 1996), in appraising threatenedspecies conservation in Australia(Clark 1996), and in selected endan-


gered species cases in the UnitedStates (e.g., Clark 1997). Most re-covery efforts attend to several ofthese five tasks in varying degreesand with varying levels of success.We describe each of the tasks briefly.

Clarifying goals"The goal-clarifying task is indicatedby the blunt question, 'What ought Ito prefer?'" (Lasswell 1971:40). Be-cause the endangered species prob-lem occurs in a context (e.g., thestructure of a recovery program or thedynamics of interagency or interof-fice relations), it is vital to alwaysfocus on both the problem and itscontext. This goal question is bestanswered for a given endangered spe-cies problem after considering theproblem's context or social process(Clark and Wallace 1998). Consid-ering the social process means ana-lyzing a particular problem or situa-tion using several indicators. Theseinclude: (1) the actual or desired par-ticipants involved, (2) their variousperspectives on the issue, (3) in whatsituations they interact or might in-teract, (4) what values (or assets orresources) they use in their efforts toachieve their goals, (5) what actionsor strategies they use to achieve theirgoals, (6) what outcomes they will ormight achieve, and (7) what the realand potential effects of their actionsare (Clark and Wallace 1998 afterLasswell 1971; Willard and Norchi1993). Once these factors have beenconsidered, it becomes much easierto determine the costs and benefits ofdesired goals while aiming to reduceuncertainty and the potential to intro-duce further problems into the deci-sion making process. Social processmapping should continue over the lifeof the recovery effort.

Describing (historical) trendsDescribing trends means finding outhow the species and its habitat aredoing and also which participants and

perspectives in the species conserva-tion effort have met or fallen short ofgoals in the actions they have taken(Lasswell and McDougal 1992)."The immediate aim is to suggest thatmuch can be accomplished in a prob-lem-solving strategy that gives fullweight to asking and answering thequestions, 'Where are we? How farhave we come in achieving what weare aiming at? Where are the posi-tive and negative instances of successor failure?'" (Lasswell 1971:48).Answering these questions furtherclarifies the reasons that actions aretaken and that certain outcomes re-sult. However, it is important to doso for each technical component aswell as each participant in the recov-ery effort. It is also important to un-derstand how the other facets of thesocial process outlined above pertainto how well the overall program ismeeting goals.

Analyzing conditionsFor each of the trends identified aboutthe species and its habitat and its hu-man context there is a set of condi-tions influencing it. In order to un-derstand trends in the species' num-bers or habitat quality or whether par-ticipants have met or fallen short ofgoals it is necessary to analyze thefactors that account for those trends.

This task focuses on scientific in-quiry, not only of endangered speciesbiology, but also of human and orga-nizational behavior and policy pref-erences in the social process.

Making projectionsThe fourth task involves making pro-jections about what will likely hap-pen given past trends and conditions.In part, this task demands that we sus-pend our beliefs and conventionalviews of what actions participantsmight take in the future. Instead it asksthat we take a current situation andproject it, free of the effects of possiblefuture actions, to its likely outcome.For example, if current legislation se-verely reduces an agency budget forspecies recovery, the projected outcomeis likely to be bleak. This example il-lustrates simply that by projecting cur-rent circumstances into future out-comes, we gain better insight into howthose circumstances will affect the con-servation problems at hand. Such pro-jections also indicate where interven-tions or other alternatives are neededto address the problem and produceacceptable future outcomes. In ourbudget example, given that the spe-cies will decline without adequatefunds, two alternatives include in-creasing the budget of the hamstrungagency or transferring authority for

Table 1. One of several different ways to use problem orientation to addressproblems (after Brunner, personal communication; Clark 1997).

Problem Oriented Exercise 1. Goals. What outcomes do we prefer (what are our goals)? What are the

problems with respect to these goals?

2. Alternatives. What alternatives are available to the participants and others tosolve the problems?

3. Evaluation of alternatives. Would each contribute toward solution of theproblems?

a. Trends: did it work or not work when tried in the past on relevant cases?b. Conditions: Why, or under what conditions, does it work or not work?c. Projections: would it work satisfactorily under these conditions?

Repeat the procedure to refine and supplement considerations of goals, alternatives, and evaluation so far.


species recovery to an agency withbetter funding. The other part ofmaking projections is to try to fore-see the consequences of choosingcertain alternatives.

Inventing, evaluating, andselecting alternativesThis task calls for creating, review-ing, and choosing objectives andstrategies for achieving them. Inother words, what approaches do weuse to realize the goals we set for en-dangered species conservation?What are the alternatives we will un-dertake to change conditions so thatfuture trends will be favorable for thespecies and the human system in-volved? On the basis of all that wehave learned about a given problemin the four previous tasks, what deci-sions should we make to reach ourpreferred goal?

In endangered species conserva-tion these five tasks must be carried outto some extent over and over again overthe lifetime of the program. For ex-ample, a detailed look at historicaltrends might force some endangeredspecies program participants to returnto and reformulate their goals. At ev-ery point in carrying out the five prob-lem orientation tasks, problem solversmay be required to return to earliertasks. The following case illustrates theimportance of problem orientation inendangered species decision making.

Mass mortality, contingencyplanning, and the FloridamanateeEarly in 1982, 39 Florida manatees(Trichechus manatus latirostris) dieddue to what is believed to have beenthe effects of a toxin caused by a di-noflagellate commonly associatedwith red tide in Florida (O'Shea et al.1991). Although it was not the firsttime red tide was suspected as a causeof manatee mortality (Layne 1965),it was the first such die-off to occurafter the development of a formal

Florida manatee recovery programunder the Endangered Species Act.

The Florida manatee was listedas endangered under the EndangeredSpecies Act upon its passage in 1973,and is also protected under the Ma-rine Mammal Protection Act of 1972.The first recovery plan for the spe-cies was adopted in 1980 along witha comprehensive work plan to coor-dinate interagency implementation ofthe recovery plan (U.S. Fish andWildlife Service 1980; Rose et al.1981). The original plans did notspecify measures to be taken in prepa-ration for a die-off. Following the1982 die-off, calls were made for theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)and the Florida Department of Natu-ral Resources (FDNR, now theFlorida Department of Environmen-tal Protection [FDEP]) to develop acontingency plan to address prepara-tions for and actions necessary to re-spond to another die off. At the time,FWS and FDNR represented the leadfederal and state research and man-agement authorities in the manateerecovery program.

In 1988 FWS convened a newFlorida manatee recovery team andcharged it with revising the recoveryplan, which it did in 1989 (FWS1989). By 1988, no contingency planhad been developed. As a result, therecovery team considered developinga contingency plan for responding tofuture die-offs to be among the high-est priorities in manatee recovery.Subsequently, the revised recoveryplan specified that FWS and FDNRshould complete the contingency planby January of 1990. When that datepassed, researchers involved in the1982 event reiterated the need for acontingency plan (O'Shea et al. 1991).

According to FWS staff, after therelease of the revised recovery plan,FDNR staff were given initial respon-sibility for drafting the contingencyplan. Not having prepared anythingby 1992, they asked FWS to prepare

it. FWS agreed, but got no fartherthan preparing an outline, which wassubsequently shelved when other is-sues that FWS considered more press-ing took precedence. As a result,when another red tide-related die-offoccurred in 1996, there was no con-tingency plan, and the response, interms of coordination and cooperationamong key participants, was chaotic.

The 1996 die-off lasted approxi-mately two months, from early Marchinto May, and resulted in the deathsof 149 manatees (Florida Marine Re-search Institute 1996; Marine Mam-mal Commission 1998). Early in thedie-off, multiple manatee carcasseswere being recovered every day, cre-ating an unprecedented workload foran extraordinarily experienced teamof scientists schooled in manatee car-cass salvage, pathology and epidemi-ology, contaminants, and other areasnecessary to respond to a die-off. Theresponse illustrated both the excep-tional technical capabilities of partici-pants in the manatee recovery pro-gram and the inability of those par-ticipants to address a die-off of suchmagnitude unprepared. Problems thatmay have been minor during times oflow manatee mortality were substan-tially magnified by the frenzied atmo-sphere of the die-off response. Issuesconcerning personality conflicts, thechain of command, communicationamong participants (particularly be-tween agencies) and with the media,coordination of response tasks, tak-ing and handling of tissue samples,and distribution of data, among oth-ers, became major stumbling blocksto a smooth response.

Virtually all of the problems ex-perienced by participants in the re-sponse were attributable either di-rectly or indirectly to the lack of acontingency plan (Marine MammalCommission 1997). This was notedby many participants in the response,as well as independent reviewers(Marine Mammal Commission 1996,


1997; Work 1996). By April 1997,FWS answered its critics by complet-ing a contingency plan (FWS 1997).This plan, however, did not suffi-ciently address FDEP's involvementor the steps necessary to convene andcoordinate an interagency team torespond to future die-offs. As a re-sult, FDEP contracted to have its owncontingency plan developed by theend of the year (Geraci andLounsbery 1997). Soon after, FDEPsuggested to FWS that it combine thetwo plans, and FWS agreed to do so(FDEP 1997; FWS 1998).

Problem orientation in theFlorida manatee caseMass mortality of manatees is a cri-sis which triggers the need to mobi-lize and organize in a very short pe-riod of time (ranging from hours todays) numerous experts located indifferent cities, responsible for differ-ent tasks, and answerable to differ-ent mandates, superiors, and budget-ary constraints. The initial and over-riding goal of a manatee die-off re-sponse is to efficiently and effectivelycoordinate and carry out the response,including determining the cause anddoing whatever is possible to mitigateit. In 1996 the discrepancy betweenthat goal and what actually occurredcreated the problem — the responsewas poorly coordinated and, as a re-sult, aspects of it were poorly carriedout. Therefore, participants and ob-servers noted trends and conditions:a technically proficient but organiza-tionally poor response to the 1996die-off. In response to these trendsand conditions, participants and ob-servers projected possible scenariosbased on whether the goal (an effi-cient and effectively implementedresponse) would be met in the future.That is, what would happen in theevent of another die-off if there (1)still was no contingency plan, or (2)was a comprehensive contingencyplan in place. Alternatives flow logi-

cally from these projections. In thiscase, the one obvious alternative tobe pursued was to ensure that a con-tingency plan was produced. Every-one involved in the die-off responserecognized this, and many pressuredFWS to undertake the job in a timelyfashion, which it did. FDEP, inde-pendent of FWS, then developed itsown plan to address deficiencies inthe FWS plan.

Obviously, neither FWS norFDEP completed a contingency planprior to the 1996 die-off. It took acrisis, and its associated wake-up call,to provoke them into action. Afterthe 1982 manatee die-off, analysis ofthe trends and conditions surround-ing the die-off and the response to itby recovery program participants andobservers led to the formation of agoal. That goal was to develop a con-tingency plan, and it was even for-malized in the Florida manatee recov-ery plan. The fact that it did not hap-pen until after a second, more severedie-off occurred illustrates how dif-ficult it can be to successfully performthe five tasks of problem orientationgiven real contexts, even when ad-dressing a well-defined problem withpotentially catastrophic results.

As in many other endangeredspecies programs, in the manatee re-covery program FWS and FDEP areconstantly challenged to assess trendsand conditions, set goals, make pro-jections, and evaluate alternatives toaddress numerous problems. TheFlorida manatee recovery program iscomplex - there are more than 20 stateand federal agencies and non-govern-mental organizations given formalresponsibility for implementing re-covery tasks in the most recent recov-ery plan revision (FWS 1996). Ad-ditionally, manatees' principal threatsinclude collisions with motor boats(of which there are more than 750,000registered in Florida) and loss or deg-radation of their habitat due to coastaldevelopment (of which there is a great

deal in Florida). The recoveryprogram's bureaucratic complexitycombined with the exacting demandsof mitigating manatee mortality andhabitat loss leads to a "brush fire"mentality in which long-range planningin the regulatory agencies takes a backseat to a crisis-a-day atmosphere.

Excessive workload is not an ex-cuse for the agencies' failure to de-velop a contingency plan prior to the1996 die-off. Rather, it is an illustra-tion of the difficulties encountered inproblem orientation. For any givenproblem, it is necessary to undertakethe five problem orientation tasks.When confronted with multiple prob-lems every day in which trends, con-ditions, goals, projections, and alter-natives must be weighed, it can bedifficult to keep up with the intellec-tual and practical demands. It is inthese instances when practitionersmay become "solution oriented" andskip certain tasks, particularly mak-ing projections and considering alter-natives, to make decisions based onpersonal interest.

In the case of the manatee die-off contingency plan, the decisionnot to prepare such a plan even af-ter it was mandated in the 1989 re-covery plan was not malicious.Rather, it was the result of a solutionorientation in which it was easier tobypass the problem orientation tasksthan to undertake them in a hypotheti-cal situation (the possible occurrenceof another manatee die-off). It canbe very difficult to project potentialconsequences of a given decision.However, following the 1982 die-off,by considering the complexities ofdie-off response, the possibility ofcontending with a much larger die-off in the future, and the many peopleand actions that would need to be co-ordinated, the organizational short-comings of the 1996 die-off couldhave been projected. Had FWS stafftaken a little time to conduct the prob-lem orientation tasks, they might


have recognized the benefits of de-veloping a contingency plan andtaken action sooner.

ConclusionsIn endangered species conservation,it is critically important to address eachof the five problem orientation tasks inevery practicable situation. The ben-efit of problem orientation, regardlessof who undertakes it, is to better un-derstand the problem or decision andits context. This may sound like a callfor a lot of time-consuming academiceffort for a crisis-oriented field in whichtime is always at a premium. How-ever, the problem orientation tasks canbe conducted quickly; they do not haveto be time-consuming, merely an hon-est attempt to place in context facts,options, and potential consequences ofa decision. It makes sense to gain asbroad an understanding as possible ofthe context of a problem before ad-dressing it. Problem orientation helpsthis process, and in so doing improvesthe scope of knowledge available to thedecision maker, and thus clarifieswhich alternatives will best achieve thegoals of conservation. We have illus-trated how problem orientation can beused to improve decision making andactions for endangered species conser-vation. Using the approach we proposewill help anyone interested in practicalendangered species conservation togain a better understanding of the is-sues they wish to address.

AcknowledgmentsThis work was supported by the Mor-ris K. Udall Foundation, Teresa andH. John Heinz III Foundation, Inter-national Fund for Animal Welfare,the Richard Lounsbery Foundation,Save the Manatee Club, YaleUniversity's School of Forestry andEnvironmental Studies, and grants tothe Northern Rockies ConservationCooperative. The authors are grate-ful to Galen B. Rathbun for his com-ments on the manuscript.

Literature citedAscher, W. and R. Healy. 1990. Natural re-

source policymaking in developing coun-tries. Duke University Press, Durham,North Carolina.

Clark, T.W. 1996. Appraising threatened spe-cies recovery efforts: Practical recommen-dations. Pp. 1-22 in Back from the brink:Refining the threatened species recoveryprocess. Australian Nature ConservationAgency in Transactions of the Royal Zoo-logical Society of New South Wales, Aus-tralia.

Clark, T.W. 1997. Averting extinction: Recon-structing endangered species recovery. YaleUniversity Press, New Haven.

Clark, T.W., A.P. Curlee, and R.P. Reading.1996. Crafting effective solutions to thelarge carnivore conservation problem. Con-servation Biology 10:1036-1045.

Clark, T.W. and R.D. Brunner. 1996. Makingpartnerships work: Introduction to decisionprocess. Endangered Species UPDATE13(9):1-5.

Clark, T.W. and R.L. Wallace. 1998. Under-standing the human factor in endangeredspecies recovery: An introduction to humansocial process. Endangered Species UP-DATE 15(1):2-9.

Dery, D. 1984. Problem definition in policyanalysis. University Press of Kansas,Lawrence, Kansas.

Florida Department of Environmental Protec-tion. 1997. Letter from Kenneth D. Haddad,Chief, Florida Marine Research Institute,to Mr. Sam Hamilton, Southeast RegionalDirector, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,December 26, 1997.

Florida Marine Research Institute. 1996. Adraft summary of selected FMRI activitiesduring the 1996 manatee epizootic. FloridaMarine Research Institute, Florida Depart-ment of Environmental Protection, St. Pe-tersburg.

Geraci, J. and V. Lounsbery. 1997. Draft con-tingency plan for manatee die-offs. FloridaDepartment of Environmental Protection,Tallahassee, Florida.

Janis, I.L. and L. Mann. 1977. Decision mak-ing: A psychological analysis of conflict,choice, and commitment. The Free Press,New York.

Kilmann, R.H. and I.I. Mitroff. 1979. Prob-lem defining and the consulting/interven-tion process. California Management Re-view 21(3):26-33

Lasswell, H.D. 1971. A pre-view of the policysciences. American Elsevier PublishingCompany, New York.

Lasswell, H.D. and M.S. McDougal. 1992.Jurisprudence for a free society. KluwerLaw International, The Hague, Nether-lands.

Layne, J.N. 1965. Observations of marinemammals in Florida waters. Bulletin of theFlorida State Museum 9:131-181.

Marine Mammal Commission. 1996. Letterfrom John R. Twiss, Jr., Executive Direc-tor, to The Honorable John G. Rogers, Act-ing Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-vice, December 31, 1996.

Marine Mammal Commission. 1997. Annualreport to Congress, 1996. Marine MammalCommission, Bethesda, Maryland.

Marine Mammal Commission. 1998. Annualreport to Congress, 1997. Marine MammalCommission, Bethesda, Maryland.

Merton, R.K. 1961. Social problems and so-ciological theory. In R.K. Merton and R.A.Nisbet, eds. Contemporary social problems.Harcourt, Brace, & World, New York.

Miller, B.J., R.P. Reading, and S.C. Forrest.1996. Prairie night: Black-footed ferrets andthe recovery of endangered species.Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington,D.C.

O'Shea, T.J., G.B. Rathbun, R.K. Bonde, C.D.Buergelt, and D.K. Odell. 1991. An epi-zootic of Florida manatees associated witha dinoflagellate bloom. Marine MammalScience 7(2):165-179.

Rose, P., J. Baker, and D. Peterson. 1981.Comprehensive work plan for the West In-dian manatee. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-vice, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. WestIndian manatee recovery plan. U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Floridamanatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris)recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-vice, Atlanta, Georgia.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Floridamanatee recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wild-life Service, Atlanta, Georgia.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Con-tingency plan for catastrophic manatee res-cue and mortality events. U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Letterfrom Sam D. Hamilton, Regional Director,to Mr. Kenneth D. Haddad, Chief, FloridaMarine Research Institute, January 23,1998.

Weiss, J.A. 1989. The powers of problem defi-nition: The case of government paperwork.Policy Sciences 22:97-121.

Willard, A.R. and C.H. Norchi. 1993. Thedecision seminar as an instrument of powerand enlightenment. Political Psychology14(4):575-606.

Work, T.M. 1996. Evaluation report on the1996 Florida manatee die-off. NationalWildlife Health Center, National Biologi-cal Service, Honolulu.


IntroductionMost biologists have been trained tounderstand the species loss problemand the recovery solution primarily intechnical terms. The importance of thehuman factor can be overlooked, ig-nored, or viewed as a constraint to thecentral biological task of species recov-ery. From this standpoint human in-teractions are often labeled as "politics"and dismissed as outside of recoveryprofessionals' immediate concerns (seeKellert 1985). We all know thatpeople's interactions affect the environ-ment; some interactions may lead toprotection of biodiversity and somemay lead to species endangerment, de-pending on the type and its outcomes.Understanding human social process inpractical terms is important becauseendangered species will be saved onlyif social process can be made to effec-tively support that goal. Social process"mapping" describes the interactionamong people in the context of a re-covery challenge, for example, be-

Understanding the Human Factor in Endangered SpeciesRecovery: An Introduction to Human Social ProcessTim W. ClarkYale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 301 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511 and NorthernRockies Conservation Cooperative, Box 2705, Jackson, WY [email protected]

Richard L. WallaceEnvironmental Studies Program, Ursinus College, P.O. Box 1000, Collegeville, PA [email protected]

AbstractBiologists often take a technical biological view of species recovery, overlooking the necessity ofattending to the human factor. The Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi) and Yellowstonegrizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) cases illustrate negative consequences to a recovery programwhen social process is overlooked, under-attended to, or ignored. Understanding human socialprocess in practical terms is essential as species will be recovered only if human social process canbe made to effectively support restoration. A practical model of social process (i.e. participants,their perspectives, situations, values, strategies, outcomes, and effects) is described and a methodto realistically "map" the social process is introduced. Seven kinds of public participation in spe-cies recovery are described. It is recommended that greater attention be given to social processdimensions of species recovery at the same time that biological issues are addressed and the publicbe involved actively in support of species conservation.

tween managers and biologist, betweennon-governmental organizations andgovernment agencies, or between con-servationists and the public. Social pro-cess mapping also describes the inter-action between people and the problemitself, for example, the effect that re-covery actions such as habitat protec-tion have on people's lives and values.These two types of social interactionsare both the ultimate cause of the en-dangered species crisis and the site ofits ultimate solution. Endangered spe-cies recovery professionals must under-stand social process in species recov-ery work and learn to participate in itproductively if they want to be maxi-mally effective. This article examineshuman social process in general terms,offers an approach to understanding it,and surveys the kinds of social partici-pation possible in recovery.

Endangered species caseexamplesTwo cases illustrate the importance

of mapping, understanding, and par-ticipating in social process during therecovery process. Ignoring the socialdimensions of management can resultin overlooking allies and support forconservation, it can lead to intractablenegative public perceptions, and itcan draw down trust in governmentofficials and professional biologists.In some cases, under-appreciating andnot working with social process canlead to failure to conserve species!

Hawaiian monk seals in HawaiiIn 1994 National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS) biologists attemptedto solve a long-standing problem fac-ing Hawaiian monk seals (Monachusschauinslandi) in the northwest Ha-waiian Islands. The seals, number-ing fewer than 1,500 and listed asendangered under the federal Endan-gered Species Act (ESA), sufferedfrom an aberrant behavior displayedby selected mature males. This be-havior, called "mobbing," occurs



when a male monk seal attacks a fe-male in an attempt to mate, injuringor even killing her. In the summer of1994 NMFS biologists moved 21male monk seals known to exhibitmobbing behavior from Laysan Is-land in the northwest Hawaiian Is-lands to areas throughout the mainHawaiian Islands, where there wereno known resident monk seals andthus where threats to females wouldbe minimized. NMFS's view of therelocation was specific: it was amonk seal protection measure, anaction that needed to be taken in or-der to safeguard the health and well-being of female seals crucial to thebreeding success of the population.The relocation was technically suc-cessful. The animals were moved andthe integrity of the original popula-tions was safeguarded.

NMFS perceived the relocationas a management action that hadphysical affects limited to the sealsthemselves. When NMFS decided torelocate the seals, it had a small win-dow of opportunity to implement thedecision because of the limited avail-ability of ships and equipment neededto capture, relocation, and release ofthe seals. NMFS considered contact-ing the fishing industry, specificallythe Western Pacific Fishery Manage-ment Council (WPFMC), before cap-turing and releasing the seals to ex-plain the plan. However, doing sowould have created the need for po-tentially lengthy discussions betweenthe agencies concerning the possibleimpacts on fishermen of the seal re-location. Beginning such discussionsso close to the time of the proposedseal relocation would likely havecaused NMFS to miss its window ofopportunity to move the seals. There-fore, NMFS chose not to alert the coun-cil or local fishermen on the main Ha-waiian Islands about its intentions.

Once the seals were moved,NMFS issued a press release explain-ing what it had done and why. This

upset local fishermen and particularlythe WPFMC, NMFS's strongest andmost influential constituent in Ha-waii. Fishermen perceived the move-ment of seals to be a threat to theiroperations in the main Hawaiian Is-lands. NMFS began to field com-plaints from fishermen that monkseals were taking their catch. Somefishermen even accused NMFS ofcovertly attempting to establish apopulation of monk seals in the mainHawaiian island in order to justify regu-latory limits on fishing in areas wherethere had previously been no seals andtherefore no conflicts with fisheries.NMFS underestimated the level of frus-tration and the strength of public reac-tion. As a result, the agency had toundertake damage control, includingpacifying angry fishermen and bring-ing in high level officials to address theissues before the WPFMC.

For an agency in charge of over-seeing the nation's fisheries, this epi-sode was unfortunate. While it pro-tected monk seals, it reflected a lowerpriority for the agency's main con-stituency, the fishing industry, thuscreating conflict for the agency's lo-cal and regional leadership. Althoughconflicts between marine mammalsand fisheries occur frequently in themanagement of both, rarely are ma-rine mammal interests put beforethose of fisheries when a managementaction affects both, especially whenthe fishing interests are consideredbefore the action is taken.

Grizzly bears in the Yellowstone regionIn 1996, grizzly bear #209 was inten-tionally trapped in Grand Teton Na-tional Park (GTNP), Wyoming, andlater killed under the auspices of theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS, chief administrator ofESA) in cooperation with the Na-tional Park Service, the Forest Service(FS), and the Wyoming Game and FishDepartment (WGFD)(Cromley 2000).The grizzly bear (Ursus arctos

horribilis) is a threatened species un-der the ESA and afforded special pro-tection. Grizzly bears, which num-ber about 300 in the Yellowstone re-gion, are large predators that can anddo kill livestock. Because GTNP per-mits livestock grazing, this bringsbears into direct conflict with rancherspecial interests in the Park. Theagencies try to accommodate bothbears and cattle, but there are situa-tions where bears are trapped and re-located (or in this case killed) to pro-tect private cattle on public lands.Bear #209 was previously implicatedin killing cattle inside GTNP and out-side the park on a nearby FS allot-ment. When #209 moved back intoGTNP near cattle grazing under aspecial grazing arrangement and intoa management zone which permittedkilling the bear, agency officials de-cided to act. The decision was influ-enced by the agencies' aggregate viewthat bears are recovered in theYellowstone region, or very nearly so,and that the loss of one or a few bearswould not jeopardize the population'sstatus and might diffuse rancher op-position to bears.

Many people were upset that athreatened species was killed in anational park set aside to conservewildlife to aid ranchers who weregrazing cattle under a special permit,the legality of which was openly be-ing questioned at the time. One long-time area resident organized a peti-tion — signed by over 800 peoplewithin a few days — and gave it toofficials in GTNP, the FS, and theSecretary of Interior to protest thekilling. Newspapers printed letterscriticizing the killing and covered theissue prominently. Local, regional,and national conservation groupswere taken aback by the incident andmade their disapproval widelyknown. Among the concerns ex-pressed were questions about thecompetence and trustworthiness ofthe agencies, government employees,


and their bear management policy.This episode added to the grow-

ing public distrust of officials and thesense that public lands and wildlifeare being chronically mismanaged.Other events in preceding years fu-eled this public view (e.g., Primm1994), including a court ruling theyear before that showed the USFWSgrizzly bear recovery plan was flawedand needed to be revamped. Thejudge declared that the USFWS andothers "have acted in a manner thatis arbitrary and capricious and con-trary to law by issuing a RecoveryPlan that fails to establish objective,measurable criteria in a determination. . . that the grizzly bear be removedfrom the threatened species list"(Thuermer 1995a:13A, 1995b).

In response to the public outcryover the #209 incident, officials of-fered more complete explanations.Officials of the WGFD, which admin-istered the lethal injection, said it wasdone because the bear "would notstop eating cows grazing in the Park"(Thuermer 1996a:14A). Other offi-cials defended their actions by say-ing that #209 was a known cattlekiller on an adjacent FS grazing lease(where bears were nonetheless pro-tected) and that cattle grazing waslegal in this national park. GTNPSuperintendent noted he allowedgrazing because ranching helps keepopen space which supports the tour-ist-based economy of Jackson Hole(Thuermer 1996b). These explana-tions did not satisfy protesters, butafter some weeks the issue seemed todie down in the press. However, itpersists in many people's minds.

Like the monk seal case, this wasanother distressing episode for fed-eral (and state) agencies in charge ofoverseeing endangered species resto-ration. While the agencies in theYellowstone region generally protectgrizzly bears and work for their re-covery, this incident reflected a lowerpriority for bears than for the inter-

ests of cattle ranchers. This episodecreated a conflict that has yet to besatisfactorily resolved in somepeople's minds. These two casesshow that social process is a key vari-able in endangered species recovery.

A practical model of social processSocial process is the interaction ofpeople as they influence the actions,plans, or policies of other people,even if they are unaware of eachother. It is the process by which wecreate and sustain the human commu-nity. In trying to understand socialprocess in general or in endangeredspecies cases, most people merelyimpose conventional classificationsystems extrapolated from everydaylife. The terms used in these schemesand the scope permitted by them areoften wanting in analytic strength andinsight. For example, how manytimes have you heard someone useterms like "politics" or "personality"to "explain" away troublesome socialdynamics and outcomes?

A much more useful model ofsocial process has been devised basedon functional anthropology and thepolicy sciences that enhance under-standing of complex policy problems(Lasswell and Kaplan 1950). Themodel focuses on participants withperspectives interacting in particularsituations. Drawing on whateverbase (power) values they have, theyadopt strategies to pursue particularvalue outcomes, which have effectson future interactions (Table 1).These terms are described in detail intheoretical and applied works byLasswell and Kaplan (1950) andLasswell (1971) and discussed in thecontext of conservation biology byClark (1997a) and others. Anotherway to highlight these categories isto ask seven questions: Who partici-pates in the recovery process? Withwhat perspectives? In which situa-tions? Using which power bases?Manipulating them in which strate-

gies? With what outcomes? And withwhat longer effects?

This model is well documentedin the social sciences literature andhas been widely used internationally.It is applicable to any context inwhich people interact (Lasswell andMcDougal 1992). Indeed, it func-tions as more than a model. Its inte-grated concepts constitute a "stableframe of reference" that allows users,both participants and analysts, to looknot just at the particulars of recoveryefforts, but, more importantly, at thefunctional relationships that propelsthem and all human activity. Thismodel and mapping method is notsimply a cookbook approach to add-ing social science data to biologicaldata in analyzing endangered speciesproblems or in finding solutions tothem. The power of this analytical,highly flexible framework is its si-multaneous comprehensiveness andselectivity in mapping human dynam-ics and their implications. It offersinsights into social process simply notavailable from using conventionalviews and terms. By using this modeland method, data, both hard and soft,that might otherwise be overlookedor misconstrued can be appreciatedand incorporated more fully and ac-curately into a view of any endan-gered species conservation task.

In all interactions, people tend toact in ways they perceive will leavethem better off than if they had com-pleted them differently. Because ofthe subjective character of percep-tions, people perceive themselves,their environments, other partici-pants, and, in this case, endangeredspecies recovery efforts differently.The differences among people — inidentities, expectations, demands,values, strategies, and other variables— may be vast and irreconcilable.No amount of "cold, hard fact," col-lected by "objective, neutral" scien-tists and "equally accessible" to allparticipants, and no amount of "edu-


cation" and "exchange of ideas" cancompletely eradicate the inherent dif-ferences among people. However,this fact does not disaffirm our com-mon interests or obviate the need tostrive for common goals. The socialprocess model provides (1) a practi-

cal method of accounting for thesemyriad differences, (2) a vehicle forexplaining their dynamics, and (3)insights for preventing or correctingweaknesses to clarify and securecommon interests. This kind of so-cial process knowledge and skill would

greatly improve the effective practiceof endangered species professionals.

One of the central concepts in thesocial process model is the interplayof human values. People's valuesunderlie their perspectives on theworld. They are the medium of ex-change in all human interactions.Values constitute the goals that peoplestrive for, an education, skill in per-forming their jobs, good health, goodgovernment, healthy environments,security, among many others. Butvalues also constitute the assets orresources on which people draw toachieve these goals. Wealth is used,for instance, to buy the necessariesof life, although it may also be usedto "buy" power. People use the re-spect of their peers or the power oftheir status to build support for acause they believe is right. Or theydraw on the well-being they feel fromknowing that other life forms are se-cure and healthy to build strong com-munities or political alliances. Val-ues are also manifest in the outcomesof social interactions, not only in theachievement of individual goals, butalso in changes in institutional prac-tices. For instance, a new law rollingback environmental protection mayadvance the power or wealth of a spe-cial interest group while diminishingpublic health. Similarly, the decisionsto translocate monk seals or kill griz-zly bears are value outcomes that re-flect institutional practices.

Policy scientists have classed allhuman values — everything thatpeople in all cultures in all times atall ages at all levels have strived for— into eight functional categories:power, wealth, enlightenment, well-being, affection, skill, respect, andrectitude (Lasswell and Kaplan1950). These are functional catego-ries in that these terms can be used todescribe how people's actions actu-ally function in society despite howthey may be conventionally de-scribed, understood, or promoted by

Table 1. Some questions to ask in order to map the social process of a specificendangered species recovery problem (modified from Lasswell 1971; Willardand Norchi 1993).

1. Participants. Who is participating? Identify both individuals and groups.Who would you like to see participate? Who is demanding to participate?

2. Perspectives. What are the perspectives of those who are participating?Of those you would like to see participate? Of those making demands toparticipate? What would you like their perspectives to be? Perspectivesinclude:A. Demands, or what participants or potential participants want, in terms

of values and organization.B. Expectations, or the matter-of-fact assumptions of participants about

past and future.C. Identifications, or on whose behalf are demands made?

3. Situations. In what situation do participants interact? In what situationswould like to see them participate?

4. Base Values. What assets or resources do participants use in their effortsto achieve their goals? All values, including authority, can be used asbases of power. What assets or resources would you like to see partici-pants use to achieve their goals?

A. Power is to make and carry out decisions.B. Enlightenment is to have knowledge.C. Wealth is to have money or its equivalent.D. Well-being is to have health, physical and psychic.E. Skill is to have special abilities.F. Affection is to have family, friends, and warm community relation-

ships.G. Respect is to show and receive deference.H. Rectitude is to have ethical standards.

5. Strategies. What strategies do participants employ in their efforts toachieve their goals? Strategies can be considered in terms of diplomatic,ideological, economic, and military instruments. What strategies wouldyou like to see used by participants in pursuit of their goals?

6. Outcomes. What outcomes are achieved in the ongoing, continuous flowof interaction among participants? Outcomes can be considered in termsof changes in the distribution of values. Who is indulged in terms of whichvalues? Who is deprived in terms of which values? Outcomes also refer tothe ways in which values are shaped and shared. The particular ways inwhich values are shaped and shared are called practices or institutions.How are practices changing? How would you like to see practiceschange? What is your preferred distribution of values?

7. Effects. What are the new value/institutions, if any? Are new practices putinto place? Are old practices maintained? What forces promote newpractices? What forces restrict new practices?


participants or observers. For in-stance, the Hawaiian monk seal andYellowstone grizzly bear cases couldbe analyzed functionally in terms ofthese values. All eight values wereinvolved in the social transactions thattook place. How were these values"traded," and how did they influenceeach other in the social transactionsthat took place? Who was indulgedand who was deprived in value terms?In other words, how were valuesshaped and shared through these tworecovery efforts? It is beyond thespace here to answer these questions.But, both cases involved all eight val-ues interacting in a complex manner.Clearly power figured into both cases,as did respect, wealth, and rectitude.A value analysis of these two casesbased on empirical study can provideinsight and improved understandingof the actual social dynamics at play.An ongoing mapping of the socialprocess of any recovery program canreveal trends and why trends are tak-ing place that may not be evident oth-erwise. In turn, future developmentsmight be anticipated and any foresee-able problems averted. This knowl-edge about value trends, conditions,and projections can be used to man-age social process and all the values,especially power, respect, wealth,skill, rectitude. In these two cases,this kind of knowledge was poten-tially available to mangers and couldhave been skillfully used to advancesocial process in favor of endangeredspecies recovery.

In endangered species recovery,the American public has declared viathe ESA that it is the goal of theUnited States to "provide a meanswhereby the ecosystems upon whichendangered species and threatenedspecies depend may be conserved,and to provide a program for the con-servation of such endangered speciesand threatened species" (USFWS1988:1). This means that we have setnational rules or guidelines for our-

selves about how we will deal witheach other, with other species, andwith ecosystems in certain contexts.In functional terms, all eight valuesare always involved in the ESA andspecies conservation. For instance,such a statement of national intent orpolicy is based on power and requiresa commitment of collective nationalwealth to implement it. Enlighten-ment and skill are also required toimplement it. Achieving the nationalgoal of biodiversity conservation pro-duces outcomes involving respect(both self-respect and the regard ofthe international community), affec-tion, and well-being. The ESA is alsoa statement of our rectitude standards.It is clear that restoration efforts af-fect people's lives in many ways. In-deed, all eight values are always atplay at some level in all human inter-actions. Understanding which valuesare predominantly at play and howthey are exchanged functionally —figuring out who is indulged and whois deprived in specific recovery cases— is the key to understanding socialprocess practically. The social pro-cess method, as an analytic and com-parative approach, produces insightand reveals ways to learn, intervene,and improve recovery efforts far be-yond conventional, ordinary, and par-ticularized understanding.

Mapping social processProfessionals confronted with com-plex policy-relevant problems, suchas biologists working on endangeredspecies recovery, need a practicalguide to map and understand the so-cial process dimensions of their work(Table 1). The model described hereand the categories and questions inTable 1 can guide professionals inbuilding a map to orient to any socialcontext. Because every detail of aproblematic situation is affected byinteraction with the entire context,problem solvers must use a methodthat places the problem within the

social setting. With a contextually-relevant, functional map of social pro-cess, people involved in recovery pro-grams can more easily see how theirdecisions and actions would be per-ceived by other participants and theycould better understand others' actions.

To illustrate the value of socialprocess analysis, in the monk seal andgrizzly bear cases ask yourself whoare the participants, what is their per-spective in terms of identities, expec-tations, and demands. Also discernwhat the situation is in terms of ge-ography/ecology, time, institutions,and whether a crises exists or not.Further determine what base valuesare involved, what strategies are be-ing used, whether they are coerciveor persuasive. Finally assay whatoutcomes are sought and what out-comes actually resulted in terms ofvalues and institutional practices andwhat their effects are. To answerthese questions in realistic detail youneed to do research on the endangeredspecies recovery effort in question.Remember the purpose of social pro-cess mapping is to understand a givencase so that practical improvementsmight be made.

Both the monk seal and grizzlybear cases are complex and it is im-possible to fully illustrate how thesocial process model can be used topractically map these cases for im-proved management in this paper.But, in part, for the monk seal case,for example, moving seals was per-ceived by agency officials as the re-sponsible and ethical thing (rectitudevalue) to do to aid species recoverybased on their knowledge (enlighten-ment value) of the situation. Theyhad the power, wealth, and skill val-ues to make and carry out decisions.But to the fishing industry, the situa-tion and other aspects of social pro-cess looked quite different. Thesepeople perceived that they would bedeprived of wealth (wealth value) byhaving seals moved into new areas.


They may also have feared a loss ofpower, respect, and well-being val-ues. The remaining values were func-tionally involved as well. The issueis whether the agencies' knowledgewas adequately contextual and theiruse of power, skill, and wealth wereappropriate in this context. Movingseals was a functional value clashwherein participants were differen-tially indulged or deprived of values.Being fully cognizant of the directvalues clash in moving the seals ar-gues for having positive social rela-tionships firmly in place in advanceso that when rapid decisions and ac-tions are necessary public or specialinterest backlash can be avoided orminimized. Thinking and acting con-textually in terms of social processpermits professionals to better appre-ciate and manage recovery efforts.

Again, in the grizzly bear inci-dent, killing #209 was consistent withagency officials' values of rectitude,respect, well-being, affection, power,wealth, enlightenment, and skill. Butmany outsiders perceived that offi-cials were misusing their power,knowledge, skill, and public funds,and they felt that the community'srectitude standards were violated infailing to protect the bear. Cromley(2000) analyzed this case in detailrelying in large part on the social pro-cess model introduced in this paper.She focused on how differing expec-tations of participants making up thesocial process came into direct con-flict. Numerous practical manage-ment recommendations were made asa result of her analysis to avoid thiskind of problem in the future and tobetter manage the social process di-mension of grizzly bear recovery.

Because social process is notstatic, it must be continuouslymapped over the life of any conser-vation "decision process" (see Clarkand Brunner 1996) and as the natureof the problem changes over time (i.e.as problems are defined, acted upon,

and results evaluated). Rememberthat the social process model andmapping procedure is not a simplecookbook method (Clark 1977b).Mapping and understanding socialprocess in practical terms requiresstudy, skill, and judgment. Neverthe-less, it is vital for professionals to in-tegrate social process knowledge intoproblem solving for endangered spe-cies recovery. The framework de-vised by Lasswell (1971) is a meansto meet this challenge integrativechallenge. Like any method, this onecan be learned through study and ap-plication, and skill in its use can de-velop through practice over time.

Effective public participation inrecovery effortsRecovery personnel can interact witheach other, the public, or in socialprocess in a variety of ways. Theycan make decisions and take actionsbased on acontextual professionalassessments — thus largely ignoringthe public and social process. Or theycan involve the public directly andmeaningfully in problem solving.The two cases above detail how thepublic was involved or not in recov-ery and what the consequences were.

Organizing effective public in-volvement is not always easy, andendangered species recovery has hada mixed history of public participa-tion. Participation has too often beenconstrued simply as "getting morecitizen input." But there is growingrecognition that conserving wildlifeand restoring species require localinvolvement in more substantiveways. Contemporary recovery ef-forts are beginning to see more di-verse people as important problemsolvers and nature conservers(Pimbert and Pretty 1995). Regard-less of how the public is viewed, lo-cal involvement can be very helpful,so social process must be part of acomprehensive and rigorous under-standing of the conservation problem

prior to exploration of solutions.Public participation must also bedone in a deliberative and democraticway (Dryzek 1990). Local involve-ment for its own sake will not lead tospecies recovery or improved socialprocess: what is needed is respon-sible, constructively critical, politicalparticipation (Forester 1980). Re-member also that regional or nationalinvolvement is also vital and mayeven be more important in somecases than local involvement.

Pimbert and Pretty (1995) haveidentified a continuum of participa-tion types in conservation, rangingfrom passive to active (Table 2). It isbelieved that lasting conservationmeasures will result from the moreactive "functional," "interactive," and"self-mobilized" participation modes.It only makes sense in a democracythat long-term success will comewhen people's ideas and knowledgeare valued and power is given to themto make key decisions in close coop-eration with experts and govern-ments. In fact, without the real com-mitment of local people, conservationis probably impossible.

There are existing theories onhow social process should be carriedout in a democracy and these are di-rectly relevant to setting up and run-ning recovery and other conservationprograms. Dryzek (1990) notes, forexample, that "discursive democracy"can overcome many of the commonweakness in public policy and deci-sion making. And Barber (1984) de-scribes a "strong democracy" domi-nated by "communicative rationality"(the reflective understanding of com-petent participants), which he feelsis urgently needed today. BothDryzek and Barber's ideas can leadto coordination of community actionsthrough discussion (see Habermas1984). In short, the quality of publicor social participation is what counts.According to Dryzek (1990:23)"communicatively rational policy


science of participatory democracy,oriented to the public sphere ratherthan the state, is well placed to rec-oncile the twin demands of effectivesocial problem solving and demo-cratic principles." There are manytheories besides these two about howto reconcile rationality and democracy.Knowing about these theories and prac-tically applying them in species con-servation is indeed challenging.

There are several incipient de-signs in currency today that attemptto resolve conflictual social prob-lems, that improve rationality anddemocracy — among them are me-diation, alternative dispute resolu-

Table 2. The seven types of public participation possible in endangered spe-cies recovery (modified from Pimbert and Pretty 1995).

Participation Type Descriptions__________________________________________________________________

1. Passive participation People are told what is going to happen or what has happened. Communication is unidirectional. Information being transmitted belongs to outside experts.

2. Participation in People answer questions put theminformation giving by experts in questionnaires or other surveys. People do not influence the process otherwise.

3. Participation by consultation People are consulted and outside experts listen. Outside experts define problems and solutions. No concession to public.

4. Participation for material People provide resources such asincentives labor for food, cash, or information.

5. Functional participation People form groups and meet objectives. This may happen once a recovery effort has been set up by experts.

6. Interactive participation People involved in joint analysis, production of action plans, and enhanced organized participation.

7. Self-mobilization People take independent initiatives apart from experts and government. This may or may not challenge existing experts and government.

tion, regulatory negotiation, policydialogue, principled negotiation, andproblem-solving workshops. Noneof them fully acknowledges theneed to understand and map socialprocess. A rational problem-solv-ing approach to conservation prob-lems, including appreciation of so-cial process involved, and practi-cally finding consensus are idealsto strive for. Being knowledgeableof the social process dimension ofrecovery as well as being skilled inmapping it practically can signifi-cantly aid professionals achievetheir goals.

ConclusionsAs the two examples illustrate, recov-ering species involves human socialprocess. Effective problem solvingin conservation must account for thesocial dimension. This can best bedone by employing a practical modelto help you map the social process ofthe case you are interested in. Thesocial process categories — partici-pants, perspectives, situation, basevalues, strategies, outcomes, and ef-fects — can guide conservationists insystematically examining whateversituation they are concerned about. Achallenging task in social process isto involve the public in genuine prob-lem solving that maximizes chancesof successful species recovery. Thesocial process model and mappingmethod offered in this paper can aidspecies recovery and conservation inpractical and substantial ways.

AcknowledgmentsDenise Casey and Steve Primm criti-cally reviewed the manuscript. Ourwork was supported by the NorthernRockies Conservation Cooperativeand Yale University.

Literature citedBarber, B. 1984. Strong democracy: Partici-

patory politics of a new age. University ofCalifornia Press, Berkeley, California.

Clark, T.W. 1992. Practicing natural resourcemanagement with a policy orientation. En-vironmental Management 16:423-433.

Clark, T.W. 1996a. Learning as a strategy forimproving endangered species conserva-tion. Endangered Species UPDATE13(1&2):5-6, 22-24.

Clark, T.W. 1996b. Appraising threatenedspecies recovery efforts: Practical recom-mendations. Pp. 1-22 in Back for the brink:Refining the threatened species recoveryprocess. Australian Nature ConservationAgency in Transactions of the Royal Zoo-logical Society of New South Wales, Aus-tralia.

Clark, T.W. 1997a. Conservation biologists inthe policy process: Learning how to bepractical and effective. Pp. 575-598 in G.K.Meffe and C.R. Carroll, eds. Principles ofconservation biology, 2nd edition, SinauerAssociates, Inc., Sunderland, Massachu-


setts.Clark, T.W. 1997b. Averting extinction: Re-

constructing endangered species recovery.Yale University Press, New Haven, Con-necticut.

Clark, T.W., A.P. Curlee, and R.P. Reading.1996. Crafting effective solutions to thelarge carnivore conservation problem. Con-servation Biology 10:1036-1045.

Clark, T.W. and R.D. Brunner. 1996. Makingpartnerships work in endangered speciesconservation. Endangered Species UP-DATE 13:1-4.

Cromley, C.M. 2000. The killing of grizzlybear 209: Identifying norms for grizzly bearmanagement. Pp. 173-220 in T.W. Clark,A.R. Willard, and C.M. Cromley, eds. TheFoundations of Natural Resource Manage-ment. Yale University Press, New Haven,Connecticut.

Dryzek, J. 1990. Discursive democracy: Poli-tics, policy, and political science. Cam-bridge University Press, New York.

Forester, J. 1980. Critical theory and planningpractice. American Planning AssociationJournal 46(3):275-286.

Habermas, J. 1984. The theory of communi-cative action I: Reason and the rationaliza-tion of society. Beacon Press, Boston, Mas-sachusetts.

Kellert, S.R. 1985. Social and perceptual fac-tors in endangered species management.Journal of Wildlife Management 49:528-536.

Lasswell, H.D. 1971. A pre-view to the policysciences. American Elsevier, New York.

Lasswell, H.D. and A. Kaplan. 1950. Powerand society: A framework for political in-quiry. Yale University Press, New Haven,Connecticut.

Lasswell, H.D. and M. McDougal. 1992. Ju-risprudence for a free society: Studies inlaw, science, and policy. New Haven Press,New Haven, Connecticut.

Pimbert, M.P. and J.N. Pretty. 1995. Parks,people, and professionals: Putting "partici-

pation" into protected area management.United Nations Research Institute for So-cial Development. Discussion Paper DP57:1-60.

Primm, S.A. 1994. Grizzly-livestock conflictson Togwotee Pass: Using policy researchto find solutions. Northern Rockies Con-servation Cooperative News, Jackson,Wyoming. 1994:1-17.

Thuermer, A.N., Jr. 1995a. Judge rules againstfederal grizzly plan. Jackson Hole News,Jackson, Wyoming. October 11, 1995:13A.

Thuermer, A.N., Jr. 1995b. Greens battle planto more raiding griz. Jackson Hole News,Jackson, Wyoming. October 11, 1995:13A.

Thuermer, A.N., Jr. 1996a. Teton grizzly iskilled to end its cow-eating. Jackson HoleNews, Jackson, Wyoming. August 17,1996:14A.

Thuermer, A.N., Jr. 1996b. Traps laid in parkfor cow-eating griz. Jackson Hole News,Jackson, Wyoming. July 24, 1996:A1, A23.

Grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos horribilis ) by LuRay Parker, USFWS.


IntroductionAs professionals dedicated to protect-ing and restoring biological diversity,we focus our attention on the popu-lations and habitats of imperiled spe-cies. Our ethical standards tell us thatthis work is important, and our viewsare justified by society through theEndangered Species Act and othermandates. We have been trained inthe technical knowledge (e.g., ecol-ogy) and skills (e.g., field measure-ments) necessary to restore species orprevent their endangerment. Focus-ing strictly on the biological tasks,however, may mean the neglect of the"human dimensions" of conservation,which are often dismissed as"biopolitics" and avoided or left toothers to deal with. In addition, mostconservation professionals work fororganizations — state or federal agen-cies, advocacy groups, universities, orbusinesses — that exhibit particularmandates, cultures, and ways of op-erating that affect how the organiza-

The Dynamics of Value Interactions in EndangeredSpecies ConservationTim W. ClarkYale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 301 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511 and NorthernRockies Conservation Cooperative, Box 2705, Jackson, WY [email protected]


AbstractConserving endangered species is a technical task, but it is also highly value laden. Yet the valuedimension of conservation is often overlooked or ignored by most participants. Values — the thingsand events in life that people desire, aim at, wish for, or demand — figure into all aspects of conser-vation, including the science component; in fact, values are the basic medium of exchange in allhuman interactions. Values may be functionally categorized as power, wealth, skill, enlightenment,affection, well-being, respect, and rectitude, all of which are needed for people to live with dignity ina healthy environment. A 2000 paper by Scott Johnson describing the Hawaiian crow (Corvushawaiiensis) case is used as an example of the importance of values to endangered species recoveryefforts. Participants in this recovery effort at first were unable to appreciate and manage the value-based dynamics to promote conservation, but later were able to make some improvements. Attend-ing to value dynamics in a conscious, systematic way can enhance species conservation in all cases.

tions and their people deal with othersand, as a result, how successful recov-ery programs are. This is well docu-mented in the literature (e.g., Miller etal. 1996, Flores and Clark 2001).

Disciplinary biases and organiza-tional cultures are just two of themany expressions of human valuesthat are present not only in recoveryprograms but in every facet of life.People pursue values constantly. Val-ues are the things and events in lifethat people desire, aim at, wish for,or demand (Lasswell 1971). Accord-ing to Taylor and Douglas(1999:315), "values are cognitive rep-resentations of human needs." They"indicate preferences people share forcertain types of outcomes in theirlives and for certain types of conduct"(Ball-Rokeach and Loges 1992:222).In all our interactions, at all levels ofsociety, we exchange or transfer val-ues of one kind or another. The vastliterature on values contains numer-ous lists of what people value, some

abstract, some more conventional,some short, some long. But as Bell's(1997:179) survey of the literatureshows, there are "some core humanvalues about which there is wideagreement both over geographicspace and time — from well beforethe birth of Christ up to the present."

We believe that it would be ben-eficial to those who work in endan-gered species recovery programs tobecome more aware of the value dy-namics at play in their work and todevelop a broader and more theo-retical conception of values. Thiswould help professionals to seesimilarities in the problems thatplague different cases and to adaptthe solutions, lessons, knowledge,and skills from successful cases toothers. To that end, we examinevalue interactions in endangered spe-cies restoration, drawing initially ona paper by Johnson (2000) that de-scribes the Hawaiian crow (Corvushawaiiensis) conservation case.


An account of Hawaiian crowconservationScott Johnson's article, "Building aspecies recovery program on trust,"which appeared in Conservation Bi-ology in Practice in 2000, offered hisperspective as a professional biolo-gist and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-vice (USFWS) employee on the Ha-waiian crow ('alala) case. He re-counted that the USFWS had origi-nally been denied access to the crowpopulation, which was largely on pri-vate land, and that the agency wassued by environmental groups forfailing to recover the species. Hedescribed the persistent interpersonaltension, the preconceived negativeviews that each group seemed to holdabout the others, the name calling (hewas labeled a "bureaucratic biolo-gist"), and the suspicion that kept thevarious groups apart. The programwas not cooperative and lacked trust.

Believing that the problem wasthat the public lacked "information,"he and his colleagues' initial responseto this messy situation was to try tosolve the problems by providing asmuch information as possible. Theyexpected that sharing informationwith ranchers and The PeregrineFund, both central players, wouldmake the program run smoothly. Thisis a common assumption among bi-ologists, managers, and other techni-cally oriented professionals. Theireducation, training, and often theirentire professional lives have incul-cated the belief that scientific truth isthe touchstone against which allthings are measured. So they are con-vinced that if the participants in a re-covery program all shared the sameknowledge, they would all come tothe same understanding of the prob-lem, its solution, and the means ofachieving the solution. For agencymanagers this knowledge oftenmeans the population dynamics, habi-tat relations, and management stepsnecessary to meet legal mandates.

For conservation advocacy organiza-tions, which also commonly play thewe-need-to-educate-the-public game,knowledge refers to population vi-ability, factors responsible for habi-tat loss, and effectiveness of govern-ment in solving conservation prob-lems. Although we do not know whatknowledge Johnson and his col-leagues imparted about the crow situ-ation or how the educational programwas carried out, the people who op-posed the government program, ac-cording to his own account, did not takekindly to this approach or its underly-ing assumption. The knowledge-shar-ing strategy did not improve the work-ing relations or the status of the crow.

But then, as Johnson put it, "Af-ter a couple years of pounding ourheads against the wall, the group fi-nally concluded that our basic flawwas . . . a lack of trust" (p. 36). TheUSFWS team saw that "mutual trustmust be developed by specific actionsthat have nothing to do with actualwork being conducted" (p. 36). Theyconcluded that trust would comeabout by interaction outside the 'alalaarena — through social interactionnot focused on crows. At the sametime, Johnson admitted, recognitionthat they would now have to focuson "relationship-building" produced"rolled . . . eyes" and cringes fromteam members. Realizing that theywere in a dysfunctional social rela-tionship and that facilitated meetings,conflict resolution, surveys, emails,and faxes would not fix the situation(as is often thought), Johnson and histeam decided to change patterns ofinteraction with the ranchers andother participants. They focused on"specific actions that fundamentallychanged our behavior toward eachother before we even sat at the meet-ing table or called each other on thephone" (p. 36). They acknowledgedthat they did not have the knowledgeor skills to bring about such changes,so they consulted someone outside

the program who did. This individualconvened all parties. "The sessionswere simply aimed at eachindividual's personal developmentand experiences and what each broughtto the group" (p. 36). As a result, thegroup found many shared experiences,which led to a greater "sense of com-munity" (p. 37). Good will was builtwhere it had been absent.

Understanding human valuesOne of the most universal systems ofvalue analysis is Harold D. Lasswell's(1971) "functional value categories,"which stem from his belief that hu-man dignity is the overriding goal ofall people (Lasswell and McDougal1992). In short, everyone wants tolive with dignity, which means hav-ing adequate amounts of eight catego-ries of values — power, enlighten-ment, wealth, well-being, skill, affec-tion, respect, and rectitude (Table 1)— and being able to shape (give) andshare (receive and use) all eight to thefullest extent possible. This list isgeneral enough to encompass mostother "lists" of values, including thosespelled out in the Declaration of In-dependence, the Constitution of theUnited States, other national consti-tutions, the Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights of the United Nations,and similar conventions (seeMcDougal et al. 1980; Clark 2002).

In advancing his comprehensive,if not exhaustive, list of values,Lasswell recognized that the eightvalue categories are both diverse yetculturally specific. For example,sharing and shaping information, i.e.,enlightenment, means something en-tirely different for a scholar in En-gland than it does for an orphanedchild living in poverty in India. Wemay not think that the child epito-mizes "enlightenment," but he issavvy in his own way and knowsabout those things that are worthknowing in his life. In both cases,enlightenment is essential to their


welfare. In our culture, shaking hands,nodding recognition, and tipping one'shat are all ways to express respect ordeference. Although the same gesturesare not universal, other societies havetheir own ways to convey respect inspecific contexts. The same is true for

all the other value categories: each ex-ists in every kind and level of interac-tion, though its content and form varyfrom one context to another.

Thus, the eight values are func-tional categories that can be used todescribe and understand any situation

where people interact (Table 1). Forexample, we can accept that peoplein every society (and in every recov-ery program) want power, which isnecessary to participate in decisionmaking (Lasswell 1948). This doesnot mean that every person wants

Table 1. List of values or "bases of power" for participants to use to influence endangered species conservation out-comes. Participants in endangered species should ask the questions listed below. The end of a species conservationprocess leaves some participants better or worse off in terms of these values (ask: Who gains and who loses from agiven conservation program in terms of the eight values?)(see Lasswell 1971; Clark 2002). These values are not rankedor ordered by importance. Seeing and understanding that endangered species conservation is at heart a task of bring-ing people's value dynamics into harmony with one another and with the Endangered Species Act is tantamount toovercoming a major part of the conservation challenge.

Power means to give and receive support in making decisions in specific contexts. For example, power is needed toaccess goods and services (e.g., enlightenment, well-being, wealth).

Ask: How is power given and received in interpersonal and decision process and what are the outcomes?

Enlightenment means to give and receive information. Enlightenment is the finding and spreading of knowledge. Forexample, researchers, teachers, and professors are specialists in enlightenment.

Ask: How is information given and received? What are the outcomes?

Wealth means to give or receive opportunity to control resources, such as money, natural resources, and other people.For example, financiers, business leaders, and economists manage wealth.

Ask: How is wealth affected (given and received) by the process? What are the outcomes?

Well-being means to give or receive opportunity for personal safety, health, and comfort. Well-being is a value thatexpresses a sense of bodily and mental integrity and vitality. For example, doctors, nurses, and social workers providewell-being to people.

Ask: How is well-being, both physical and mental, affected by the decision process?

Skill means to give or receive opportunity to develop inherent talent into operations of all kinds, including professional,vocational, and artistic skills. Skill is the acquisition and use of mental and physical abilities. For example, scientificand analytic associations, labor unions, and artistic cooperatives promote skills.

Ask: What kind of skills are used (or not) in problem orientation and in decision process, how, and with what outcomes?

Affection means to give and receive friendship, loyalty, love, and intimacy in interpersonal situations. Affection includesfriendship and community relations. Rectitude is the value of morality. For example, professional, friendship, family,and community circles are representative.

Ask: How are professional, friendship, and loyalty values used in decision process and with what outcomes?

Respect means to give and receive recognition in a profession or community. Respect refers to what is often called"place in society"—it is a pattern of deference. Less experienced people defer to more experienced people in mostprofessional situations, for example. For example, the Nobel Prize committee and many other types of awards areavailable to recognize accomplished people, friends, and colleagues.

Ask: How is respect or deference used (or not) in decision process and what are the outcomes?

Rectitude means to give and receive appraisal about responsible or ethical conduct. For example, ethical andreligious systems exist in all communities and may be taught in homes, classrooms, and churches.

Ask: What are the ethics at play in interpersonal relations and embodied in decision process outcomes?


power with equal intensity, or that thequest for power is innate or acquired,but, clearly, people's striving forpower and use of power are elementsthat should be assessed in any socialprocess. The value demands vary fromperson to person, group to group, andfrom time to time in the history of anyone person, group, or culture.

Values are central to endangeredspecies conservation as they are inevery other kind of human activity,whether the people involved under-stand this fact or not. When profes-sionals from the USFWS meet andtalk with ranchers or environmental-ists, for instance, they are participat-ing in a process of shaping and shar-ing values. As staff members of a leadagency in carrying out federal ESApolicy, they expect to wield a certainamount of power, and they expect tobe paid adequately for the work theydo (wealth). Through their work theyexhibit their knowledge (enlighten-ment) and skill, and they hope thusto earn the respect of the people theydo business with and maintainfriendly relations with their cowork-ers (affection). They believe that thework they are doing is right and jus-tified (rectitude). They trust that theirwell-being will not be threatened inany way as they carry out their du-ties. Similarly, the values sought bythe ranchers with whom the USFWSdeals could be described to explaintheir behavior in their specific cir-cumstances, or those of the environ-mentalists or any other group with aninterest or stake in the issue. Somerecovery programs show a deeplyrooted pattern of those in a superiorvalue position — for example, thosewith more power, more money, ormore knowledge — treating otherparticipants in politicized and disre-spectful ways that do not offer themdignity. Needless to say, those whoare the objects of this kind of behav-ior stop cooperating.

Typically, species become imper-

iled because of the unintended con-sequences of people's value-basedactivities and complex value dynam-ics. As we seek to satisfy our indi-vidual needs — to establish families,build communities, participate ingovernance, work for money and ac-cess to material goods, express ourbeliefs, exercise our skills and knowl-edge, and so on — we create institu-tions and carry out operations thataffect the environment and other plantand animal species. In some situa-tions these effects (some of which aredeliberate whereas others are un-planned or involuntary) are minimal,but in others they are more damag-ing. It is people (in ever increasingnumbers) seeking values that causespecies endangerment. Species con-servation, then, is a job for those whofully understand not only the biologi-cal dimension, but also the value di-mension. Although value-based prac-tices are largely responsible for spe-cies losses, they are also the meansto turn this pressing problem around.

As Dery (1984) notes, however,people's behavior cannot be changedmerely by bringing "new informa-tion" to their attention. This runscounter to the tendency among endan-gered species professionals to assumea technical, biological standpoint inwhich collecting scientific informa-tion about the species and its habitatis the most important (and sometimesthe only) job they need to perform.A policy-oriented professional, on theother hand, fully appreciates the valuedimension of conservation and worksfor better value outcomes, that is,"win-win" solutions accomplishedthrough a process that offers dignityto everyone involved (Clark andWallace 1999). The policy-orientedapproach permits professionals notonly to understand the conservationtask primarily in terms of value in-teractions, but also to carry out sys-tematic inquiry into those dynamics.(The value that scientists place on

"systematic inquiry" is an example ofhow highly they rank enlightenment.)This task requires skill in interdisci-plinary, "procedural rationality" foranalyzing problems and evaluatingpotential solutions (Clark et al. 2001).

The crow story in terms of valuesIt will be instructive to reexamine theexperience of Johnson and his teamin terms of a systematic understand-ing of values. After two years, theyrealized that the key to success wasnot dispensing more scientific andmanagement information, but devel-oping "trust" among the people in-volved. This was an acknowledg-ment that, even though he and hiscolleagues had put the highest valueon enlightenment, it was not what wasneeded in that situation and it did notsolve the problem. Johnson failed toappreciate that while he was focus-ing his efforts on educating others, hewas simultaneously and perhaps un-consciously shaping and sharingother values in his exchanges withranchers, environmentalists, and oth-ers in ways that were counterproduc-tive to his own goals. His way of con-fronting the problem (combined, ofcourse, with the ways in which otherpeople confronted the problem) pro-duced a poorly performing program.

In fact, it is likely that the educa-tion strategy inhibited participantsfrom sharing power, respect, and rec-titude. The relationships among par-ticipants were based on power with-out communication or cooperation.The landowners exerted power overthe government agency staff, to thedetriment of the latter's desires (tomeet their needs for rectitude) forcrow conservation. What the land-owners sought was respect, recogni-tion of their own rectitude standards,and formally shared power. TheUSFWS thrusting information onthem did not satisfy their value de-mands, and so the program was un-able to advance. When a program is


thus "politicized," it is transformedinto a power relationship, often at theexpense of other values that must berecognized and satisfied in order forthe program to succeed. Thus, a wellmeaning USFWS crow conservationeffort was likely undercut inadvert-ently by the very people who wantedits success.

Johnson deserves recognition forhis willingness and ability to "re-think" the problem and change direc-tion. Too many recovery programsnever get to this point and persist intinkering with technical/biologicaldetails, giving lip service to "humandimensions," or giving in to power-ful anti-ESA forces. Few are able toconduct the genuine self-analysis thatwould lead them to reconceptualizethe problems and the solutions.

It became clear to the crow re-covery team that other values wereat play. Johnson referred to severalvalue categories in his article, al-though he did not use the terms we'veintroduced here. "We were wrong,"he finally concluded, a statementabout rectitude. He wrote about theneed for more useful skills to save thecrow. His team was denied access, asign of landowners' power over crowbiologists. He invoked the word trustas the key to his new solution; trustdevelops in the giving of respect andin the sharing of all the other values.He remarked on the ranching familyand loyalty — the value of affectionas shown in family, friendship, andcommunity. His discussion of howall the participants used financial re-sources and sought to make a livingwas a reference to the wealth cat-egory. Although the value dynamicsin the crow case were real and verymuch affected how the program un-folded, they were not visible to mostparticipants. So the people involvedwere unable to understand and man-age the problems they faced in a waythat promoted conservation. Ignor-ing the full range of values in any

species recovery effort can lead tomistrust, misguided professionalism,and a weak or failed program. Thecrow case is not unique, however.Many other case studies of endan-gered species conservation show littleappreciation of the value dynamicsinvolved (e.g., Clark et al. 1994;Reading and Miller 2000; Wallace2000; Wallace in press)

As of 2000, interactions in thecrow case had not always beensmooth nor had the 'alala fared well,according to Johnson. The wildpopulation now consists of only a fewindividuals. Captive breeding andreintroduction plans are in place. Asnew members joined the new inter-active group, they have not fully un-derstood the need to give and receivevalues in a productive way. Somepeople tried to re-politicize interac-tions, and changes in agency person-nel have both helped and hurt. Trust

cannot be built easily among newpeople at each meeting; it takes timeto establish dependable patterns ofmutually respectful, honest interac-tions. Johnson (p. 37) notes that "thekey lesson is that partnerships andmutual trust cannot be taken forgranted; nor can they be expected tocontinue as members come and go."Hopefully, recent events in this casehave brought about improved coop-eration and prospects for eventualcrow recovery.

ConclusionAlthough endangered species conser-vation is clearly about restoring im-periled species and their habitats, itis also overwhelmingly about thevalue "transactions" among peoplewho have an interest or a stake in theissue. Recognizing this fact is a ma-jor step toward meeting the conser-vation challenge. Lasswell's concept

Hawaiian crow by David Ledig, USFWS.


of meeting human dignity through theadequate shaping and sharing of eightcategories of values is a relativelysimple, but highly useful, scheme fororganizing and analyzing what wouldotherwise be a morass of individualand group perspectives in endangeredspecies recovery. It provides a frame-work for professionals to use to seekinformation about each participant'sdemands, expectations, and strate-gies. "What do people want from thissituation?" "What power, money, re-spect, skills, or information, for in-stance, do people have and how mightthey use these assets to get what theywant?" Careful analysis should in-clude comparing participants' actionsagainst their words. If some peoplecomplain about their financial losses,yet continue to complain after theyare offered compensation, then per-haps what they really seek is respect,or sharing in decision making, or per-haps recognition of the "rightness" oftheir point of view or a chance to ex-ercise their skill. Understanding howall eight values — respect, skill,wealth, affection, power, rectitude,well-being, enlightenment — areshaped and shared in an endangeredspecies program is essential to findways to bring people together in acooperative endeavor in which trustand dignity are available to all. Bring-ing USFWS personnel, ranchers, andother people with diverse value out-looks, interests, and demands, to-gether in a cooperative program ischallenging. Leading and managingthe value-rich process of species

conservation remains a challenge thatrequires knowledge and skills far be-yond technical considerations. For-tunately, we have concepts, tools, andmuch experience to draw upon toimprove our own awareness of whatis at stake value-wise and what wecan do to aid the value shaping andsharing process that is endangeredspecies conservation.

Acknowledge mentsWe want to thank the NorthernRockies Conservation Cooperative, YaleUniversity, and Eckerd College for theirsupport of our work. Denise Casey criti-cally reviewed the manuscript.

Literature citedBall-Rokeach, S.J., and W.E. Loges. 1992.

Value theory and research. Pp. 222-228 inE. F. Borgatta, and M. L. Borgatta, eds.,Encyclopedia of Sociology Vol. 4,Macmillan, NY.

Bell, W. 1997. Foundations of future studies:Values, objectivity, and the good society.Vol. 2. Transaction Publishers, NewBrunswick, New Jersey.

Clark, T.W. 2002. The policy process: A prac-tical guide for natural resource profession-als. Yale University Press, New Haven,Connecticut.

Clark, T.W., R.P. Reading, and A.L. Clarke,eds. 1994. Endangered species recovery:Finding the lessons, improving the process.Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Clark, T.W. and R.L. Wallace. 1999. The pro-fessional in endangered species conserva-tion: An introduction to standpoint clarifi-cation. Endangered Species UPDATE16(1):9-13.

Clark, T.W., M. Stevenson, K. Ziegelmayer,and M. Rutherford, eds. 2001. Species andecosystem conservation: An interdiscipli-nary approach. Yale School of Forestry andEnvironmental Studies, Bulletin Series 105.

Dery, D. 1984. Problem definition in policyanalysis. University of Kansas Press,Lawrence, Kansas.

Flores, A. and T.W. Clark. 2001. Finding com-mon ground in biological conservation:Beyond the anthropocentric vs. biocentriccontroversy. Pp. 241-252 in T.W. Clark, M.Stevenson, K. Ziegelmayer, and M. Ruth-erford, eds., Species and ecosystem con-servation: An interdisciplinary approach.Yale School of Forestry and Environmen-tal Studies, Bulletin Series 105.

Johnson, S. 2000. Building a species recov-ery program on trust. Conservation Biol-ogy in Practice 1(1):35-37.

Lasswell, H.D. 1948. Power and personality.Viking, New York.

Lasswell, H.D. 1971. Pre-view of the policysciences. American Elsevier, New York.

Lasswell, H.D. and M.S. McDougal. 1992.Jurisprudence for a free society: Studies inlaw, science and politics. 2 vols. New Ha-ven Press, New Haven, CT.

McDougal, M.S., H.D. Lasswell, and L. Chen.1980. Human rights and world public or-der: Basic policies of an international lawof human dignity. Yale University Press,New Haven, Connecticut.

Miller, B.J., R.P. Reading, and S.C. Forrest.1996. Prairie night: Black-footed ferretsand the recovery of endangered species.Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington,D.C.

Reading, R.P. and B.J. Miller, eds. 2000. En-dangered animals. Greenwood Press,Westport, Connecticut.

Taylor, J.G. and A.J. Douglas. 1999. Diversi-fying natural resources value measure-ments: The Trinity River Study. Society andNatural Resources 12:315-336.

Wallace, R.L. 2000. Marine mammal recov-ery: The human dimensions. Ph.D. disser-tation. Yale University School of Forestryand Environmental Studies, New Haven,Connecticut.

Wallace, R.L. In press. Social influences onconservation: Lessons from U.S. recoveryprograms for marine mammals. Conserva-tion Biology.


IntroductionMost endangered species conserva-tion work is carried out by profes-sional biologists and managers. Pro-fessionals labor to meet goals as laidout in the Endangered Species Actand in other public policies. For ourpurposes, a professional is a personwith specialized education who par-ticipates in a community with stan-dards of practice and shows a com-mitment to public service (Clark1997a). Both the work of a profes-sional and his or her role in societyhave changed dramatically in recentyears and both are expected to changeeven more in the foreseeable future.Today's work settings are as diverseas the species and habitat conserva-tion challenges a professional faces.The days when professional biolo-gists could go to the field and workin solitude at their own pace are longgone. Among recent changes arepartnerships of various kinds whichboth aid the work of professionals andmake it more difficult. As a result,professionals should always be on thelookout to improve their perfor-

The Professional in Endangered Species Conservation:An Introduction to Standpoint ClarificationTim W. ClarkYale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 301 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511 and NorthernRockies Conservation Cooperative, Box 2705, Jackson, WY [email protected]


AbstractThe work and role of professionals who carry out endangered species conservation is changing, associety itself changes. Knowing about the range of standpoints a professional can assume in con-servation is one way to enhance effectiveness. Professionals may assume a variety of standpointsdepending on how he or she sees the recovery process and their own role in it. Recovery may beviewed as a biological-technical task or a multifaceted task with both biological-technical andsocial dimensions. An endangered species case illustrates how one professional changed her stand-point from a "conventional" one to "policy-oriented" professionalism." These two forms of profes-sionalism are compared.

mance. Being explicitly aware of thestandpoint a professional assumes inendangered species work or in otherconservation efforts is one way to im-prove performance, and it can signifi-cantly aid in getting the species recov-ered. In this paper we (1) examine thenotion of standpoint clarification for aprofessional, (2) look at two ways toconceptualize the recovery process andexamine models of professionalism, (3)give an example of these issues, and(4) offer recommendations for improv-ing professional standpoint clarificationand performance.

Standpoint clarification and theprofessionalRegardless of the professional workto be done in endangered species con-servation or any other conservationeffort, managing oneself construc-tively is important. Two dramaticallydifferent professional standpoints arewell illustrated in companion articleson the controversy over elk manage-ment in Yellowstone National Park(see Bugle 1998). Many endangeredspecies cases show similar differ-

ences in standpoint amongst partici-pants about what happened in the pro-gram, why it happened, its signifi-cance, and what should happen in thefuture. Knowing about one's ownbehavior and role in endangered spe-cies recovery requires knowing aboutthe biological challenge (e.g., the spe-cies requirements), the organizationalenvironment (e.g., what the bosswants and will permit), and it alsorequires knowing about oneself. Alltoo often, professionals assume, per-haps unconsciously, that they knowwhat they are doing and why, and thatother people will see and appreciatetheir good works. Clarifying one'sstandpoint relative to both the endan-gered species recovery challenge andother participants is important toachieving conservation goals, just asknowing the population status of athreatened species is an important vari-able. Being clear about one's stand-point can aid successful teamwork andsuccessful conservation. Being unclearcan lead to conflict and disaster.

Professionals must clarify theirstandpoints so they can most effec-



tively participate in recovery efforts.Professionals can be either partici-pants or observers of the recoveryprocess, depending on their level ofinvolvement and how they perceivethemselves in the process. Profes-sionals can be more or less aware ofboth themselves and others, depend-ing on how self-reflective and obser-vant they are (Schön 1983). To be aseffective as possible in endangeredspecies recovery, professionals mustbe clear in their standpoint — howthey fit into the process — and seekto avoid biases to the degree possible.This is possible only by being selfaware and using that knowledge ofself in professional judgment and in-terpersonal relations. Most individu-als have at one time or another ana-lyzed their actions and role in inter-personal relationships, whether witha spouse, partner, parent, sibling, orfriend. We do this in order to knowwhere we stand with someone con-cerning expectations, demands, trust,and many other aspects of relation-ships. This self-analysis is at the heartof clarifying one's standpoint, and theprocess is no different in a profes-sional setting than in a personal rela-tionship. All people have biases as aresult of experience, personality, in-terest, education, among other things.Learning about one's own standpointand the perspectives of others is noteasy, but it is essential to effectiveprofessional practice. Over time asprofessionals gain experience theyimprove understanding of self andothers. For professionals to reachtheir potential for effectiveness in ei-ther technical work or in leadership,they must be able to look at and un-derstand themselves and others in-volved in or interested in the speciesand its conservation.

Two views of the recovery processOne aspect of professional standpointis viewing or conceptualizing justwhat the recovery process is. There

are many different ways to under-stand the endangered species recov-ery process. Depending on how theprocess is appreciated determineswhat a professional might do as wellas how other people involved mayrespond. Clark (1996) describes twoviews that professionals may take ofthe recovery process.

The first view sees the recoveryprocess largely as a technical task re-quiring that a professional be given arelatively free hand to formulate thechallenge and address it. The profes-sional is guided by the scientificmethod and adheres to the view of tech-nical rationality (Schön 1983). Themajor constraint is perceived as the lackof scientific information about the spe-cies and its habitat, lack of funding, andpolitical obstacles (e.g., public opinion,politicians, developers), all outside theprogram. Examples of this standpointabound and it is perhaps the dominantview in endangered species recovery(e.g., Butler and Merton 1992;McFarlane 1992). In accordance withthis view, species recovery is achievedby carrying out appropriate studies, fill-ing in the missing biological knowl-edge, ascertaining its management im-plications, implementing the chosenmanagement actions, and otherwisemaximizing money flows into the pro-gram and minimizing external politi-cal interference. Professionals whosubscribe to this view tend to see them-selves as scientists carrying out "goodscience." They believe they are agentsof objective, value-neutral science, andare often relatively unaware or inatten-tive of the social matrix within whichthey work. Despite their skills in sci-entific methods, these professionals arelittle skilled in social processes, deci-sion process analysis, or team partici-pation. This view is called a "science-based" approach to species recovery.

The second view sees recoveryas a multifaceted task with both bio-logical-technical and social dimen-sions. The professional is guided by

a problem oriented, contextual out-look, and diverse methods, includingtraditional biological scientific ap-proaches as well as diverse social sci-ence methods and qualitative and in-tegrative methods. This view ispartly described by Schön and called"reflective practice" and more fullydescribed by Lasswell (1971), Clarket al. (1992), and Clark (1992) andlabeled "policy-oriented" profession-alism. This conceptualization re-quires a broader, genuinely interdis-ciplinary approach and professionalskills that the technical rationalist doesnot know about or use. In this view,the major constraint is perceived to belack of effective social processes thatwould integrate values and knowledgefor successful conservation. Examplesof this view are less evident in the lit-erature (e.g., Kellert 1985; Clark 1989;Miller et al. 1996). From this view, theway to achieve recovery is to address,simultaneously and explicitly, socio-economic, organizational, and politicalas well as biological dimensions of re-covery. This is both a methodologicalchallenge and a challenge to the abilityof professionals to integrate often dis-parate fields of knowledge. This ap-proach explicitly requires that profes-sionals develop awareness of their rolesin the social process of endangered spe-cies recovery. This "practice-based"approach encourages people to observewhat actually works, both technicallyand socially, and apply experience andlessons successfully.

We believe the second view is themore practical of the two. Profession-als, other participants, and observersmay use one or the other without beingfully aware of the assumptions and ap-proaches that they bring to the recov-ery process. In turn, these lead to dif-ferences in expectations, demands, andactions, which may lead to miscommu-nication, conflict, and possibly failureif these viewpoints are not clarified anddifferences addressed. These twoviews of endangered species conserva-


tion are based on two very differentmodels of professionalism, as con-trasted in Table 1. These show dramati-cally different assumptions, ap-proaches, and consequences.

A case: an endangered speciesbiologist "situates" herselfThis case is about a professional whostarted off with the first view of spe-cies conservation and rapidly shiftedto the second conceptualization as aresult of her direct experiences (seeBentrupperbaumer 1998). This pro-fessional studied the endangered cas-

sowary (Casuarius casuarius). Thislarge forest-dwelling flightless birdinhabits wet tropical regions of north-ern Queensland, Australia.Bentrupperbaumer explains why shechanged her standpoint in her Ph.D.thesis in a section called "situating theauthor." She revealed her currentstandpoint to herself, co-workers, andreaders in this section and her storyis an interesting one, but not atypicalof endangered species professionals.At the heart of her standpoint was thatshe hoped to contribute to prevent-ing the extinction of a species even

in a modest way. And as a result ofher experiences, she indicated that sheleft "normal" biology behind andcame to have a broad interest in ecol-ogy, environmental psychology, andenvironmental management.

Over several years she collecteddata on the bird and its habitat. Eventhough her work began as a biologi-cal study it soon progressed into aconservation and management onewhen the bird's forest habitat beganto be logged. She came to realize thatconserving this magnificent birdwould require overcoming the "inef-fectual" way in which the recoveryeffort at the time was unfolding. Sev-eral incidents propelled her into afuller appreciation of the second viewdescribed above. She soon found that"Despite the harsh and demandingphysical and climatic conditions ofthe field, the actual biological com-ponent of the field work presented theleast difficulties. Cassowary 'politics'inevitably came to the fore, on manyoccasions threatening to terminate theproject" (p. 25). Denials of access byprivate landowners half way throughher study and attempts by local com-munity conservation organization toterminate the 'human populationstudy' component of the research aretwo examples.

Among the many incidents werethese two. The first incident that re-sulted in a significant change in herstandpoint was a response by themajor landowner who became con-cerned about the possible implica-tions her results would have on hisproperty's future. The State Govern-ment was at the time preparing na-ture conservation legislation. Thisprivate property completely land-locked the northern boundary of thestudy site, a 319 ha World Heritagearea listed as a National Park. Theother boundaries include the sea anda mangrove river. This property hadbeen described as critical habitat forcassowaries previously. In addition to

Table 1. Two Models or Standpoints of Professional Problem Solving inEndangered Species (from Pimbert and Pretty 1995; Clark 1997a).

Conventional Professionalism Policy Oriented Professionalism

Technological rationality Reflective practice

Scientific method is singular, Scientific method is holisticreductionistic, and positivistic and post-positivistic (human(cause and effect, prediction) freedom, empirical, systematic)

Strong natural science biases Mix of natural and social sciences

Professional categories and Local categories or contextualityperceptions are central is central to problem solving

Professionals know what they Professionals do not know wherewant and follow a pre-specified projects will lead so work isplan or project design an open learning process

Information and results are Understanding and focus emergeextracted from controlled situations from interaction with context

Problem solving is blueprint-like Problem solving is process-like

Use problem-blind, acontextual Use problem-oriented, contextualoutlook, and disciplinary methods outlook, and integrative methods

Assumption of single, tangible Assumption of multiple realitiesreality that are partially socially constructed

Professionals control problem Professionals enable and empowersolving and clients people in close dialogue about

problem solving in context

Often works alone with single Work in groups with andisciplinary focus interdisciplinary focus

Careers are inward and upward Careers include outward anddownward

High level professionals loose Professional stay in touch withtouch with changing local realities action at all levels


denying her access to the study site, thelandowner cleared extensive areas ofhis property preempting the potentialrestrictive status of a formal criticalcassowary habitat classification.

The second incident that resultedin a significant change in her stand-point was the response of the localconservation organization to herwhen she "disengaged" herself fromthem. She worked with this group atthe request of the then State Ministerof the Environment. She left the con-servation organization to begin herPh.D. work. Because of this and thepreceding incident she decided toexpand her thesis beyond cassowarybiology to include the human dimen-sion. Issues about who dominated thecassowary conservation issue arose,and there was a perceived loss of con-trol by "locals" over a study being un-dertaken under the auspices of a dis-tant university and a federal govern-ment management agency that wasperceived as a threat to the expertiseand credibility of the conservation or-ganization. Other human issues wereinvolved, such as conservation vs.development, polarization of the lo-cal community with respect to rapidchange underway and developmentspeculation, etc. One of the mostimportant was that the local conser-vation organization's efforts to "un-dermine the credibility of myself andthe value and relevance of the re-search project were both instructiveand sobering, as well as personallyvery difficult to accept" (p. 26). Thishistory, especially with the communityconservation group, highlighted thecomplex and dynamic role of the pro-fessional in endangered species conser-vation and the need to clarify just whatstandpoint a professional like herselfshould take in such a situation. Sheconcluded by noting that the "emotion-ally charged and politically volatilecommunity environment underscoresthe difficulties of 'field work' with hu-man communities" (p. 25).

These incidents and others moti-vated her to move on to other knowl-edge areas beyond biology and sur-vey social science literature for guid-ance. As she noted, this "presentedmany challenges for an ordinary bi-ologist like myself" (p. 25). The so-cial sciences gave her important con-cepts and methods to understand thehard conservation experience she hadgained and how to tackle future workpractically. She reported that therewere "continuous tensions betweenmy proceeding being fully aware ofthe limitations and dangers of simpli-fication, and not proceeding therebygiving in to this conflict and continu-ing on 'as normal' with a biologicalperspective only" (p. 24). She ex-panded her research and gathered so-cial science data on the human com-munity in the region and interrelatedit with the biological data set. Shesaid she sought to "heed the currentcall for multidisciplinary research ...and have taken courage from theknowledge that more biologists,ecologists, psychologists, and otherenvironmental scientists seem willingto cross disciplinary boundaries andlevels of organization in a endeavorto contribute to solving the extinctioncrises" (p. 25). Though all of this,she sought a "coherent, holistic pic-ture relevant to endangered speciesrecovery" (p. 25). But it was not with-out difficulties. Her work evolvedinto a professional approach that in-tegrated a number of disciplines allfocused on understanding and aidingendangered species conservation.Not only did she add to cassowaryconservation, ultimately this effortsignificantly clarified her standpointto herself.

This professional career is devel-oping towards a fully-mature, policy-oriented standpoint. The evolution ofa traditional professional career intoa policy oriented one was first de-scribed by Lasswell (1971), andBentrupperbaumer's account fits the

profile. The conservation literaturenow contains similar descriptions ofpolicy-oriented professionals andbenefits (e.g., see "Conservingbiodiversity in the real world: Profes-sional practice using a policy orien-tation," (Clark et al. 1992) and "Prac-ticing natural resource managementwith a policy orientation" (Clark1992)). More recently, a policy-ori-ented approach to conservation biol-ogy was described by Clark (1977a).Bentrupperbaumer's professionaltransformation is one example of thekind of change needed broadly inconservation professionalism (seeSchön 1983; Sullivan 1995).

Conventional professionalismand the pol icy-orientedprofessionalBentrupperbaumer shifted her viewof endangered species recovery froma conventional to a more holistic one(Table 1). As a result she changedfrom understanding her role and her-self in a "conventional" sense towardsa more comprehensive, policy ori-ented understanding. Clarifyingstandpoint means finding out whichkind of professional you are, whichkind you want to be and why. Theconceptual tools a professional pos-sesses include a way of seeing one-self, other people, the conservationchallenge, and communication styles(see Clark and Reading 1994).

To clarify standpoint, we recom-mend that professionals start by ask-ing themselves questions about theirown professional roles, tasks, shap-ing factors, and orientation that theytake or assume (Table 2). Table 2offers questions that professionalsshould ask themselves continuouslyover a career about these variables.Asking and answering these ques-tions leads to "reflective" practice andcan lead to policy-oriented profes-sionalism, when combined withskilled use of a genuine interdiscipli-nary problem solving method (see


Clark 1997b). Restructuring profes-sionalism toward policy-orientedpractice requires a substantial com-mitment to learning by professionals,universities, and other organizations(Clark 1997a). Training and updat-ing training can take place in univer-sities and professional schools,agency workshops, and at the indi-vidual level. If organized policy-ori-ented education is not available, thenthe individual is left to one's own de-vices to improve problem solving.

ConclusionsClarifying one's standpoint is a nec-essary first step toward gaining a bet-ter understanding of the human so-cial process associated with endan-gered species conservation (Clark andWallace 1998). Understanding one'sown values and interests in the con-text of a larger social and organiza-tional whole, in this case endangeredspecies recovery programs, onlyhelps a professional to raise aware-ness and eventually master many ofthe problems inherent in complexprograms that transcend social andtechnical-biological realms.


Biology, bureaucracy and failure in an en-dangered species program. Myakka RiverPublishing: Sarasota, Florida.

Bentrupperbaumer, J.M. 1998. Reciprocalecosystem impact and behavioural interac-tions between cassowaries, Casuariuscasuarius, and humans, Homo sapiens:Exploring the natural-human interface andits implications for endangered species re-covery in North Queensland, Australia.Ph.D. Thesis. James Cook University,Queensland, Australia.

Bugle. 1998. Too many elk in Yellowstone?Bugle, Winter 1998:76-89.

Butler, D. and D. Merton. 1992. The blackrobin: Saving the world's most endangeredbird. Oxford University Press, Auckland,New Zealand.

Clark, T.W. 1989. Conservation biology of theblack-footed ferret, Mustela nigripes. Wild-life Preservation Trust Special ScientificReport No. 3.

Clark, T.W. 1992. Practicing natural resource

management with a policy orientation.Environmental Management 16:423-433.

Clark, T.W. 1996. Appraising threatened spe-cies recovery efforts: Practical recommen-dations. Pp. 1-22 in Back from the brink:Refining the threatened species recoveryprocess. Australian Nature ConservationAgency in Transactions of the Royal Zoo-logical Society of New South Wales, Aus-tralia.

Clark, T.W. 1997a. Civic professionalism:Meeting society's needs. Pp. 208-223 inAverting extinction: Reconstructing endan-gered species recovery. Yale UniversityPress, New Haven, Connecticut.

Clark, T.W. 1997b. Conservation biologistsin the policy process: Learning how to bepractical and effective. Pp. 575-598 in G.K.Meffe and C.R. Carroll, eds. Principles ofconservation biology, 2nd edition, SinauerAssociates, Inc., Sunderland, Massachu-setts.

Clark, T.W., P. Schuyler, T. Donnay, P. Curlee,T. Sullivan, M. Cymerys, L. Sheeline, R.Reading, R. Wallace, T. Kennedy, Jr., A.Marcer-Batlle, and Y. DeFretes. 1992. Con-serving biodiversity in the real world: Pro-fessional practice using a policy orienta-tion. Endangered Species UPDATE9(5&6):5-8.

Clark, T.W. and R.P. Reading. 1994. A pro-fessional perspective: Improving problemsolving, communication, and effectiveness.Pp. 351-370 in T.W. Clark, R.P. Reading,and A.L. Clarke, eds. Endangered species

recovery: Finding the lessons, improvingthe process. Island Press, Washington, D.C.


Kellert, S.R., 1985. Social and perceptualfactors in endangered species management.Journal of Wildlife Management 49:528-36.

Lasswell, H.D. 1971. A pre-view to the policysciences. American Elsevier, New York.

Pimbert, M.P. and J.N. Pretty. 1995. Parks,people, and professionals: Putting "partici-pation" into protected area management.United Nations Research Institute for So-cial Development. Discussion Paper DP57:1-60.

McFarlane, R.W. 1992. A stillness in thepines: The ecology of the Red-cockadedWoodpecker. W.W. Norton and Co., NewYork.

Miller, B.J., R.P. Reading, and S.C. Forrest.1996. Prairie night: Black-footed ferretsand the recovery of endangered species.Smithsonian Press, Washington, D.C.

Schön, D.A. 1983. The reflective practitio-ner: How professionals think in action.Basic Books, New York.

Sullivan, W.M. 1995. Work and integrity: Thecrises and promise of professionalism inAmerica. Harper Business, New York.

Table 2. Questions Professionals Should Ask Themselves to Clarify Their Stand-points (after Willard 1998, personal communication).

(1) What roles are you and other people engaged in while working in therecovery effort-scientist, technician, manager, student, teacher, advocate,advisor, reporter, decision maker, scholar, facilitator, concerned citizen, orothers?

(2) What problem solving tasks do you carry out when performing your roles-clarifying goals, determining historical trends, analyzing conditions, projectingtrends, and inventing and evaluating alternatives?

(3) What factors shape how you carry out your tasks and roles-culture, class,interest, personality, and previous experience?

(4) What conditioning factors shape your personal and professional "approach"in general and in reference to any particular conservation case? Which ap-proaches or roles are you predisposed toward or against, and how are youpredisposed to conduct your professional work from each?

(5) How does your approach shape how you carry out the intellectual tasksassociated with your roles? For example, what is the impact of your "reflectiveapproach" on the goals you clarify and how you specify them? the trends youidentify and describe? the conditions you analyze and how you analyze them?the projections you make and how you make them? the alternatives you invent,evaluate, and select?


IntroductionEndangered species conservation isusually a complex, multi-dimensionalchallenge. As such, endangered spe-cies recovery programs require theuse of diverse methods to determinewhich processes threaten a speciesand what to do to achieve recovery.Interdisciplinary approaches that in-corporate multiple methods in biol-ogy and the social sciences promiseto improve species restoration efforts.Biological methods focus on the spe-cies and its ecosystem. Social sci-ence methods examine the decisionand social processes, including howthe values and perspectives of partici-pants and the situation affect recov-ery efforts. Interdisciplinary meth-ods systematically integrate biologi-cal and social research into a unifiedrecovery program.

Many universities offer programsin biological and social methods, anda few even offer interdisciplinary pro-grams that address the full challengeposed by endangered species conser-

Research in Endangered Species Conservation:An Introduction to Multiple MethodsTim W. ClarkYale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 301 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511 and NorthernRockies Conservation Cooperative, Box 2705, Jackson, WY [email protected]



AbstractDiverse methods may be required to understand and solve conservation problems in species recov-ery. These problems are usually multi-faceted. Endangered species recovery is a biological chal-lenge, but it also requires that professionals and the public support an organized recovery effort ina timely, rational, and effective way. Biological, social, and interdisciplinary methods all lendthemselves to aid the multi-dimensional task of species recovery, although social science and inter-disciplinary methods are little used currently. These three kinds of methodological approaches arebriefly examined. We end the paper with a call for increased interdisciplinary approaches, as webelieve they promise greater effectiveness in species conservation.

vation. The established, but separate,disciplines (e.g., wildlife biology, so-ciology, policy analysis) train profes-sionals to be knowledgeable in dif-ferent methods. Despite the obviousneed for professionals skilled in inte-grative approaches, there are few jobsin endangered species recovery thatexplicitly utilize interdisciplinaryproblem solvers. Fortunately, thesituation is changing. Conservationand related professions, universitytraining programs, and the organiza-tional contexts of practice are in fluxtoday and prospects for using fullyintegrative methodologies in the fu-ture is improving. We expect thatinterdisciplinary approaches usingmultiple methods and inclusive par-ticipation will significantly improvesuccess rates over more narrow ap-proaches that rely on a limited set ofmethods, a single discipline, or domi-nation by single (or just a few), self-interested people or organizations.

In this paper, we (1) offer a briefoverview of multiple methods in en-

dangered species recovery, (2) lookbriefly at available biological and so-cial science methods, and (3) introducean interdisciplinary approach we be-lieve best uses and integrates knowl-edge obtained from the diverse biologi-cal and social methods currently em-ployed to restore endangered species.

Multiple methods: a strategy inspecies recoveryUsing multiple methods in endan-gered species recovery is like trian-gulation wherein a radio collaredFlorida panther's (Felis concolor) lo-cation is located, or 'fixed,' using threereceiver readings from differentangles. As conservationists, we canbest get a 'fix' on a conservation prob-lem by using different methods, ide-ally a combination of biological andsocial science methods. In our case,triangulation means using and inte-grating data from diverse sourcesabout a problem and its context. Itmeans using different investigators,ideally working in close collabora-



tion. Different theories should guidework and interpret data. Multiplemethods should be used to investigatea problem from different perspectivesin order to develop the fullest possiblepicture of the conservation problemand alternatives to address it. Just asusing multiple methods to address aspecific research interest increases thereliability of results (e.g., independentmeasures of population size from anaerial survey, a ground survey, andcapture-resighting data), so too domultiple methods increase the reli-ability of problem definitions. Usingmultiple methods to analyze a problemcan improve the reliability, richness,and diversity of data available to re-searchers, decision makers, and man-agers (Clark 1993; Janesick 1994).

Increasingly, researchers are be-ing called upon to address complex-ity (and risk) — a key theme of en-dangered species conservation. Per-haps it is not surprising therefore thatsome of the most interesting techni-cal innovations in conservation weredeveloped to cope with complexityand the long-term, exploratory, andcreative dimensions of protecting andrecovering endangered species (e.g.,population viability analysis). Thetask is not to deny or try to minimizecomplexity in species conservation,but to instead emphasize the com-plexity, and search for ways to under-stand and address it. To this end, be-ing knowledgeable and skilled in us-ing and integrating multiple methodsis key to successful recovery programs.

Studying endangered species us-ing multiple methods is different fromstudying more abundant wildlife forseveral reasons. First, the speciesunder study usually persists in lownumbers (and density) and occurs inlimited or shrinking habitat. As re-searchers, we must take great care toensure that our work does not put thespecies or even individuals at risk.The species' status may limit the kindsof methods that can be used; there-

fore, methods should be developed tominimize harassment and, worse,mortality. Second, controlled experi-ments such as manipulating individu-als, populations, or habitats, may beimpossible for these same reasons.Third, the human context or socialprocess that is often the root cause ofendangerment may be unrelated tobiological or other technical consid-erations and may require immediateattention. This means researchinghuman values, perspectives, and prac-tices and working to understand andperhaps alter those which adverselyaffect the species or habitat in ques-tion. Finally, there are few chancesin species conservation. Usually, re-searchers get only a few chances (atmost) to get it right.

Often the contexts of species en-dangerment and recovery efforts con-tinually change in a highly compli-cated way. Researching conservationproblems implies studying and inter-preting the past to clarify current cir-cumstances and needs of participantsand to project future trends. If meth-ods are not carefully considered, thevery effort of studying a species, itshabitat, and its context may adverselyaffect conservation efforts, especiallyif major variables (e.g., human socialprocess [see Clark and Wallace1998]) are overlooked, misconstrued,or misunderstood. Multiple methodshelp ensure a more complete and ac-curate understanding of a conserva-tion problem's context.

Black-footed ferret (Mustelanigripes) recovery is a good examplethat illustrates how biological, social,and interdisciplinary research havebeen carried out in a conservationeffort. The general characteristics ofthe program may be typical of howendangered species recovery is con-ducted. A ferret conservation pro-gram has been ongoing for almosttwo decades, and this species prob-ably represents the endangered spe-cies case most covered in Endangered

Species UPDATE (also see Clark1989, 1997; Miller et al. 1996). Inbrief, biological methods have domi-nated ferret recovery efforts. Therehas been very limited utilization of so-cial science, and especially interdisci-plinary, methods, although there havebeen calls for greater use of both. Thispattern of neglecting available meth-ods directly reflects the biological, dis-ciplinary training of most profession-als in species recovery efforts.

Biological and social sciencemethodsRelying on only a few methods froma biological discipline can result in adistorted picture of the conservationchallenge, similar to the story of thethree blind men trying to describe anelephant. Each blind man touchedonly one part of the animal — thetrunk, leg, or tail — so each had adifferent notion of what it looked like,and all were wrong. Using a singlediscipline or limited methods can pro-duce the same result: an incompleteand possibly distorted picture of theendangered species conservationchallenge. This is why a skillfullyused mix of biological and social sci-ence and interdisciplinary methodscan yield the best, most realistic pic-ture of the problem and possible so-lutions (see Barrett 1978).

Biological methodsMethods used in biological study ofendangered species and other wild-life are detailed by Beveridge (1950),National Research Council (1986),Brookhout (1996), Scott et al. (1996),Baydack et al. (1999), and others.These methods set the standards forresearch and management, will al-ways be essential to endangered spe-cies recovery, and require upgradingas needed.

Most readers of this article areprobably better versed in biologicalresearch than either social or interdis-ciplinary methods. Because our so-


ciety is technologically driven, it isnot necessary to detail the positivis-tic concept of the scientific methodfor constructing theories, designingand carrying out experiments, anddetermining cause and effect (seeBeveridge 1950; McCain and Segal1977; Ratti and Garton 1996). Inshort, biological researchers seek ac-curate predictions and strive to con-duct experimental science usingquantifiable methods (such as mod-eling). However, naturalistic studies,which are largely descriptive andqualitative, are also used in conser-vation. Overall, the positivistic ap-proach is invaluable, but it can bemisused when researchers or manag-ers insist that all knowledge be ob-tained by this method. Positivism iscoming under increasing criticismbecause of its inability to addresshighly complex, unique problems(e.g., Dryzek 1990).

Multiple methods were used, atleast in part, in the black-footed fer-ret recovery effort. For example, re-searchers determined the free rang-ing ferret population's size from di-rectly counting animals in spotlightsurveys, snow tracking, litter counts,and mark-recapture methods (seeClark 1986 and Miller et al. 1996).These four methods were used to "tri-angulate" and support one another,increasing confidence in the esti-mates. The ferret recovery effort in-volved methods from many fields,including plant taxonomy, plant ecol-ogy, wildlife biology, conservationbiology, ethology, population biology,genetics, physiology, communityecology, wildlife management, physi-ology, captive breeding, and zoo bi-ology. Many good biological meth-ods were used (Clark 1986, 1997;Miller et al. 1996; Reading et al. 1996;Lockhart et al. 1998), as well as somethat were suspect (see Reading andMiller 1994; Miller et al. 1996).

Biological methods constituteonly part of the full set of methods

available to save species. Still, somebiological researchers use a positiv-istic approach to species conservationthat relies solely on biological meth-ods to the exclusion of approaches thataddress the human dimensions of re-covery (e.g., social, political, organiza-tional, and policy issues). A more com-plete approach to conservation includessocial and interdisciplinary methods.

Social methodsMethods in the social sciences usedfor endangered species conservationor other problems are discussed byDominowski (1980), Barzun andGraff (1985), Miller (1991), Dey(1993), Rosaldo (1993), Denzin andLincoln (1994), Strauss and Corbin(1994), Isaac and Michael (1995), andothers. As the importance of social,economic, and organizational factorsto endangered species recovery be-comes clearer to wildlife and ecosys-tem managers, standards and ap-proaches to modern social science re-search should grow in importance anduse in endangered species recovery.

Social methods focus on the hu-man element in endangered speciesconservation, range from positivisticapproaches similar to those used inthe biophysical sciences to descrip-tive approaches similar to naturalis-tic methods used in ecology. Posi-tivistic studies were described above.Descriptive studies employ qualita-tive methods to "investigate humanbehavior in its natural and uniquecontexts and settings by avoiding theartificial constraints of control andmanipulation" (Isaac and Michael1995:218). This approach examineshuman behavior in real situations,relies on observational techniques,adapts itself to multiple circum-stances, and recognizes both intuitiveand explicit knowledge (Scott 1998).Because this kind of research studieshuman perception and multiple reali-ties, often for applied purposes, it islittle concerned with creating a final,

unified system of knowledge or grandtheory. It approaches research in agrounded, emergent way (i.e. induc-tion), as opposed to approaching itwith a preset explanatory theory (i.e.the scientific method). The study'sboundaries emerge in the course ofthe research, rather than being pre-established prior to the investigation.This approach often uses a case studyformat because it better captures themultiple realities at play in complexhuman interactions (Yin 1989).

To analyze a human social situa-tion means to break it down. Oftenquestions in social methods includewho is involved, what happened,why, when, and where (Marius 1995).Each question can be posed in sev-eral different ways. The question of'who' forces us to find out who theindividuals and groups involved inthe social process affecting endan-gered species are. The question of'what' forces us to shift through com-peting opinions, views, and misunder-standings to find out what really hap-pened. Even if researchers determinewhat happened, why did it happen?This is a conditioning or cause andeffect question. Things happen be-cause of precipitating causes, butbackground causes may be importanttoo. Causation is complex and usu-ally there are multiple causes for, andoutcomes that result from, humanbehavior. Therefore, factors must beconsidered in their context. Under-standing the temporal and spatial con-text of events is essential to answerthe other questions. In thinking con-textually, researchers carefully try tosort through and evaluate the relativeimportance of various causes. Lastly,it is important to know when andwhere the situation under study cameabout or the event happened.

Qualitative methods are used todescribe, classify, and analyze socialphenomena and their interconnec-tions. In carrying out data manipula-tions, information may "lose its origi-


nal shape, but we gain by organizingit in ways which are more useful" forgenerating insight about human be-havior (Dey 1993:42). Making infer-ences from data is an important func-tion of research. The aim of infer-ence is coherence. Most people as-sume an ability to make correct in-ferences. In our daily, lives we makemany inferences by recollecting pastexperiences and using them to inter-pret a present situation or event(Marius 1995). Without inference,we would have to reinvent life aneweach day. Social scientists, as wellas biological scientists, infer someanswers to scientific questions. Indoing so we strive to make sense of abehavior or situation, trying to decidewhat it is and whether our interpreta-tion is reliable. Researchers use in-ference to fill in gaps to round out orcomplete a picture of a situation orevent. Statistics can be a valuablequantitative method in this regard. Butstatistics require interpretation. Bythemselves, statistics tell us little, butwhat we infer from them can tell us agreat deal. Inferring correctly is key.

The black-footed ferret case em-ployed some social science methods.Initially these focused on socioeco-nomic and organizational dimensions(Clark 1989), and consisted of formaland informal interviews with manyresidents in ferret habitat and an eco-nomic trade-off analysis (Clark1989). Increasingly, researchers rec-ognized that many human factorswere critical determinants of bothshort and long-term success in theferret program and additional socialscience work was undertaken. Othersocial science methods included theuse of decision analyses, interviewswith local people and key stakehold-ers, a formal survey of values and at-titudes, organizational and profes-sional analyses, and policy assess-ments (see Clark and Harvey 1988;Clark and Westrum 1989; Clark et al.1989; Maguire 1989; Clark and

Cragun 1991; Reading 1993; Read-ing and Kellert 1993; Reading andMiller 1994). Efforts were made onthe part of some researchers to inte-grate the diverse biological and so-cial science data into a comprehen-sive picture of the whole conserva-tion challenge and what to do aboutit practically (Clark 1989, 1997;Reading 1993; Miller et al. 1996).Overall though, there was little inter-est in social science or support for itin the ferret program, and the resultsof most social science analyses hadlittle influence on program direction.This remains the case today.

The use of social science meth-ods in endangered species recoveryis increasing, but they have yet to beapplied in ways that demonstrate theirpotential. The next major leap in re-search for endangered species recov-ery should be to apply multiple socialscience methods to the full context ofrecovery, including by researchers, de-cision-makers, and managers.

Interdisciplinary methodsThe most comprehensive approach toproblem solving utilizes interdiscipli-nary methods. Interdisciplinary prob-lem solving draws on all methods typi-cally used in the biological and socialsciences. It differs from multi-disci-plinary approaches in that diversemethods are integrated, rather than con-ducted in isolation. The first require-ment of interdisciplinary problem solv-ing is a conceptual and practical frame-work that can accommodate diversedata, epistemologies, and disciplines(Clark 1998). The analytic frameworkof Lasswell (1971a) is comprehensiveand helps users find, analyze, store, re-call, and relate important informationfor use in creating realistic problemsolving alternatives. A complete de-scription of interdisciplinary problemsolving methods is provided byLasswell and McDougal (1992).

Conservationists must take mul-tiple vantage points to best see and

understand the complex factors af-fecting social process and decisionmaking in endangered species recov-ery. Interdisciplinary problem-solv-ing will hopefully grow in importanceas the requirements of actual speciesconservation become more fully ap-preciated. The response calls forcontextuality and problem orienta-tion. Interdisciplinary problem solv-ing does just that, tending "towardcontextuality in place of fragmentationand toward problem-oriented not prob-lem-blind perspectives" (Lasswell1971a:8, italics in original). This in turnrequires using multiple methods. Invery general terms, interdisciplinaryproblem solving involves four ele-ments: problem orientation, social pro-cess mapping, decision process map-ping, and standpoint clarification.These elements must be integrated.

Problem orientation is a strategyto analyze problems and invent solu-tions in a rational manner (Wallaceand Clark 1999). To permit morecomplete identification and definitionof problems, goals that people seekshould be laid out relative to the prob-lems under study. Historic trendsmust be described to see if events aremoving toward or away from goals,and the factors or conditions that haveinfluenced trends must be deter-mined. Projections of future trendsare possible if past trends and condi-tions are known adequately. Lastly,potential solutions must be invented,evaluated, and selected (assumingprojections are viewed as harmful).If these five tasks are carried out com-prehensively, yet selectively and re-alistically, a practical solution willlikely be found.

Social process mapping is an ef-fort to understand the social contextin which all problems are embedded(Clark and Wallace 1998). Socialprocess focuses on the political andmoral components of problem solv-ing. Every problem setting, regard-less of its subject matter, is comprised


of participants with interacting per-spectives. Participants employ what-ever values, or assets, they havethrough different strategies to obtaindesired outcomes. The outcomeshave additional effects (e.g., power,well-being, respect, affection). Val-ues are both the things for whichpeople strive (outcomes) and the as-sets they use to get them (e.g., wealth,enlightenment, skill, rectitude). Theyare the medium of exchange; valuesare used, exchanged, shaped, orshared to gain more values. In anysocial and decision process, participantsboth indulge in and are deprived ofvalues. Eight value categories are rec-ognized by Lasswell (1971a): power,wealth, enlightenment, skill, well-be-ing, affection, respect, and rectitude.

Decision process mapping is ananalysis of the decision-making pro-cess involved in problem solving(Clark and Brunner 1996). Decisionprocess involves the rational (i.e. isit reasonable?), political (i.e. is it pos-sible?), and moral (i.e. is it justifi-able?) dimensions of problem solv-ing. Decision processes consist of sixinterrelated functions, or activities.(1) Intelligence must be gatheredabout a problem and its context. (2)In turn, information obtained throughintelligence must be debated and dis-cussed, and solutions must be recom-mended, advanced, and promoted.(3) Rules or guidelines must then beestablished to address the problem.(4) Subsequently, the rules must bespecified and enforced, and resultingdisputes must be resolved. (5) All ofthe functions of the decision processmust be appraised. (6) Finally, theprocess must be terminated, often asa result of the problem being rede-fined. Lasswell (1971a) recommendsperformance standards and preferredoutcomes for each function. In ac-tual practice, not all of these functionsare always carried out.

Observational/participant stand-points consist of a person's value ori-

entations and biases, and stem frompersonality, disciplinary training, pa-rochial/universal experiences, episte-mological assumptions, organiza-tional allegiances, reference groups,and other sources. All people havestandpoints, including those who en-gage in endangered species conser-vation (Clark and Wallace 1999).People should seek to clarify theirown standpoints and understand theperspectives of other people involvedor concerned. Often practitioners arenot explicit about or do not recognizetheir own standpoints, risking incom-plete and biased analyses.

Empirical study can yield data onproblem orientation, social and deci-sion process variables, and stand-point. These categories must be con-sidered repeatedly in interdisciplinaryproblem solving because informationis cumulative. Multiple methods —qualitative and quantitative, observa-tional and experimental, intensive andextensive, contemplative and ma-nipulative — are required to obtainempirical data. This overall processshould function as a disciplined, self-corrective framework, the utility ofwhich can best be appreciated by ap-plying it to actual problems.

In species recovery, reasonableexplanations of the causes and con-sequences of endangerment areneeded as the basis for practical ac-tion and cooperation. And multiplemethods provide the only reliableapproach for obtaining comprehen-sive answers to key questions abouta recovery challenge. Multiple meth-ods are required to address biologi-cal and social problems and fully mapthe context of the problems. Endan-gered species professionals shouldtherefore use appropriate disciplinesand methods to understand problemsand find solutions. All methods haveboth strengths and limitations. Byfocusing attention on certain areas ofinquiry, single methods create blindspots. By using multiple methods,

researchers can minimize blind spotsand avoid the fragmented views,knowledge, and actions that rise fromsingle methods. Integrating multiplemethods requires that professionalsuse an interdisciplinary frameworkfor understanding the problem.

Two types of information are rec-ognized in endangered species recov-ery: ideological and technical. Ideo-logical information includes "factsabout the thoughts, feelings, and con-duct of human beings. Other factsare technical" (Lasswell 1966:123).Because ideological information isabout words and deeds (actions),which may be contradictory in asingle person or group, both forms ofinformation should be studied usingmultiple methods to gain insight.Qualitative methods are often used totriangulate on problems becausepeople often are not capable of ratio-nally explaining their intentions (Dey1993). So, training programs are nec-essary to expose students to contex-tual concepts, problem orientation,and methods of obtaining, processing,and utilizing data.

Little interdisciplinary problemsolving has been carried out to datein black-footed ferret recovery, al-though it has been called for, as wellas described repeatedly, by a few par-ticipants (Clark 1989, 1997; Reading1993; Miller et al. 1996). The offi-cial ferret program as carried out bygovernment agencies has begun toconsider social science consider-ations (Hutchins et al. 1996), butthese remain under-appreciated,poorly addressed, and little integratedwith the biological aspects of the re-covery challenge (Reading et al.1997). As such, the official recoveryprogram has made little progress to-ward utilizing interdisciplinary ap-proaches (see Clark et al. 2000). Byaddressing the biological and socialscience aspects of the recovery chal-lenge separately (i.e. a multi-disci-plinary approach), practitioners risk


devising fragmented, possibly con-tradictory solutions.

Perhaps the best interdisciplinaryapproach to endangered species re-covery is the decision seminar (seeClark 1997). This group effort ex-plicitly calls for problem-solving byaddressing all of the dimensions ofspecies conservation — problem ori-entation, social process mapping, de-cision process mapping, and stand-point clarification. It further requiresthat multiple methods be used, includ-ing both biological and social re-search. The entire effort is guided byan integrated analytic framework de-scribed by Lasswell (1971b), Brewer(1974, 1986), Burgess and Slonaker(1978), Willard and Norchi (1993), andClark (1997). We recommend usingthis approach in species recovery.

ConclusionsEndangered species conservation isa complex and diverse undertaking.The scope of species recovery is vari-ously interpreted. Often it is viewedas largely or solely a biological task,but when analyzed more comprehen-sively, species recovery is seen toencompass social science and inter-disciplinary considerations as well.As a result, multiple methods are in-creasingly being used and additionalmethods will be invented and adaptedto meet the multi-faceted challengesof species recovery. Over time, theself-correcting impact of experiencewill hopefully modify and integratethese diverse methods and move en-dangered species recovery towards anexplicit interdisciplinary approach.An interdisciplinary approach; that is,a contextual, problem-oriented, anda multi-method approach to endan-gered species conservation, can beexpected to improve our knowledgeboth of and in decision processes andthus make us more effective. Inter-disciplinary approaches can also con-tribute to the development of exper-tise in the formulation of endangered

species policy and management interms of realizable objectives andstrategies. At the least, this shouldbe the aspiration.

AcknowledgmentsThis work was supported by the Den-ver Zoological Society, YaleUniversity's School of Forestry andEnvironmental Studies, and grants tothe Northern Rockies ConservationCooperative (Cathy Patrick, GilOrdway, Sybil and Tom Wiancko,Garry Brewer, H.P. Kendall Founda-tion, Fanwood Foundation, New-Land Foundation).

Literature citedBarrett, W. 1978. The illusion of technique:

A search for meaning in a technologicalcivilization. Anchor Books, Garden City,New York.

Barzun, J. and H.F. Graff. 1985. The modernresearchers. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,Publishers, New York.

Baydack, R.K., H. Campa III, J.B. Haufler,eds. 1999. Practical approaches to the con-servation of biological diversity. IslandPress, Washington, D.C.

Beveridge, W.I.B. 1950. The art of scientificinvestigation. Vintage Book, New York.

Bookhout, T.A., ed. 1996. Research and man-agement techniques for wildlife and habi-tats. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Mary-land.

Brewer, G.D. 1974. Dealing with complexsocial problems: The potential of the "de-cision seminar." Pp. 439-461 in G.D.Brewer and R.D. Brunner, eds. Political de-velopment and change: a policy approach.Free Press, New Jersey.

Brewer, G.D. 1986. Methods for synthesis:Policy exercise. Pp. 455-475 in W.C. Clarkand R.E. Munn, eds. Sustainable develop-ment of the biosphere. Cambridge Univer-sity Press, Massachusetts.

Burgess, P.M. and L.L. Slonaker. 1978. Thedecision seminar: A strategy for problem-solving. Merschon Center of the Ohio StateUniversity, Columbus, Ohio. Paper No.1:1-22.

Clark, T.W., ed. 1986. The black-footed fer-ret. Great Basin Naturalist. Memoirs. 8:1-208.

Clark, T.W. 1989. Conservation biology of theblack-footed ferret Mustela nigripes. Wild-life Preservation Trust Special ScientificReport No. 3.

Clark. T.W. 1993. Creating and using knowl-

edge for species and ecosystem conserva-tion: Science, organizations, and policy.Perspectives in Biology and Medicine36:497-525.

Clark, T.W. 1997. Averting extinction: Recon-structing endangered species recovery. YaleUniversity Press, New Haven, Connecticut.

Clark, T.W. 1998. Interdisciplinary problem-solving: Next steps in the GreaterYellowstone Ecosystem. Paper presented ata Conference on the Theory and Practiceof Interdisciplinary Work, June, 1998. TheSwedish Foundation for Strategic Environ-mental Research and The Council for Plan-ning and Coordination of Research,Stockholm, Sweden. Policy Sciences: InPress.

Clark, T.W., A.R. Willard, and C.M. Cromley,eds. 2000. Foundations of natural resourcespolicy and management. Yale UniversityPress, New Haven, Connecticut.

Clark, T.W. and R.D. Brunner. 1996. Makingpartnerships work: Introduction to decisionprocess. Endangered Species UPDATE13(9):1-5.

Clark, T.W. and J.R. Cragun. 1991. Organi-zation and management of endangered spe-cies programs. Endangered Species UP-DATE 8(8):1-4.

Clark, T.W., R. Crete, and J. Cada. 1989. De-signing and managing successful endan-gered species recovery programs. Environ-mental Management 13:159-170.

Clark, T.W. and A.H. Harvey. 1988. Imple-menting endangered species recoverypolicy: Learning as we go? EndangeredSpecies UPDATE 5(10):35-42


Clark, T.W. and R.L. Wallace. 1999. The pro-fessional in endangered species conserva-tion: An introduction to standpoint clarifi-cation. Endangered Species UPDATE16(1):9-13.

Clark, T.W. and R. Westrum. 1989. High-per-formance teams in wildlife conservation:A species reintroduction and recovery ex-ample. Environmental Management13:663-670.

Denzin, N.K. and Y.S. Lincoln, eds. 1994.Handbook of qualitative research. SagePublications, Thousand Oaks, California.

Dey, I. 1993. Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists.Routledge, New York.

Dominowski, R.L. 1980. Research methods.Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NewJersey.

Dryzek, J. 1990. Discursive democracy: Poli-tics, policy, and political science. Cam-


bridge University Press, New York.Hutchins, M., R. J. Wiese, and J. Bowdoin.

1996. Black-footed ferret recovery programanalysis and action plan. American Zoo andAquarium Association, Bethesda, Mary-land.

Isaac, S. and W.B. Michael. 1995. Handbookin research and evaluation: A collection ofprinciples, methods, and strategies usefulin the planning, design, and evaluation ofstudies in education and behavioral sci-ences. EdITS/Educational and IndustrialTesting Services, San Diego, California.

Janesick, V.J. 1994. The dance of qualitativeresearch design: Metaphor, methodology,and meaning. Pp. 209-219 in N.K. Denzinand Y.S. Lincoln, eds. Handbook of quali-tative research, Sage Publications, Thou-sand Oaks, California.

Lasswell, H.D. 1966. The analysis of politi-cal behavior: An empirical approach. Ar-chon Books, Hamden, Connecticut.

Lasswell, H.D. 1971a. A pre-view of thepolicy sciences. American Elsevier Pub-lishing Company, New York.

Lasswell, H.D. 1971b. The continuing deci-sion seminar as a technique of instruction.Policy Sciences 2:43-57.


Lockhart, M., A. Vargas, P. Marinari, and P.Gober. 1998. Black-footed ferret (Mustelanigripes) recovery update. EndangeredSpecies UPDATE 15:92-93.

Maguire, L. A. 1989. Managing black-footedferret populations under uncertainty: Cap-ture and release decisions. Pp. 268-292, in

Conservation Biology of the Black-footedFerret, Edited by U. S. Seal, E. T. Thorne,M. A. Bogan, and S. H. Anderson. YaleUniversity Press, New Haven, Connecticut.

Marius, R. 1995. A short guide to writingabout history. HarperCollins, New York.

McCain, G., and E.M. Segal. 1977. The gameof science. Brooks/Cole Publishing, Com-pany, Monterey, California.

Miller, B.J., R.P. Reading, and S.C. Forrest.1996. Prairie night: Black-footed ferretsand the recovery of endangered species.Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington,D.C.

Miller, D.C. 1991. Handbook of research de-sign and social measurement. Sage Publi-cations, Thousand Oaks, California.

National Research Council. 1986. Ecologicalknowledge for environmental problemsolving. National Academy Press, Wash-ington.

Reading, R.P. 1993. Toward an endangeredspecies reintroduction paradigm: A casestudy of the black-footed ferret. Ph.D. Dis-sertation. Yale University, New Haven,Connecticut.

Reading, R.P., T.W. Clark, A. Vargus, L.R.Hanebury, B.J. Miller, and D. Biggins.1996. Recent directions in black-footedferret recovery. Endangered Species UP-DATE 13(10&11):1-6.

Reading, R.P. and S.R. Kellert. 1993. Atti-tudes toward a proposed black-footed fer-ret (Mustela nigripes) reintroduction. Con-servation Biology 7:569-580.

Reading, R.P. and B.J. Miller. 1994. Theblack-footed ferret recovery program: Un-masking professional and organizationalweaknesses. Pp. 73-100 in T.W. Clark, R.P.

Reading, and A.L. Clarke, eds. Endangeredspecies recovery: Finding the lessons, im-proving the process. Island Press, Wash-ington, D.C.

Rosaldo, R. 1993. Culture and truth: The re-making of social analysis. Beacon Press,Boston, Massachusetts.

Ratti, J.T. and E.O. Garaton. 1996. Researchand experimental design. Pp. 1-23 in T.A.Bookhout, ed. 1996. Research and manage-ment techniques for wildlife and habitats.The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Scott, J. 1998. Seeing like a state. Yale Uni-versity Press, New Haven, Connecticut.

Scott, J.M., S.A. Temple, D.L. Harlow, andM.L. Shaffer. 1996. Restoration and man-agement of endangered species. Pp. 531-539 in T.A. Bookhout, ed. 1996. Researchand management techniques for wildlifeand habitats. The Wildlife Society,Bethesda, Maryland.

Strauss, A. and J. Corbin. 1994. Groundedtheory. Pp. 273-285 in N.K. Denzin andY.S. Lincoln, eds. 1994. Handbook of quali-tative research. Sage Publications, Thou-sand Oaks, California.

Wallace, R. L. and T. W. Clark. 1999. Solv-ing problems in endangered species con-servation: An introduction to problem ori-entation. Endangered Species UPDATE16(2):28-34.

Willard, A.R. and C.H. Norchi. 1993. Thedecision seminar as an instrument of powerand enlightenment. Political Psychology14(4):575-606.

Yin, R.K. 1989. Case study research: Designand methods. Applied Social ResearchMethods, v. 5. Sage Publications, London.


applications

Photos by Richard L. Wallace (L to R):Galapagos fur seal ( Arctocephalusgalapagoensis ) and Galapagos sea lion(Zalophus californianus wollebaeki );Galapagos sea lions; California sea lion(Z. californianus ).


IntroductionEndangered species recovery is nearlyalways difficult, and as a result, con-servation biologists need to use the besttools, skills, and experience available.It is not always easy to determine theprecise causes for dwindling, smallpopulations and habitats and to devisetimely, efficient means to restore themto evolutionary health. While the useof good biology is absolutely essentialto species recovery, other factors of anorganizational nature are also indis-pensable, such as problem analysis andproblem-solving strategies, organiza-tional design, work group effectiveness,and clarity and specificity of goals andobjectives. Inadequacy in any of these

Organization and Management of Endangered SpeciesProgramsTim W. ClarkYale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 301 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511 and NorthernRockies Conservation Cooperative, Box 2705, Jackson, WY [email protected]

John R. CragunUtah State University, 2810 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT [email protected]

AbstractBiologists involved in endangered species conservation are skilled in the scientific and technicalaspects of their work. However, it is equally important that they understand how to organize andmanage an effective endangered species recovery program, as well as participate in it. Organiza-tions are commonplace in society, but attention to their structure and function are often taken forgranted, especially so in species conservation efforts. People involved in recovery programs wouldbenefit from a clear understanding of how different organizational approaches can either hinder orfacilitate their work. Just as species live in environments, recovery programs exist within "taskenvironments" showing the properties of uncertainty, complexity, diversity and instability. Modelswith significant uncertainty require a structure that allows for proper generation and managementof information throughout the life of the project. Bureaucracies are ill suited to this task, for ex-ample. Therefore, the management process must include effective teams that are flexible, quick, andbased on a task-oriented and communicative approach. Planning within an effective team willrequire continual reevaluation, analysis, and adjustment. Teams should not be formed using hierar-chy, reliance on rules, or many regulations. Therefore, it is important to have a leader who cancreate a "team environment." A leader who is skilled in conflict management and can separate therationality, politics, and ethics involved in all efforts. Finally, teams must rely on explicit frame-works for analyzing organizational problems, and making changes. Paying attention to the mana-gerial and organizational aspects of a recovery program can greatly improve the recovery record ofendangered species programs.

factors may result in inefficiency andineffectiveness, and ultimately, the spe-cies may not be recovered.

In this paper, we introduce organi-zation and management concepts andrecommendations that can help thework of conservation biologists andmanagers. We offer only a brief intro-duction to the complex organizationaldimension of restoration work. We alsodirect you to the extensive literature ofthis field and to several checklists andself-tests that allow you to diagnosisyour present situation.

The organizational dimensionof restoration workThe challenge of successful species

restoration includes many organiza-tion and management issues (Clark1989), although this fact often goesunrecognized (Clark 1986). It is ob-vious that good science is needed inrestoration work. It is less obviousto many people that good organiza-tion and management are also needed.Our study of the organizational di-mensions of conservation work andour participation in various speciesrestoration efforts have led us to con-clude that an explicit understandingof how organizations arc structuredand how they function is essential tosuccessful conservation. By study-ing the activities and structures ofprograms and teams, for example, we



can learn which ones best support thedemands of conservation work (Clarket al. 1989). Understanding organiza-tions and knowing how to make themwork for species recovery can make thedifference between a program that suc-ceeds and one that fails (Argyris andSchön 1978; Clark 1985).

Unfortunately, it is common forprofessionals in many disciplines toignore or depreciate the value of theseorganizational factors. They see onlythe biological, technical aspects of theproblem and under appreciate orga-nization and management dimen-sions. Because of this, their job maybe harder than it should be. They mayunconsciously create impediments orbarriers as a direct consequence ofhow they organize and manage them-selves, how they structure their think-ing and actions, beginning with howthey identify problems, how they de-fine solutions, and especially howthey design and implement jobs andworking relationships. Because ofthis failure and because of the ur-gency and the risks in recovery ef-forts, conservation professionalswould do well to incorporate knowl-edge of organizations into their rep-ertoire of skills and to learn how dif-ferent organizational designs andmanagement modes can either facili-tate or hinder their work. Extensiveresearch on many different kinds oforganizations has revealed commonproblems, patterns, and concerns. Forexample, it is estimated that 50 to75% of organizational behavior, pat-terns, and problems is common tomost organizations (Galbraith 1977).A little of this kind of knowledge cango a long way in saving species.

Embarrassingly little attention ispaid to designing and managing or-ganizations and decision-making pro-cesses in conservation despite evi-dence of chronic and obvious prob-lems. Yaffee (1982) described manyof these problems in his classic studyof implementation of the Endangered

Species Act, including: slow deci-sion-making; rewards for incompe-tence and penalties for aggressive,effective action; overly rigid bureau-cratic controls; long hierarchies ofauthority; and importantly, scientificand bureaucratic conservatism. Theseproblems are probably more prevalentthan is currently recognized in recov-ery efforts. People are surrounded byorganizations all their lives. They takethem so much for granted that theirpervasiveness and influence are takenas a matter of fact. This has led organi-zational designers to observe that:"People who live their entire lives inorganizations and are surrounded bythem have only the vaguest knowledgeof their workings — or underlying log-ics" (Jelinck et al. 1981:4).

Task environments andinformation processing modelsRestoring species, of course, requiresthat we take their environments intoconsideration. Plants and animalsevolve in dynamic environmentalcontexts. Indeed, the reason manyspecies are now endangered is be-cause these contexts have been dras-tically altered by humans. Just asspecies live and act in environmentalcontexts, the restoration task is rec-ognized by organization designers tohave an "environment." The sum to-tal of all the forces and factors —technical, organizational, and policy— that affect the work of species re-covery is the task environment. Thereare internal and external aspects of thetask environment (Clark 1985; Clarkand Westrum 1989).

The systems properties of manyendangered species task environ-ments are uncertainty, complexity,diversity, and instability (Clark et al.1989). Uncertainty is the differencebetween what conservationists knowwhen they start a recovery effort andwhat they must eventually know tobe successful. In the beginning, un-certainty is often great. There are

complex relationships between en-dangered species and their biologicaland physical environments oftenshowing thresholds and indirect andnonlinear relationships. Such rela-tionships possess much natural vari-ability. Uncertainty and complexitylead to unpredictability.

There is uncertainty not only inecological systems themselves butalso in the organizations involved.There are often differences in percep-tion and expectations among the in-dividuals and organizations involved(Hrebiniak 1978). Many differencesexist between field level agency man-agers, top level bureaucrats, univer-sity researchers, conservation organi-zations, and others. For example,even though all these individuals mayagree on the goal or end - to save thespecies - they frequently disagree onthe means. When you figure thesedifferences into the hundreds of de-cisions or clearances that must takeplace in a typical recovery effort, itcan be seen that it is virtually impos-sible to create an effective, efficient,and equitable program without a goodworking knowledge of organizationmanagement principles.

Organizational designers offerwhat they call "information process-ing models" for programs confrontedwith much uncertainty, such as recov-ery programs (Daft 1983). Thesemodels view the task basically as oneof proper information generation andmanagement. They generally illus-trate that programs confronted withmuch uncertainty (e.g., little informa-tion and how to solve a problem ini-tially) need to be structured and op-erated in special ways. Every pro-gram should have the capacity to geland process information matched tothe demands of the task environment.To the extent that a program 's infor-mation processing requirementschange over time, the task of struc-turing and managing the program isa continuous job in itself. In the be-


ginning, programs should be highly,flexible. As the problem gets re-solved, eventually more fixed, stan-dardized procedures can be used.

Task forces and project teamsTask forces and project teams can beone of the most useful program ele-ments for endangered species recov-ery (Clark and Westrum 1989).Small, flexible teams are useful be-cause, with the unpredictability of thetask environment, problems arisewhich do not respond to traditionalrules, roles, and regulations of bu-reaucratic management. The workteam, once it has adequate resources,can move quickly to stay ahead ofproblems. A good team can generateand process needed information rap-idly offering up solutions to the re-covery task. We all know of so-calledteams, for example, that are just rigidextensions of standard bureaucraticstructures and operating principles.These are teams in name only andthey often perform poorly in endan-gered species conservation.

The team needed for restoration,by contrast, should be task and ac-tion oriented, focused on getting thetask completed successfully. It mustbe willing to accept the uncertaintyand risk inherent in endangered spe-cies challenges. Considerable em-phasis must be given to quality in-formation flow and continuous evalu-ations. The amount of administrativecontrol over the team will vary fromcase to case, but fundamentally, ad-ministrators must be committed to thetask and provide the latitude neces-sary for professionals to do the work.

To be effective, individual teammembers must be perceptive, ener-getic, willing to work without closesupervision or extensive rules andregulations, and able to learn well.Team membership should be basedon an individual's political contribu-tion to solving problems and less onthe political representation he or she

may provide. Both agency and non-government participation is necessary.A team set up and operated this waystands a much better chance of beingsuccessful than one which is not.

Understanding the character ofyour organizationThe previous descriptions of task en-vironments and task forces andproject teams are all characteristicsof task oriented organizations. Notall organizations are task-oriented,however. There are also power, role,and people orientations (Harrison1972, 1975). These four orientationsare defined and accompanied by aquestionnaire about them which youcan take to learn about your ownorganization's culture (Harrison1972, 1975).1 If the wrong cultureor orientation is used by the team orthe overall program, it is unlikely thatthe restoration job will be success-fully met. So it is essential to under-stand the type of culture your orga-nization has, and if it is not a taskorientation, it needs to be changed toone that is.

Let's look briefly at the conceptof organizational cultures. At thecore of every organization is a cul-ture or system of thought that is thecentral determinant of its character(Harrison 1972, 1975). The cultureis a set of values and cognitive per-spectives that are largely shared bymembers. Some people becomehighly socialized to organizationalcultures, whereas other people are lesswell socialized. "An organization'sculture affects the behavior of itspeople, its ability to effectively meettheir needs and demands, and the wayit copes with the external environ-ment" (Harrison 1975: 169). Muchof the conflict between and within or-ganizations is the result of cultural dif-ferences between organizations or sub-units within the same organization.

From an operational point ofview, an organization's culture may

or may not be well matched to theconservation work to be done. If itis, it will aid task completion; if not,it will hinder the work. Both theprogram's culture and the team's cul-ture should be predominantly task-oriented to be most matched to thework of species restoration. In task-oriented conservation teams, mem-bers should have no ideological com-mitment to authority and order per sein such programs (Clark andWestrum 1989). Authority should beseen as legitimate if it is based onknowledge and competence and isused to meet the recovery task. Au-thority is illegitimate if it is based onpower or position and is not used tomeet task objectives.

Managerial processesHow should task forces and projectteams be managed in a complex anduncertain task environment? Specialattention must be given to manage-ment processes. Whether recoveringspecies or conducting other complextasks, organization and managementconcepts have wide application inproblem-solving situations. Manage-ment is the use of people and otherresources to accomplish objectives.This very brief overview of terminol-ogy, theory, and perspectives haspractical value you can apply(Mintzberg 1971; Brickloe andCoughlin 1977; Kanter 1983; Booneand Kurtz 1984; Steersetal 1985). Wewill describe briefly four of the pri-mary functions that take place in or-ganizations, focusing on how thesefunctions should be carried out in thehigh performance teams that could beuseful in conservation.

Organizing teamsThe way a team is set up and run pro-vides a map of tasks to be performed,responsibilities, and reporting rela-tionships. Obviously, a marine com-bat team should be organized differ-ently from a day-care center or a pro-


gram to save an endangered species.Getting the organization right for

a restoration team should be a majorconcern. Given the task environmentof restoration work, the overall pro-gram should have little formalizationand few hierarchical levels, rules andregulation. Elsewhere, we have de-scribed many organizational con-cerns in conservation (e.g., Clark etal. 1989). The bureaucratic central-ization of decision making and man-agement functions should be mini-mal. For example, referring prob-lems upward within bureaucratic hi-erarchies may destroy team cohesionand will frequently result in criticaltime lags if decisions by top manage-ment are delayed too long, if lines ofcommunication become too long, iftoo many people are involved, or ifthe relevancy of the issue becomesdistorted by the time it takes for theadministration to make a decision.

Planning in teamThe kind of planning thatan effective restorationteam uses may be quite dif-ferent from that typicallyused by bureaucracies. Inteams, planning requirescontinual reevaluation,analysis, and adjustments -all directed toward the res-toration goal. Plans need torespond quickly to changessuggested by field opera-tions. Extensive preplanningand rigid overplanningshould be avoided.

Establishing and put-ting a plan in place involvesdecision-making. Both theteam and supervisors in theoverall program must un-derstand the overall systemof decisions being made.The people and the deci-sion-making processshould collectively focuson the task. Team members

are usually highly skilled in conser-vation science and management, andthey should be included in all deci-sion-making and planning.

Decision analysis has been usedsuccessfully in several endangered spe-cies recovery plans (Maguire 1986). Inshort, decision analysis is a form of riskassessment wherein the problem isoutlined in a "decision tree." It isextremely valuable in unpredictabletechnical and socio-political task en-vironments; endangered species res-toration is a prime example.

Leading teamsLeadership of the team and the over-all program should be task-oriented.The team leader should be a teambuilder and a skilled manager of con-flict. Differences of perception andinterests will arise in any joint task,but coupled with emotionalism, dif-ferences can be magnified to unpro-ductive levels. Team leaders should

be evaluated on the overall perfor-mance of the team and not solely ontheir individual performance or onthe basis of their employing agency'sincentives. Team leaders can findthemselves in a dual role. One roleis task-oriented and the other repre-sentation of their employing agency.The two roles can be incompatible,so team leaders should possess anability to separate scientific fact frominference or judgments that reflectpolicy and politics.

Controlling teamsControlling teams is necessary tomaintain working relationships andto insure that performance standardsare met. In restoration teams consist-ing of professionals, the control func-tion will largely be self- imposed bythe members themselves, assuminga commitment to the task, an envi-ronment that provides feedback onteam performance, an evaluation sys-tem, and appropriate recognition andrewards for performance.

All team members should partici-pate in defining the problem they areworking on, in designing appropri-ate strategies, and in agreeing uponthe standards on which their perfor-mance will be judged. Once all mem-bers have accepted the legitimacy ofthe task and the performance stan-dards, then controlling the task be-comes less formidable. Feedback onindividual and team performanceshould come regularly as the teamconducts its activities.

Analyzing organizationalproblems and developingaction plansEndangered species recovery re-quires a framework for analyzing or-ganizational problems and for imple-menting change. For example, ateam may recognize that their day-to-day effectiveness is hampered bya lack of freedom to confront oneanother on relevant task issues. Hav-

Musk deer ( Moschus moschiferus ) by RichardP. Reading.


ing agreed that they need to talk moreopenly, each team member waits forsomeone close to begin. After con-siderable frustration, they may ask,"Why can't we change the way wework together?"

In this example, there may bemany reasons to be more open. Animportant one is that team membersmust perform effectively for theirown sakes, for the good of the team,and for their employing organizations.Accomplishing needed changes, evenif they are well recognized, is not al-ways an easy task. Often forces hid-den in the sociology of the teamhinder change and may require a pro-fessional organizational consultant.By the same token, other problems,both organizational and technical canbe effectively addressed by the teamdirectly if they follow a systematicprocess of problem-solving and ac-tion-planning.1 This procedure isself-explanatory and could be used byteams, agencies, and organizationsexperiencing technical, organiza-tional, or other problems.

ConclusionsThere is evidence of poor perfor-mance in endangered species pro-grams in this country (Kohm 1990).Many of these problems can be tracedto poor design and mismanagementof organizations. Once biologistsunderstand this, they will be able toapply the concepts, terms, and de-scriptions used in this introductorypaper and the extensive literaturecited to identify, analyze, and beginto rectify the problems in their own

programs. The task of restoring spe-cies and their habitats to a healthy sta-tus is difficult enough without beinghampered by poorly designed andmanaged organizations, especiallywhen researchers in these fields al-ready have valuable concepts andtechniques which arc directly appli-cable to conservation programs. Itseems clear that conservation biolo-gists must become knowledgeableabout what makes for a good recov-ery program and how to achieve it.

AcknowledgementsDenise Casey critically reviewed themanuscript. The Catherine PatrickFoundation, the Fanwood Founda-tion, and the Lost Arrow Foundationsupported this project.

Footnote1. Additional information is available from

the senior author.

Literature citedArgyris, D. and D. Schön. 1978. Organiza-

tional learning: A theory or action perspec-tive. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachu-setts.

Boone, L E. and D. L Kurtz. 1984. Principlesof management. Random House, NewYork, New York.

Brickloe, W. D. and M. T. Cougnlin. 1977.Managing organizations. Glencoe Press,Encino, California.

Clark, T.W. 1985. Organizing for endangeredspecies recovery. Presented 2-5 April,1985, at Wildlife Management Directionsin the NW through 1990. NW Section, TheWildlife Society, Sheraton Hotel, Missoula,Montana.

Clark, T.W. 1986. Professional excellence inwildlife and natural resource organizations.Renewable Resource. J. Summer 4:8-13.

Clark, T.W. 1989. Conservation biology of the

black-footed ferret. Wildlife PreservationTrust International Species Scientific Re-port No. 3.

Clark, T.W. and R. Westrum. 1989. High per-formance teams in wildlife conservation: aspecies reintroduction and recovery ex-ample. Environmental Management13:363-370.

Clark, T.W., and R. Crete, and J. Cada. 1989.Designing and managing successful endan-gered species recovery programs. Environ-mental Management 13:159-170.

Draft, R.L. 1983. Organization theory anddesign. West Publ., St. Paul, Minnesota.

Galbraith, J.R. 1977. Organizational design.Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.

Harrison, R. 1972. Understanding yourorganization's character. Harvard Bus. Rev.May-June:119-128.

Harrison, R. 1975. Diagnosing organizationalideology. Pp. 169-176 in J.W. Pfeiffer andJ.E. Jones, eds. Handbook for group facili-tators. Univ. Associates, Inc., San Diego,California.

Hrebiniak, L.G. 1978. Complex organiza-tions. West Publ., New York, New York.

Jelinek, J., J.A. Litterer, and R.E. Miles, eds.1981. Organizations by design: theory andpractice. Business Publ., Inc., Plano, Texas.

Kanter, R. 1983. The change masters. Simonand Schuster, New York, New York.

Kohm, K.A. 1990. Balancing on the brink ofextinction: the Endangered Species Act andlessons for the future. Island Press, Wash-ington, D.C.

Maguire, L.A. 1986. Using decisions analy-sis to manage endangered species popula-tions. J. Envir. Manage. 22:345-360.

Mintzberg, H. 1971. Managerial work: analy-sis from observation. Manage. Sci. 18:B97-B110.

Steers, R. M., G. R. Ungson, and R. T.Mowday. 1985. Managing effective orga-nizations. Kent Publ. Boston, Massachu-setts.

Yaffee, S.L. 1982. Prohibitive policy: imple-menting the Endangered Species Act. MITPress, Cambridge, Massachusetts.


IntroductionJustification for the Endangered Spe-cies Act of 1973 (ESA) is largelybased on recognition that if the bioticenterprise is damaged by the extinc-tion of too many species, the currentfunctioning of ecosystems will be lostor diminished, and the consequencesfor humans will be unpredictable, butmost definitely harmful. Its is vitalthat the ESA policy be refined, admin-istered, and applied well to conservespecies and their habitats. Improvingthe learning capability of profession-als and organizations is the strategymost likely to be successful in this re-gard. This paper examines learning atmultiple levels to improve species andecosystem recovery and conservation.

Learning at individual andorganizational levelsLearning is the process of using in-formation to adjust one's responses tothe environment, or the process of

Learning as a Strategy for Improving Endangered SpeciesConservationTim W. ClarkYale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 301 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511 and NorthernRockies Conservation Cooperative, Box 2705, Jackson, WY [email protected]

AbstractMany people believe that the endangered species conservation process is not working very well.Extinction rates remain high, and few species have recovered to healthy, viable populations in se-cure habitats. Improving the professionals' and organizations' learning abilities that are involvedin species recovery may upgrade conservation, perhaps significantly. Learning, however, involvesmore than changing or fine tuning experimental scientific methods. It requires a commitment tofocus systematically and explicitly on learning capabilities from the individual, professional, orga-nizational, and policy levels. Effective, proactive learning improves performance by looking criti-cally, but constructively, at past performance, current problems, and the context of the problem(s),and applying the lessons to new situations. Though organizations involved in endangered speciesconservation need to learn, the way that individuals and organizations do learn is still unclear. Thispaper reviews current learning theory which offers ideas and suggestions, reviews current barriersto learning, and suggests ways to facilitate improved learning to upgrade our conservation efforts.If individuals and organizations involved in biological conservation can learn and apply lessons ofhindsight, and then translate them into foresight for future efforts, species recovery and protectioncan greatly improve. The very health of the entire ecosphere is at stake.

detecting and correcting "errors," i.e.mismatches between expectations andoutcomes (Argyris and Schön 1978).Learning to meet practical conserva-tion goals successfully involves morethan refining scientific methods. Wemust focus on learning capabilitiesand processes at both individual andsocietal levels in pragmatic ways.Fundamentally, we must learn to howto learn more effectively — an ap-proach that improves performance byexplicitly seeking information aboutour own past performance, the dy-namic status of the problems we face,and the context of these problems(Clark 1993). This focus on learningbrings four targets to attention — in-dividual, professional, organizational,and policy. Learning in any one ofthese four may affect learning in allthe others. An explicit learning strat-egy requires that inquiry and redirec-tion are common, new ideas wel-comed, bridging rewarded, and re-

sponsibility for outcomes shared.There has been considerable ex-

perience with endangered species con-servation since passage of the ESA, butit is debatable how much of this hasbeen explicitly and systematically con-verted to organizational or societallearning or how much improvementhas actually occurred in species sur-vival (see Yaffee 1982, 1994; Tobin1990; Kohm 1991; Alvarez 1993). Thesad fact is that, as Argyris and Schön(1978:9) noted, "there are too manycases in which organizations know lessthan their members." Organizationallearning capability, in government,business, and NGOs, has been shownto affect important organizational out-comes and policy implementation(Glynn et al. 1992). In this case, thelevel of performance in restoring en-dangered species is largely a functionof the ability of organizations to learnform past experience and apply the les-sons to new situations.

Reprinted from Endangered Species UPDATE: 1996, 13(1/2):5-6,22-24.


Learning theoryExactly how individuals, profession-als, organizations, and policy systemslearn is not known. Parson and Clark(1995) provide a good overview, inthe context of sustainable develop-ment, of numerous theories that ex-plain the phenomenon of individuallearning. Some theories focus onpeople's behavior and what factors(e.g., social, cognitive, symbolic)motivate it. Others emphasizepeople's rationality, and its "bound-lessness," as they make decisions,learn, or solve problems. Other theo-ries look at information processing,i.e. the need to filter and structure vastamounts of incoming information.Parson and Clark (1995:436) alsosummarized the cognitive sciences'definition of learning: "Learning is anexperience-driven change in the in-ternal cognitive structure used to rep-resent information. People respondto disparity between their cognitivestructures and feedback from theirbehavior by revising their cogni-tions." There is also a body of learn-ing theory dealing with the joint de-velopment, or "codetermination," ofindividual thought/learning and so-cial/cultural contexts. Learning byindividuals is prerequisite to organi-zational or policy learning.

For significant improvements tooccur in endangered species conser-vation, organizations must learn.Such a statement seems obvious, butfew organizations set explicit learn-ing goals or track their learning per-formance. No recovery or manage-ment plan that I am aware of specifi-cally lists learning as a goal. Leeuwet al. (1994:2) point out that "organi-zational learning is usually not a de-liberate enterprise, but an ad hoc en-deavor used for problem solving." Inpart, the concept of organizationallearning is relatively new; many keyadvances were made beginning in the1970s building on theories about in-dividual learning (e.g., Argyris and

Schön 1978). Recent interest in or-ganizational learning (see Senge1990) stems from the fact that it hasa vast array of practical implications.But despite its potential uses in im-proving endangered species conser-vation, these ideas and techniques arelittle known in species restorationcircles. Organizational learning de-pends on individual learning, prob-ably in one of two ways. It has beentheorized that organizational learningis the sum of its individual members'learning, which is not as simple as itsounds. According to Parson andClark (1995:439) "What each indi-vidual learns may be complexly con-tingent on the choices and learningof other group members (e.g., in pur-suit of high level coordinated perfor-mance by a group such as a basket-ball team, a string quartet, or a recov-ery team). Or the means of individuallearning might be through activities thatdepend on the participation of othergroup members, such as discourse,imitation, or shared activity." Alterna-tively, group learning may be analo-gous to individual learning except thatit takes place at a more complex levelof society, i.e. it may be "autonomous,determined by group-level causal pro-cesses that correspond to the processesshaping individual learning" (p. 439).Thus, one could speak of organizationalperception, memory, or changes in be-havior and beliefs.

Etheredge and Short (1983:42),in their study of learning in govern-ment agencies, proposed that learn-ing ought to result in "increased in-telligence and sophistication ofthought and, linked to it, increasedeffectiveness of behavior." Etheredge(1985:66) drew on three criteria tomeasure increase in intelligence: "(1)growth of 'realism', recognizing thedifferent elements and processes ac-tually operating in the world; (2)growth of 'intellectual integration' inwhich these different elements andprocesses are integrated with one an-

other in thought; (3) growth of reflec-tive perspective about the conduct ofthe first two processes, the concep-tion of the problem, and the resultswhich the decision maker desires toachieve" (emphasis in original).

Similarly, Argyris and Schön(1978) emphasize the change in "re-flective perspective" in their distinc-tion between "single-loop learning"and "double-loop learning." Insingle-loop learning, organizationsdevelop skills to scan their environ-ment, set goals, gather better infor-mation, use it in planning, and moni-tor their own performance in relationto their goals. The entire process isconducted within the context of theorganization's central cultural normsand traditions, i.e. its understanding ofhow to do business and the adequacyand reasonableness of its strategies.Many organizations become good atchanging organizational strategies tomeet unchanging norms.

But some "errors" are not easilycorrected within the framework(Argyris 1992). Sometimes the erroror conflict challenges the normsthemselves. A program selected toachieve certain goals may be imple-mented successfully, for instance, yetnot be adequate to achieve the goals.It may be that, in the words of Leeuw,et al. (1994:9) "evaluations precipi-tate debate on core organizational is-sues when they not only ask the ques-tion 'how well are we doing,' but also,'does it make sense to do it, even if itis being done well?'" Organizationallearning in these cases requires morethan a single feedback loop of chang-ing strategies: it requires a doublefeedback loop that also reexaminesthe standards by which the organiza-tion operates. The process must startwith recognizing the unexpected out-comes, acknowledging that they can-not be "corrected" by doing the samething better, and developing a newand different perspective on the prob-lem. Double-loop learning must insti-


tutionalize systems that "review andchallenge basic norms, policies, andoperating procedures in relation tochanges occurring in the environment"(Morgan 1986:89).

Many of the people and organi-zations engaged in endangered spe-cies conservation could benefit fromthese concepts and criteria. Appraisalof restoration efforts, for instance,would be improved by willingness toexamine both personal and organiza-tional norms as well as the success ofparticular programmatic elements.As Senge (1990) suggests, organiza-tional learning depends on develop-ing new values and assumptions, new"action rules," new capacities in bothcognition and language, and newpractices. Many of the supposedlyintractable and recurring problems ofrecovery programs could be over-come by adopting new approaches tolearning. The practical benefits interms of improving efficiency, devel-oping operational process and savingspecies would be enormous.

Barriers to learningThere are inherent limitations onlearning both by individuals andgroups. These limitations are at playin endangered species conservation asin many other settings. Michael(1995) notes that three barriers tolearning may be largely unconsciousat the individual level, but nonethe-less real. First, sociocultural con-straints against learning are part ofevery human myth system and its"shared set of tacit assumptions"(p.469). "Our belief that we are in-dependent agents deters us from rec-ognizing how very much our beliefsand behavior, our way of evaluatingpersons and events are shaped by ourmyths and our habits" (p. 469). Sec-ond, emotional factors also weighagainst learning. New ways of un-derstanding the world may createuncertainty, risk, threat, a sense ofvulnerability, and anxiety. Third,

there are cognitive constraints on howour minds perceive, collect, under-stand, and analyze information, as-sess its reliability, and comprehend itsmassive quantities and complexity."Learning to perceive and to evaluatethe 'facts' differently, including experi-encing them from the 'rationality' ofother interests, and then learning to actdifferently with regard to them" (p. 473)may be an overwhelming task.

A number of intrinsic limitationson learning have been recognizedwithin organizations, too, particularlybureaucratic ones. Morgan (1986)cites three such barriers. First, orga-nizations impose fragmented struc-tures of thought on their employeesand discourage them from thinkingfor themselves. Organizationally-setgoals, structures, roles, and routinessharply define patterns of attentionand responsibility for people withinthe group. Even successful single-looplearning may inhibit asking deeperquestions about the organization's un-derlying assumptions, norms, andlearning capabilities (Argyris 1992).Second is the system of bureaucraticaccountability that fosters defensive-ness. The organization and its em-ployees may make excuses, deflectresponsibility, or obscure issues andproblems that might make them lookbad. This may be manifest as "coverups," manipulation of images andimpressions, or telling superiors orthe public what employees think theywant to hear. Third is the differencebetween what people say and whatthey actually do. Employees "de-velop espoused theories that effec-tively prevent them from understand-ing and dealing with their problems"(Morgan 1986:90). "Groupthink"pressures may reinforce these tenden-cies (Janis 1972).

Etheredge (1985) identified sev-eral barriers to governmental learn-ing (see also Osborne and Gaebler1993). First, agencies tend to adoptsimilar policies and programs across

all circumstances. Second, decisionprocesses in agencies tend to beclosed, relying primarily on informa-tion sources that confirm agency ten-dencies. Third, government agenciescommonly demonstrate errors injudgment and perception: theyunderappreciate valuable data, dis-miss outsiders' suggestions, and basejudgements on wishful thinking.Fourth, early appointments of peopleto important positions tend to deter-mine later outcomes. Fifth, there is atendency within bureaucracies for noone to accept complete responsibil-ity. Sixth, policy meetings are usu-ally highly ritualized, which rein-forces patterns of collective decisionmaking and bypasses "intellectualintegrity" (p. 98). Seventh, group de-cision processes are generally "de-signed to affect choices rather than toclarify them" (p. 99). Finally, organi-zational learning is inhibited when de-cision makers underuse or penalize in-formation form subordinates.

Many of these "self-blockedlearning" patterns appear over andover again within organizations, andthe same strategies for organized be-havior are repeated — despite continu-ing incongruities between people's ex-pectations of how their actions anddecisions will affect matters and theactual outcomes and effects.

Improving conservation byimproving learningThe constraints on achieving a morelearning-based approach to endan-gered species conservation are fun-damental cultural, biological, and or-ganizational factors. Yet, the neces-sity of change is widely recognized.To put it simply, we need to learn howto learn explicitly and systematicallyat all levels-individual, professional,organizational, and policy. A num-ber of suggestions have been put for-ward to implement and facilitate im-proved learning and reorientation ofour approach to conservation.


Michael (1995:475-484) offersnine recommendations for improvinglearning in the context of the renewalof ecosystems: (1) "Use the meta-phoric power of language." Michaelpoints out that war (and its deriva-tive sports) is a pervasive metaphorused to describe many of our society'sactivities: "These metaphors tacitlyemphasize we/they, before/after, win-ner/loser, beginning/ending, fixedboundaries in time and space, and re-lationships that map poorly onto theamorphous information world…andonto the fluid ecologicalenvironment...[And] it is usually bythese metaphors (data never readalone) that activists and policy mak-ers present their proposals" (p. 476).He suggests building an alternativevocabulary of metaphors that moreaccurately reflect the realities of "anamorphous, problematic, informa-tion-rich world of multiple mythsdescribed by such words as recipro-cal, resilient, circular, emergent, de-velopment, ebb and flow, cultivate,seed, harvest, potential, fittingness,both/and" (p. 477). Such metaphorsmight come from the fields of biol-ogy, ecology, music, storytelling, andlearning itself. (2) "Use myth rein-forcement to encourage learning."Traditions that esteem learning havelong existed within Western culture-science, exploration, art, athletics,"American ingenuity" — and theseshould be highlighted and strength-ened. (3) "Acknowledge uncertaintyand embrace errors." Learning re-quires recognition of many futureuncertainties: "When uncertainties inthe outcomes of proposed policy andaction are acknowledged, perceivedrisks and vulnerabilities increase.However, options and the opportuni-ties for resilience also increase." (p.479). (4) "Minimize the learner'ssense of vulnerability." Michaelnotes that learning groups are moresuccessful when they acknowledgethat there are other significant issues

besides 'the facts,' including indi-vidual fears and "protecting organi-zational turf or political expediency."(5) "Use facilitators rather than chair-persons." Training in the skills ofgroup facilitation can be extremelybeneficial to a group's learning. (6)"Introducing training of group pro-cess skills." Special training can alsohelp group members overcomepredisposition's toward poor listen-ing, interrupting, "withdrawal fromactive participation, resistance to ev-ery suggestion, long-windedness,putting down other participants, andscapegoating" (p. 481). (7) "Provideshort-term reinforcements/rewards."To help counteract the inherentlylong time frames of environmentalmanagement, Michael calls for theinvention of rituals that regularly rec-ognize and reward learning and ac-knowledge the many risks taken. (8)"Reinforce the learning mode by be-coming educators." Educators at alllevels can practice modeling this newkind of learning, including usingmore appropriate metaphors and thuschanging the social context. (9) "Usedisasters and crises as learning occa-sions." Sudden, even violent, disrup-tions in the world provide a potentand unique opportunity for learningthat could be anticipated and capital-ized through scenario construction orgaming simulation. These nine canbe applied to endangered species re-covery, as can the following sugges-tions.

Other authors have offered use-ful suggestions for upgrading thelearning performance of organiza-tions, although they have not specifi-cally addressed the conservationarena. Morgan (1986:91-95) summa-rized four general principles: (1) "En-courage and value an openness andreflectivity that accepts error and un-certainty as an inevitable feature oflife in complex and changing envi-ronments." (2) "Encourage an ap-proach to the analysis and solution of

complex problems that recognizes theimportance of exploring differentviewpoints… This is best facilitatedby managerial philosophies that rec-ognize the importance of probing thevarious dimensions of a situation, andallow constructive conflict and debatebetween advocates of competing per-spectives. In this way issues can befully explored, and perhaps redefinedso that they can be approached andresolved in new ways. This kind ofinquiry helps an organization absorband deal with the uncertainty of itsenvironment rather than trying toavoid or eliminate it." (3) "Avoid im-posing structures of action upon or-ganized settings…When goals andobjectives have a predetermined char-acter they tend to provide a frame-work for single-loop learning…More double-loop learning can begenerated by encouraging a "bottom-up" approach to the planning pro-cess." And finally, (4) "Make inter-ventions and create organizationalstructures and processes that helpimplement the above principles."

Westrum (1986) provided sevenprinciples for developing "genera-tive" rationality within organizations,i.e. a strategy of creating problemsolving: (1) "Encourage system-wideawareness for all members of the sys-tem. No one can be expected to helpsolve the system's problems if theydo not understand what those prob-lems are. An empowered peripherymust be one aware of overall goalsand approaches." (2) "Encouragingcreative and critical thought for allorganization members. Althoughsome members of the organizationwill contribute disproportionately, itis vital to realize that some importantideas may come form unlikelysources." (3) "Link the parts of thesystem whose work is independent.The members of a task system mustunderstand each other's work if theyare to co-operate in solving thesystem's problem — not just their


own. It is not enough to identify withthe system as a whole. Without see-ing integration as an important task,organization members will performtheir contributions often in blissfulignorance of what the rest of the or-ganization requires." (4) "Scan thesystem's parts for relevant solutionsor contributions. Use the best solu-tions regardless of their origins. Ev-ery organization should examine theability of its intratelligence system[what an organization knows aboutitself] to do this. It may be useful todevelop formal exercises to generatealternatives. The fruits of these ex-ercises should be formally transmit-ted and acknowledged." (5) "Rewardcommunications and activities thatshow a desire to contribute to the en-tire system's thought process. Al-though today's contribution may notbe the answer sought, tomorrow'scontribution will never come unlesstoday's is recognized. 'Good try' isalways superior to 'No good.'" (6)"Avoid over-structuring. Most of theorganization's resources should beused in coping with problems, not inbuilding up the private domain of itsleaders. It is a natural tendency forparts of systems to entrench them-selves. It is equally certain that re-sisting this tendency is necessary tomaintain generativity." (7) "Examinemistakes honestly. Generative sys-tems characteristically deal with mis-takes as system problems rather thanas person problems. While genuinenegligence should be punished, over-sights and inadequacies are human.The important issue is to identify thesource of the mistake, not punish theperson who made it. The ability ofthe system to repair its problems isstrongly related to the willingness ofpeople in it to open themselves tocriticism. This willingness is great-est when criticism is dispassionateand impersonal."

The myriad ideas and approachescovered here can be boiled down to a

single notion, best expressed by Mor-gan (1986:91): "In essence, a newphilosophy of management is re-quired, to root the process of orga-nizing in a process of open-endedinquiry…The whole process of learn-ing to learn hinges on an ability toremain open to changes occurring inthe environment, and on an ability tochallenge operating assumptions in amost fundamental way." Institutionsthat deal with the conservation ofendangered species in America, in-cluding the professions, science, gov-ernment management agencies, andnon-profit sector, are currently notorganized this way.

ConclusionsIt is widely perceived that currentendangered species conservation isnot working as expected. Extinctionrates are high and accelerating; fewendangered species have been re-turned to healthy, viable populations.ESA reauthorization efforts providean opportunity to improve conserva-tion significantly at the legislativelevel. Numerous other practical op-portunities for improvement exist atthe individual and organizational lev-els in many field efforts (Clark et al.1994). Learning is an approach thatcould be widely applied. Active, ex-plicit, and systematic learning abouthuman systems (organizations, pro-fessions, policy making, etc.), as wellas endangered species and ecologi-cal systems, would ground conserva-tion efforts in realism and enlargetheir scope significantly.

In recent years, new responses tobiodiversity conservation have comeforward. Ecosystem managementproposes to conserve biodiversity inlarge regional biotic systems withprotected core areas, buffer zones,and interlinking corridors. Thiswould be accomplished by coordinat-ing management on large spatial andtemporal scales based on watershedsand natural biotic communities, thus

protecting more species and habitatsthan previously, and it is hoped, pre-venting species decline. Comprehen-sive regional planning has alwaysbeen suggested as a way to integrateplanning and management for wild-life (including endangered species),natural resource use, land use, air andwater quality, development, and trans-portation at local, regional, state, andfederal levels (e.g., California Gover-nor Wilson's "Strategic Growth Plan").These two initiatives to "scale up" con-servation efforts contain the seeds of alearning approach to multiple levels,but neither one embodies a fully-rec-ognized focus on learning as a signifi-cant tool to improve conservation.

Michael (1995) concludes that"there are two kinds of learning: onefor a stable world and one for a worldof uncertainty. Learning appropriatefor the former world has to do withlearning the right answers and learn-ing how to adapt and settle into an-other mode of being and doing.Learning appropriate for our worldhas to do with learning what are theuseful questions to ask and learninghow to keep on learning since thequestions keep changing." (p. 484).The future health of the nation andthe planet is directly linked to main-tenance of the biotic enterprise onwhich all human activity ultimatelydepends. The opportunity for signifi-cant improvements in biological con-servation exists in the cultivation andexpansion of our learning abilities,i.e. in learning how to learn and ap-plying the lessons of our experience.


Biology, bureaucracy, and failure in an en-dangered species program. Myakka RiverPublishing, Sarasota, Florida.

Arygris, C. 1992. On organizational learn-ing. Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge,Massachusetts.

Arygris, C., and D. Schön. 1978. Organiza-tional learning. Addison-Wesley. Reading,Massachusetts.

Clark, T.W. 1993. Creating and using knowl-


edge for species and ecosystem conserva-tion: Science, organizations and policy.Perspectives in Biology and Medicine36(3):497-525 + appendices.

Clark, T.W. and R. Westrum. 1987. Paradigmsand ferrets. Journal of Social Studies inScience 17:3-34.

Clark, T.W., R. P. Reading, and A.L. Clarke.1994. Endangered species recovery: Find-ing the lessons, improving the process. Is-land Press, Washington, D.C.

Etheredge, L.S. 1985. Can governmentslearn? Pergamon Press, New York.

Etheredge, L.S. and J. Short. 1983. Thinkingabout government learning. Journal ofManagement Studies 20:41-58.

Glynn, M.A., R.J. Miliken, and T.K. Lant.1992. Learning about organizational learn-ing theory: An umbrella of organizationprocesses. Presented at Academy of Man-agement Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Gunderson, L.H., C.S., Holling, and S.S.Light, eds. 1995. Barriers and bridges tothe renewal of ecosystems and institutions.Columbia University Press, New York.

Janis, I.L. 1972. Victims of groupthink: Apsychological study of foreign-policy de-cisions and fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin,

Boston.Kirlin, J.J., P. Asmus, and R. Thompson. 1983.

Conservation and cooperation: Strategiesfor making endangered species laws work:Report prepared for the California Depart-ment of Fish and Game, Kirlin and Asso-ciates, 2456 Third Ave., Napa, California.

Kohm, K.A. 1991. Balancing on the brink ofextinction: The Endangered Species Actand lessons for the future. Island Press,Washington, D.C.

Leeuw, P.R., R.C. Rist, and R.C. Sonnichsen.1994. Can governments learn? Compara-tive perspectives on evaluation and orga-nizational learning. Transaction Publish-ers, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Michael, D.N. 1995. Barriers and bridges tolearning in a turbulent human ecology. Pp.461-488 in L.H. Gunderson, C.S. Holling,and S.S. Light, eds. Barriers and bridges tothe renewal of ecosystems and institutions.Columbia University Press, New York.

Morgan, G. 1986. Images of organization.Sage Publications, Beverly Hills.

Osborne, D. and T. Gaebler. 1993. Reinvent-ing government: How the entrepreneurialspirit is transforming the public sector. Pen-guin Books, New York.

Parson, E.A. and W.C. Clark. 1995. Sustain-able development as social learning: Theo-retical perspectives and practical challengesfor the design of a research program. Pp.428-460 in L.H. Gunderson, C.S. Holling,and S.S. Light, eds. Barriers and bridges tothe renewals of ecosystems and institutions.Columbia University Press, New York.

Senge, P.M. 1990. The fifth discipline: Theart and practice of the learning organiza-tion. Doubleday Books, New York.

Tobin, R.J. 1990. The expendable future: U.S.politics and the protection of biological di-versity. Duke University Press, Durham,North Carolina.

Westrum, R. 1986. Management strategiesand information failures. NATO AdvancedResearch Workshop on "Failure Analysisof Information Systems." Bad Winsheim,Germany

Yaffee, S.L. 1982. Prohibitive policy: Imple-menting the Endangered Species Act. MITPress, Cambridge.

Yaffee, S.L. 1994. The wisdom of the spottedowl: Policy Lessons for a new century. Is-land Press, Washington, D.C.

Karner blue butterfly ( Lycaeides melissa ) by James and Karen Hollingsworth,USFWS.


IntroductionPrototyping is a proven strategy tosolve complex, challenging tasks likethose posed by endangered speciesrecovery efforts. Prototypes aresmall scale, exploratory interventionsin social or policy systems to imple-ment a trial change, such as chang-ing people's assumptions about howthey should interact or who shouldshare what kinds of power. With theprimary goal being to gain informa-tion, prototypes are structured as in-novative, interactive processes foractive learning. They are the creative,corrigible initiatives that, if successful,can provide the basis for structuring

Prototyping for Successful Conservation: the EasternBarred Bandicoot ProgramTim W. ClarkYale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 301 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511 and NorthernRockies Conservation Cooperative, Box 2705, Jackson, WY [email protected]


Gary BackhouseDepartment of Natural Resources and Environment, Victoria, Australia.

AbstractPrototyping is a practical response to the need for innovation, creativity, and new initiatives inendangered species conservation. Though prototyping is an inventive approach to diverse problemsthat strives to develop a model on which to base future programs, it has not been utilized fully inspecies conservation programs despite its growing record of positive benefits. Prototypes are flex-ible, creative processes and designs for detecting and correcting errors that cannot be otherwisedetected in uncertain, original, and spontaneous systems, such as in recovery programs. Endan-gered species conservation is an ideal instance where prototyping may well significantly upgraderecovery efforts. Successful prototyping requires that all participants agree to participate, that theleadership is cooperative, that the process is open and creative, and that participants' primaryobjective is improving performance, not power or some other personal or organizational goal. Aprototyping exercise, carried out in Victoria, Australia, beginning in 1988, to facilitate the conser-vation and recovery of the endangered eastern barred bandicoots (Perameles gunnii), met withsuccess as the population increased from 150 individuals at one site to over 700 individuals at sevensites over the next few years. Lessons learned in this prototyping exercise are easily transferable toother endangered species recovery efforts, including: (1) explicitly using a prototyping strategy toguide recovery efforts; (2) embracing an interdisciplinary, problem-oriented approach; (3) usingsmall, knowledgeable teams; (4) clarifying goals and establishing open, accountable decision-makingmechanisms; and (5) evaluating all aspects of the recovery exercise systematically and regularly.

later pilot projects. Prototyping thus isa means of upgrading professional andorganizational practice and knowledgein general (Lasswell 1963, 1971a). Ourexperience on three continents showsthat the prototyping strategy has notbeen employed explicitly or systemati-cally in endangered species conserva-tion to date, despite the significant im-provements it offers to our collectiveconservation efforts.

In this paper we introduce theprototyping strategy using the Aus-tralian eastern barred bandicoot(Perameles gunnii) management pro-gram as an example. We offer fiveprototypical considerations that we

believe are transferable to other en-dangered species programs.

Prototyping: Theory and usein endangered species con-servationPrototypes are innovative approachesto problems that are geared towarddevelopment of a model on which tobase future actions or programs. Theunderlying philosophy was presentedby Lasswell (1971b: 192): "The ap-proach described here is especiallypertinent to the aspiration of all whowould innovate fundamentalchanges. The aspiration towards rel-evance implies the will to grasp and

Reprinted from Endangered Species UPDATE: 1995, 12(10/11):5-7,10.


change reality. Programs of this kindcan be expedited by the spread of atechnique that builds self-correctioninto its every application."

Prototypes are used as a learningtechnique and as a template for fu-ture action; as such, they serve asexemplars or archetypes. Successfulprototypes encourage other programsto adopt their fundamental features orkey elements, thus providing a modelfor replication and continual revision(Lasswell 1963). Prototypes can beofficial or unofficial, and are com-monly employed in the businessworld. For example, auto manufac-turers set up prototypes of varyingkinds, ranging from special problemsolving teams to experimental cardesigns (Westrum 1994). Theprototyping idea is achieving a stan-dard of operation that represents anew model. Once this is done, pilotprojects can be carried out on a largescale. The aim of prototyping is todiscover and lay "the foundation fororderly replication of the revised pro-totype model" (Lasswell 1963:112).

Trial changes are made in pro-grams or policies as a way to facili-tate self-observation, build insight,and enhance prospects for success.Such changes thus can not be tightlycontrolled like scientific experiments,although the existence of some repli-cable features makes them similar toexperiments. Nor can they be leftsolely to political manipulation andcontrol. Their uniqueness makesthem similar to case studies as a wayof learning about a system. Becauseconservation programs lie some-where between science and politics— their conditions can not be totallycontrolled in a scientific sense, norshould they be managed only by bu-reaucratic officials and politicians —prototypes are particularly useful asa means of initiating changes andgaining insights about such programs.

Prototypes differ frompreplanned pilot studies in that they

remain more flexible and creative.The self-correcting element is key.Prototyping efforts are usually man-aged by a small group of research-ers/initiators who are "deeply con-cerned with contributing to knowl-edge and professional skill" and fun-damentally committed to the successof the project (Lasswell 1963: 95).Because of the uncertainty, original-ity, and spontaneity in social systemsthe can not predict at the outset whichstrategies will be most effective.Thus, "part of the challenge of theapproach is to discard and adaptthroughout the course of the project"(Lasswell and McDougal 1992: 896).However, they should not modify theproject too quickly or too often. Itmust be granted an adequate trial pe-riod to develop some support, legiti-macy, and "power" before being re-evaluated. Even though the goals ofa project may be clear, as in the cleargoal of recover the bandicoot species,numerous ambiguities may persist:"hence an aim of prototypic study isto devise a better strategicprogramme" (Lasswell 1971a: 190).Prototypes thus establish a process fordetecting and correcting errors, a pro-cedure for accumulating successesand weeding out failures (Brunner1995, personal communication). Intheir emphasis on continual learningand creativity, prototypes requireclear, detailed, and comprehensiveexplanations of all aspects of the pro-totype including all actions under-taken (Lasswell 1971b).

Work settings characterized byhigh complexity, uncertainty, andconflict — which certainly describesendangered species recovery pro-grams — benefit most fromprototyping (Brunner and deLeon1983). Several conditions increasethe probability of successfulprototyping. First, all participants inthe program should agree to partici-pate, although not everyone needfully understand the exercise. Sec-

ond, leadership should agree to thegeneral principals and approach ofprototyping. Third, the process mustbe open and creative. Fourth, top pro-fessionals should be included andtheir opinions respected. Finally,people involved should be interestedin improving performance rather thangaining power — i.e., keeping poli-tics at a minimum (Lasswell 1971b).Prototyping efforts may be stronglyopposed by some interests that pre-fer the status quo (Lasswell 1963),and for the effort to be effective, par-ticipants must neutralize such oppo-sition. Prototyping is only possiblein supportive contexts not dominatedby issues of power and control.

The Australian bandicootprototyping effort: A test caseA prototyping exercise was initiatedin 1988 to facilitate the conservationand recovery of endangered easternbarred bandicoots in Victoria, Austra-lia. While few of the programs par-ticipants were formally familiar withprototyping as such, most were com-mitted implicitly to the idea and prac-tices of prototyping and agreed toparticipate. We believe several com-ponents of our prototyping effort aretransferable to other endangered spe-cies conservation programs.

Eastern barred bandicoots arerelatively small (500 to 900g) noctur-nal marsupials with thin snouts,strong curved claws, and pale bars ontheir hind corners. They feed prima-rily on soil invertebrates and arehighly fecund, with the shortest ges-tation of any mammal (12.5 days) andthe ability to give birth every three tofour months. P. gunnii once inhab-ited the grasslands and grassy wood-lands of Victoria and Tasmania, butafter a 99+% decline in range andabundance, the species is threatenedwith extinction on mainland Austra-lia. Bandicoots suffer from extensivehabitat alteration and degradation,predation by introduced red foxes


(Vulpes vulpes) and feral and domes-tic cats (Felis catus), motor vehiclecollisions, disease, and possibly pes-ticides (Seebeck et al. 1990). By theend of 1991, only 109 bandicootswere known to survive on the main-land in four populations: one in thewild, two in small nature reserveswith anti-predator fencing, and onein captivity.

Throughout the 1970s intermit-tent research on the species, status anddistribution took place, and in theearly 1980s, active but limited man-agement commenced. Initially therecovery program was loosely orga-nized, although a variety of conser-vation activities were initiated, in-cluding habitat protection and en-hancement, predator control, motor-ist warning signs, community educa-tion, and formation of recovery teams(Arnold et al. 1990). Success waslimited. In 1988, a prototyping ef-fort was begun, including rigorousresearch (e.g., Clark and Seebeck1990). A population viability analy-sis estimated a 100% chance of ex-tinction of the wild population in 25years and a much shorter mean timeto extinction (Lacy and Clark 1990).Concurrently, results from annualfield surveys indicated a strongly de-creasing population trend. Althoughcaptive breeding and reintroductionwere initiated in 1988, these popula-tions were not self-sustaining. Thiscombination of factors acceleratedconservation efforts.

The continuing downward trendsalso lead participants in late 1991 tocall for an in-depth programmatic re-view of all recovery efforts up to thattime (Reading et al. 1992). Theylooked at all factors and forces affect-ing the program, both external andinternal: biological/technical, organi-zational, socioeconomic, and power/authority. The evaluation identifiedthe following weaknesses:

(1) incomplete knowledge aboutmany factors that were likely respon-

sible for bandicoot decline;(2) under appreciation of the

urgency of the situation;(3) insufficient strategic plan-

ning with specific recovery targets,timelines, and responsibilities;

(4) little information on impor-tant sociological and organizationalvariables;

(5) no regular, systematic pro-gram evaluation as a basis for learn-ing and improvement.

This evaluation, a key part of theprototyping strategy, was crucial. Ina cooperative, trustful, and support-ive problem-solving setting, it permit-ted all participants to identify prob-lems and their likely consequences.Participants examined and evaluatedvarious alternatives to alleviate theproblems. The overall prototypingphilosophy provides the flexibility toadapt conservation initiatives to theactual conservation challengesquickly and successfully.

The context of the bandicoot casemade prototyping possible at thattime because of the relatively lowprofile of the program, the limitednumber of participants, and loose or-ganization, the willingness of partici-pants to examine a variety of optionsfor the future of the program, the lackof debilitating conflict, the support orneutrality of key actors towardsprototyping and the concept of devel-oping a model program, and the pri-mary interest of most participants inprogram success (i.e. bandicoot re-covery). Both internal and externalsupport for the program was high.Additional support for prototypingdeveloped as the program beganmeeting success.

The bandicoot recovery programwas reorganized in early 1992 as aresult of the group's evaluation(Backhouse 1992; Backhouse et al.1994a). The restructuring set up acentral decision-making authorityand four expert teams or workinggroups in captive management, wild

population and reintroduction, eco-nomic and sociological issues, andpublic relations. New work arrange-ments better communication flowsand improved decisions making in-vigorate the conservation effort.Mandatory written evaluations werediscussed in monthly meetings as abasis for modifying actions.

The eastern barred bandicoot'sstatus improved dramatically underthe program reorganization and newoperations. Goals were clarified andattention was focussed on a muchwider array of organizational issues,for example. This resulted in a dra-matic increase in both captive andreintroduced populations and in im-proved wild and captive manage-ment. Also, standardized monitoringwas put into place, new reintroduc-tion sites were located and evaluated,and more regular ongoing formal andinformal evaluations were under-taken. The net result was the growthof the dwindling population to over700 individuals by late 1993(Backhouse et al. 1994b). While re-cent success bodes well for the spe-cies, the eastern barred bandicoot re-mains far from recovered (Humphriesand Seebeck 1995).

A continuing commitment to theprototyping strategy encouragesadaptability of conservation effortsand eventual bandicoot recovery. Butas the status of the bandicoot im-proves, government budgets shrink,and public support oscillates. Main-taining commitment will not be easy.

Prototypic elements transferableto other endangered specieseffortsThe following lessons learned fromthe bandicoot prototyping effort aretransferable to other endangered spe-cies programs (Clark et al. 1995).

(1) Explicitly use a prototypingstrategy to guide the recovery effort.Participants should agree to use aflexible, adaptive approach to their


thinking, organization, research, andmanagement. It is likely that someconservationists have already used aprototyping approach, but have notused the term to describe their methodor recognized that the theory exists.Theory on prototyping should explic-itly guide each application, and astheory is more widely and success-fully applied, it will gain prominenceand acceptance.

(2) An interdisciplinary, pro-gram-oriented approach is essential.Numerous disciplines offer useful,even necessary, knowledge and ap-proaches for species recovery; com-bining them all in an effort to under-stand problems is essential. This willnot happen on its own. Prototypingdemands an interactive, flexible ef-fort that can integrate disciplinespragmatically. Participants need tohave the skills and leadership to makethis approach function successfully.

(3) Use small, flexible teamsknowledgeable and skilled in the fullrange of concepts and methods avail-able. Dynamic teams can address thehighly complex, uncertain, and urgentchallenges facing conservation pro-grams, including things like captivepropagation, reintroduction, commu-nity relations, and decision making.For the most part, teams functionseffectively in the bandicoot programas they concentrated reliable informa-tion, facilitated communication andcollaboration, provided supportamong members, and increased per-formance and innovation.

(4) Clarify goals of theprototyping exercise and establishopen, accountable decision makingmechanisms. Goals should be for-mally and clearly articulated. Theyshould be set up collectively by allparticipants, should remain task-ori-ented (e.g., species recovery), andshould be easily measured (e.g., num-ber of animals or populations, datesof task completion, area of habitatprotected) to the extent possible. At

the same time, goals should remainopen and be revisited frequently tosee if they are still relevant to progressand changing circumstances. Thecomplexity and uncertainty character-istic of conservation programs shouldnot preclude or rigidify conservationactions. Decision-making should bea transparent, open, participative pro-cess, based on the most reliable, avail-able knowledge and collective judge-ment. However, clear lines of ac-countability must be maintained.

(5) Evaluate all aspects of theprototyping exercise systematicallyand regularly. Frequent formal andinformal evaluations provide partici-pants with the opportunity to reflecton their situations, their actions, andthe outcomes and effects. The groupshould constantly assess how its ac-tions are helping to achieve the over-all goals and whether there are bettermeans to reach goals. It is also im-portant to assess how discrete actionscomplement each other to reduce re-dundancies and increase integration.

ConclusionsPrototyping is an answer to the needfor innovation, creativity, and newinitiatives in endangered species con-servation. The recent success in theeastern barred bandicoot program inAustralia demonstrates the benefits ofbringing together a small group ofcommitted people, developing a coreof trust and openness, attempting toinitiate small, well-deliberatedchanges in a program, and embrac-ing the flexibility to adapt to feed-back. The emphasis is on learningand the process is self-correcting.Small-scale innovations like thiscould be initiated at any level in anyof the hundreds of endangered spe-cies recovery programs now under-way. Again, it is a way of accumu-lating success and weeding out fail-ures, and it provides exemplars to becopied, improved, and incorporatedinto existing policy and institutional

practices. Every recovery programcan develop its own systematic ap-proach to learning and improvementthrough prototyping and report itsresults to all those concerned withconserving biological diversity.

AcknowledgementsWe want to thank all of the peoplefrom the Department of Conservationand Natural Resources of Victoria(and its precursors), Friends of theEastern Barred Bandicoot, Friends ofGellibrand Hill Park, Hamilton Insti-tute of Rural Learning, National Trustof Australia (Victoria), Chicago Zoo-logical Society, Northern RockiesConservation Cooperative, Yale Uni-versity, and others committed tobandicoot recovery for their help overthe past several years. Special thanksgo to Andrew Arnold, Robert Begg,Denise Casey, John Fischer, PeterMyroniuk, Kathy Patrick, JohnSeebeck, and Pam and Ted Thomasfor their especially hard work andcommitment to this project. Ourwork was supported by all the orga-nizations listed above, and by privatedonations to the Northern RockiesConservation Cooperative.

Literature citedArnold, A.H., P.W. Goldstraw, A.G. Hayes,

and B.F. Wright. 1990. Recovery manage-ment of the eastern barred bandicoot inVictoria: Hamilton conservation strategy.Pp. 179-192 in T.W. Clark and J.H.Seebeck, eds. Management and conserva-tion of small populations. Chicago Zoologi-cal Society, Brookfield, Illinois.

Backhouse, G.N. 1992. Recovery plan for theeastern barred bandicoot Perameles gunnii.Department of Conservation and NaturalResources, Melbourne, Australia.

Backhouse, G.N., T.W. Clark, and R.P. Read-ing. 1994a. The Australian eastern barredbandicoot recovery program: Evaluationand reorganization. Pp. 251-271 in T.W.Clark, R.P. Reading, and A.L. Clarke, eds.Endangered species recovery: Finding thelessons, improving the process. IslandPress, Washington, D.C.

Backhouse, G.N., T.W. Clark, and R.P. Read-ing. 1994b. Reintroduction for recovery ofthe eastern barred bandicoot Perameles


gunii in Victoria, Australia. Pp. 209-218 inM. Serena, ed. Reintroduction biology ofAustralian and New Zealand fauna. SurreyBeatty & Sons, Chipping Norton, NewSouth Wales.

Brewer, G.D. and P. deLeon. 1983. The foun-dations of policy analysis. The DorseyPress. Homewood, Illinois.

Clark, T.W. and J.H. Seebeck 1990. Manage-ment and conservation of small popula-tions. Chicago Zoological Society.Brookfield, Illinois.

Clark, T.W., G.N. Backhouse, and R.P. Read-ing. 1995. Prototyping in endangered spe-cies recovery programs: The eastern barredbandicoot experience. Pp. 50-62 in A.Bennett, B. Backhouse, and T. Clark, eds.People and nature conservation: Perspec-tives on private land use and endangeredspecies recovery. Transactions of the RoyalZoological Society of New South Wales.

Humphries, R.K. and J.H. Seebeck. 1995.Conservation of the eastern barred bandi-coot Perameles gunnii on private land inVictoria. Pp. 156-162 in A. Bennett, G.

Backhouse, and T. Clark, eds. People andnature conservation: Perspectives on pri-vate land use and endangered species re-covery. Transactions of the Royal Zoologi-cal Society of New South Wales.

Lacy, R.C. and T.W. Clark. 1990. Populationviability assessment of the eastern barredbandicoot in Victoria. Pp. 131-146 in T.W.Clark and J.H. Seebeck, eds. Managementand conservation of small populations.Chicago Zoological Society. Brookfield, Il-linois.

Lasswell, H.D. 1963. The future of politicalscience. Prentice-Hall, New York.

Lasswell, H.D. 1971a. Pre-view of the policysciences. American Elsevier, New York.

Lasswell, H.D. 1971b. Transferability ofVicos strategy. Pp. 167-193 in H.R.Dobyns, P.L. Doughty, and H.D. Lasswell,eds. Peasants, power, and applied socialchange: Vicos as a model. Sage Publica-tions. Beverly Hills.

Lasswell, H.D. and M.S. McDougal. 1992.Jurisprudence for a free society: Studies inlaw, science and policy. 2 vols. New Ha-

ven Press. New Haven, Connecticut.Reading, R.P., T.W. Clark, A. Arnold, J.

Fisher, P. Myroniuk, and J.H. Seebeck.1992. Analysis of a threatened species re-covery program: The eastern barred bandi-coot (Perameles gunnii) in Victoria. De-partment of Conservation and Natural Re-sources, Melbourne, Australia.

Seebeck, J.H., A.F. Bennett, and A.C. Duffy.1990. Status, distribution, and biogeogra-phy of the eastern barred bandicoot,Perameles gunnii in Victoria. Pp. 21-32 inT.W. Clark and J.H. Seebeck, eds. Manage-ment and conservation of small popula-tions. Chicago Zoological Society.Brookfield, Illinois.

Westrum, R. 1994. An organizational perspec-tive: Designing recovery teams from theinside out. Pp. 327-350 in T.W. Clark, R.P.Reading, and A.L. Clarke, eds. Endangeredspecies recovery: Finding the lessons, andimproving the process. Island Press, Wash-ington, D.C.

Eastern barred bandicoot ( Perameles gunnii ) by Richard P. Reading.


IntroductionEndangered species recovery programsrequire collaboration and effectiveproblem solving among participants —government agencies, landowners,conservation organizations, industrygroups, resource users, and others. Thebest way to achieve this is by partici-pants agreeing on what the recoveryproblem is, its context, and how to solveit. Optimizing recovery means usingold methods better and adopting newones as needed. In fact, the EndangeredSpecies Act of 1973 (ESA), MarineMammal Protection Act of 1972(MMPA), and other laws and adminis-trative rules for protecting species andhabitats all seek to enhance coordina-tion and collaboration as one means toimprove recovery. However, in the 30-year history of the ESA and MMPA noformal approach has been adopted inthis regard, other than use of recoveryplans as mandated by the ESA. Re-covery plans are often technical docu-

Improving Group Problem Solving in Endangered SpeciesRecovery: Using the "Decision Seminar" MethodRichard L. WallaceEnvironmental Studies Program, Ursinus College, P.O. Box 1000, Collegeville, PA [email protected]


AbstractEndangered species recovery requires the confluence of technical skills, most often represented bybiology and ecology and their many adjuncts, and social and organizational skills. Over the historyof endangered species protection, the social and organizational skills necessary for successful spe-cies recovery have often been lacking in recovery programs. As a result, these programs oftenexhibit weaknesses involving coordination and cooperation among program participants. We dis-cuss and propose the use of methods to improve recovery programs by focussing on and augmentingsocial and organizational aspects of program implementation and evaluation. The methods wepromote fall under the rubric of the "decision seminar," developed by Harold Lasswell and usedsuccessfully in many contexts over the past half century. We discuss two examples of endangeredspecies programs which utilized aspects of the decision seminar — one unsuccessfully, in the UnitedStates, and one successfully, in Australia. Using these examples, we illustrate the benefits andutility of adopting the decision seminar in endangered species recovery programs.

ments aimed at directing biological re-search and management. They are notdesigned to take a complete, problemoriented look at the recovery challengeor address its full context in any singlecase. Rarely do recovery plans offerguidance on how to effectively man-age the organizational complexity in-volved in recovery efforts, for example.In reality, diverse participants withcompeting values and perspectives canand do impede recovery, unintention-ally or otherwise. This makes solvingrecovery problems that much harder.As a result, collaboration in recoveryprograms is often ad hoc or haphazard,even in cases where a plan clearly de-lineates the roles and responsibilities ofprogram participants and where leadagency staff make deliberate efforts tobring participants together. Clark andWestrum (1989) have written on theneed for guidance in the formation andoperation of high-performance teamsin endangered species recovery.

Here, we describe, illustrate, andcall for the widespread use of a provenmethod — "decision seminar" — toimprove success of recovery efforts.Burgess and Slonaker (1976) give aclear and thorough description ofhow to carry out a decision seminar.To date the decision seminar methodhas been little used in species recov-ery, but it promises to significantlyimprove conservation.

I. The Hawaiian monk seal caseThis case, although it did not use thedecision seminar method, illustrates itsbenefits, in part by counter (negative)example. The Marine Mammal Pro-tection Act created the federal MarineMammal Commission (MMC), a smallindependent agency of the executivebranch charged with overseeing andproviding recommendations on federaland state marine mammal programsunder the ESA and MMPA. Over itshistory, MMC has undertaken a num-


ber of meetings fashioned after the de-cision seminar method, with varyinglevels of success. In 1989, while onthe MMC staff, one of the authors(RLW) helped to organize a meetingof participants in the Hawaiian monkseal recovery program to address prob-lems in program implementation andevaluation. The Hawaiian monk sealis among the world's most endangeredseals, with a current population num-bering fewer than 1,500 individuals thathas declined about 60% since the late1950s (National Marine Fisheries Ser-vice 2001). It is found in the HawaiianArchipelago, predominately in theatolls and islets to the northwest of themain Hawaiian Islands. Pressures fac-ing the monk seal population includepredation by sharks, mauling ofyoung and female monk seals byadult males, starvation of youngseals, disease, environmental con-taminants, human disturbance, injuryor entrapment in marine debris, andboth operational and biological inter-actions with commercial fisheries(Ragen and Lavigne 1999).

Recovery effortsThe lead agency for monk seal recov-ery under the ESA and MMPA is theNational Marine Fisheries Service ofthe U.S. Department of Commerce(NMFS), which manages both researchand management activities in the pro-gram. Other agencies and organiza-tions have been involved in monk sealrecovery due to their ownership ofmonk seal habitat, operations in monkseal habitat, advocacy of monk seal is-sues, or the relevance of their expertisein addressing problems with monk sealrecovery. They include the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, Hawaii Depart-ment of Land and Natural Resources,Western Pacific Fishery ManagementCouncil, U.S. Navy, U.S. Coast Guard,Sea Life Park of Hawaii, and Earthtrust.

The monk seal program, as di-rected by NMFS, has a history of orga-nizational dysfunction (Lavigne 1999;

Wallace 2000; Wallace in press). TheMMC was responding to these prob-lems in calling its meeting. Problemsincluded NMFS's refusal to convenethe monk seal recovery team between1984 and 1989 despite alarm over thedeclining monk seal population andproblems of inefficiency. The programshowed problems in data collection,analysis, peer review, and publicationduring the 1980s (Marine MammalCommission 1990). Among the goalsof the MMC-sponsored meeting wasto promote a collaborative and coordi-nated approach to the many complex,interrelated issues challenging NMFS'sefforts to protect and recover the monkseal and its habitat.

The meeting took place in La Jolla,California, at NMFS's southwest re-gional research laboratory, the parentoffice to the NMFS laboratory in Ho-nolulu where the monk seal programis housed. While it was not modeledexplicitly on the decision seminar, itinitially shared both structure and goalswith the decision seminar method de-scribed below. The meeting involveda core group of agency personnel andnon-agency scientists who were theneither responsible for making decisionsconcerning the monk seal research andmanagement programs or were expe-rienced monk seal researchers. Amongthe concerns they addressed were theeffects of various human activities onmonk seals and their habitat

Non-governmental advocacygroups were not invited to attend. Theparticipants were selected solely fortheir knowledge, skill, and experiencein monk-seal related research and man-agement and their status as authorita-tive decision-makers in the monk sealprogram. The meeting was convenedand moderated by MMC staff whowere skilled in group dynamics andstrategic planning, knowledgeableabout monk seal recovery issues, butwere not directly involved in monk sealdecision making. The meeting washeld over the course of two days in a

conference room overlooking the Pa-cific Ocean, where participants couldstretch their legs while taking in a viewof the beach, ocean, or sunset. Foodand drinks were provided. In all, aneffort was made to make the meeting acomfortable occasion in which partici-pants could focus on the agenda —monk seal recovery. The agenda,which was drafted by MMC and sharedand revised with the input of the par-ticipants prior to the meeting, indicatedthat the two days would be devoted tostrategic planning to address specificshortcomings in the monk seal pro-gram. This meant that participantswould be expected to critically evalu-ate their past actions, develop sharedgoals for addressing existing problems,brainstorm alternatives to address iden-tified problems, and then commit toactions necessary to achieve the goals.

Meeting resultsThe meeting was a failure. MMC madea strong attempt to run the meeting suchthat it would have a lasting effect onthe monk seal program through thework and commitments of its partici-pants. However, a commitment by keyagency participants to changing the sta-tus quo operation of the monk seal pro-gram never materialized. This was dueto several circumstances. First, agencystaff approached the meeting with sometrepidation due to the perception thatthey would be subjected to criticism forpast and current problems. Second,MMC, despite having sought the inputof participants prior to the meeting, setand controlled the agenda, which meantthat other participants did not feel thesame level of commitment to the meet-ing as did MMC. Third, as the meet-ing wore on it became clear that muchof the onus of improving the program'soperation was being placed on NMFS.While this was appropriate givenNMFS's responsibilities as lead federalagency under the law, at the meetingkey NMFS staff began to feel put-upon,and thus less open to the process that


was occurring. Fourth, participantsother than NMFS staff tended to eitherside with MMC in pursuing its agendafor the meeting and monk seal programor to be noncommittal.

As a result, NMFS staff becameincreasingly defensive and thus lessinterested in a collaborative effort tosecure program goals, which in anycase appeared not to be shared goals,but rather MMC's. All of these factorsconspired to reduce the commitment byNMFS staff to MMC's goals for themeeting and thus to making the meet-ing a productive one. Instead, as themeeting wore on discussion devolvedinto a series of proposals for program-matic changes, which, due to other par-ticipants' lack of buy-in, appeared asMMC attempting to micro-manage themonk seal program. The failure of themeeting was caused by NMFS's resis-tance to improving its programmaticactions under the ESA and MMC's lackof skill in managing the meeting to re-duce the conflicts that undermined it.For example, as the meeting progressedand it became clear that participantswere not achieving the goals they de-sired, closed-door meetings amongsub-groups began to occur duringmeals and at night which de-empha-sized the importance of the primarymeeting. Following the meeting,NMFS's staff and program returned tothe status quo — relations betweenNMFS and other program participantswas unchanged with the exception thatNMFS finally convened the recoveryteam, which has meet regularly eversince. Nonetheless, little changed toimprove the shortcomings in the pro-gram that MMC had identified.

Comparing the decision seminarmodel as described below to this meet-ing illuminates its shortcomings: themeeting was not based on a sharedcommitment to goals and the meetingwas not run such that tension amongparticipants would be reduced and col-laboration could occur. Had effortsbeen made at the outset by both MMC

and NMFS to establish a meeting for-mat that would be mutually support-ive, the outcome would likely havebeen different. Given the resistance ofNMFS to MMC's and other partici-pants' recommendations for NMFSaction, a truly collaborative formatmight have resulted in fewer changesto the monk seal program than wereoriginally sought by MMC. The ben-efits, however, might have been animprovement in participants' willing-ness to evaluate the program through acritical, constructive discussion, thusopening the door to improving imple-mentation in the future. As it turnedout, the meeting failed to improveimplementation, evaluation, or thelevel of discourse that occurred amongprogram participants.

II. The decision seminarOne promising method for achievinga more successful collaboration andcoordination is the decision seminar(Clark 2002). Decision seminars area continuing series of moderated,structured sessions involving selectedparticipants in the recovery process.They are designed to promote identi-fication of problems realistically andagreement on strategies for solvingthem practically.

Method and featuresThe idea and structure of the decisionseminar was developed by HaroldLasswell as a means for carrying outproblem solving and decision makingthat stabilizes people's expectations andgoals in a management policy process(Lasswell 1960, 1971a, 1971b). Speak-ing generally, Lasswell (1960:216)noted that "it is increasingly perceivedthat modes of group problem solvingare needed that improve the probabil-ity of realistic, comprehensive andtimely solutions," an observation whichapplies directly to endangered speciesrecovery today and underscores theimportance and potential of the deci-sion seminar method.

Decision seminars are a structuredmethod for integrating the many dif-ferent approaches to group meetingsthat are necessary to develop solutionsto complex problems. Lasswell(1971a, 1971b) and Burgess andSlonaker (1975) describe the basicfunctions and components of a decisionseminar. First is a dedicated core groupof individuals committed to meetingregularly and for as long as is neces-sary to address the problem (maybeyears). This is necessary for the group'sknowledge and experience to grow asa unit and to avoid the need to repeat-edly return to basic foundational issueswith the addition of new members inthe later stages of the seminar. Thisrequirement underscores the impor-tance of participants agreeing to jointhe group because they have a primaryinterest in solving the problem at hand.Lasswell (1971a) suggests a self-se-lected membership, but in the contextof endangered species recovery, partici-pants in a decision seminar must rep-resent all the participants whose in-volvement is necessary to achieve re-covery goals for the species or popula-tion in question. Changes in core groupmembership will likely occur (e.g., dis-ruptive group members should be askedto leave). Nevertheless, the core groupmust remain stable enough over the lifeof the seminar so that the goals can beaccomplished in a timely fashion (par-ticularly where increasing speciesmortality or habitat loss is occurring).Sub-groups may be formed to addressindividual aspects of the overall prob-lem and outside experts may be askedto join the group temporarily as theneed arises.

Second is commitment of groupmembers to carrying out an agreed-upon and specific agenda. This is nec-essary to avoid diffusion or misappro-priation of the goals of the group andto keep the group operating with theoverriding recovery goal in mind. Themore specific the tasks and the clearerthe understanding of each member's


responsibilities the better, even if cer-tain tasks are abstract (e.g., conceptualbrainstorming, so often necessary toaddress complex problems). For recov-ery programs, "goal inversion or sub-stitution" occurs and the recommenda-tion helps avoid that and other prob-lems (see Clark 1997).

Third are frequent meetings. Meet-ing frequency will be influenced by thelogistical complexity of bringing groupmembers together. For recovery pro-grams where research and managementactions are being taken at a rapid pace,frequent — perhaps weekly or bi-weekly — meetings may be necessary.The more frequently the group meets,the greater the likelihood that the goalsof the seminar and recovery programwill remain clear and current, and thetasks taken will support goals.

Fourth is an emphasis within thegroup on being actively and systemati-cally self-reflective. One of the ben-efits of the decision seminar is thatgroup members become familiar witheach other to the point that each mayassess the other's contributions in apurely constructive (i.e. not threaten-ing) fashion. This promotes an atmo-sphere of discussion and insight ratherthan formal administrative appraisaland ritualized interaction. As well, re-covery group members gain the abilityto critically evaluate their individualand collective decision making ability,an action that if successfully undertakenimproves group operations over time.

Fifth is a contextual approach toproblem solving in which boundariesare put around the topic at hand in or-der to establish a common understand-ing of the limits of the group's man-date. In the case of a recovery program,there will be two contexts to delineate.One concerns the recovery program it-self, so the group must identify wherethe boundaries of their authority andabilities fall with regard to research,management, and enforcement actions.The other context concerns the groupand its members' responsibility to

each other to promote a sound deci-sion making process.

Sixth is clear agreement on theoverall operational and task-orientedgoals and to stay focused on them whenpresenting and using information inrecovery. Without consensus ongoals, the group risks becoming di-vided over research and managementmethods, data, and the process andoutcome of evaluations. For recov-ery programs, this can be divisive andimpair the process and interpersonalworking relationships.

Seventh is an understanding of therole and utility of multiple methods inrecovery programs and group decisionmaking processes. When discussingrecovery actions, the group must wel-come consideration of strategies fromall disciplines that might help reachrecovery goals. Similarly, group mem-bers must be open-minded about di-verse methods of achieving groupgoals. This will be the harder taskbecause it is unlikely that all groupmembers will have experience withthe practical, intellectual exercises(e.g., role-playing, simulation, gam-ing) that may be used to encouragesound decision making.

Eight is a focus on innovation andcreativity. Group members must agreeon the appropriateness of taking intel-lectual risks when discussing and plan-ning tasks for the recovery program.Put another way, they must leave roomfor brainstorming sessions in whichidiosyncratic ideas are welcomedalongside conservative ones and all areexplored for their utility in achievingthe goals.

Ninth is an agreed-upon locationwhere the group can receive the sup-port it needs to function productivelyduring its meetings. For recovery pro-grams, this means a setting that is func-tional and comfortable. The groupneeds adequate space and support tocarry out its deliberations. For ex-ample, it may need plenty of wall spaceto permanently display data on trends

and conditions of the recovery effort.This visual material can be constantlyupdated and it can be used to orient thegroup from meeting to meeting.

What sets a decision seminar apartfrom other methods of group work inendangered species recovery is its em-phasis on building skills and knowledgeon problem solving that will improvedecision making in the future. Mostgroup work in endangered species re-covery is focused on one or more spe-cific recovery tasks (e.g., reducingmortality) and lacks a self-reflectiveemphasis on learning how to use groupmethods in the most effective manner.With a set of guidelines such as thosegiven above, foundational training (ei-ther self-administered or sought fromoutside experts with experience in de-cision seminars), and open minds, agroup may convene even without amember experienced in professionalgroup dynamics and still accomplishthe goals of a decision seminar.

A critiqueDecision seminars have been usedsuccessfully since the 1950s in fieldsoutside of endangered species recov-ery. These have produced benefits toeducation policy in the United States(Bolland and Muth 1984, 1987),community development in Peru(Dobyns et al. 1971; Holmberg 1958),and the re-establishment of democraticgovernance in Afghanistan followingthe end of the Soviet occupation in the1980s (Willard and Norchi 1993), toomention only a few instances.

Based on this and other experi-ence, decision seminars are particu-larly well suited for addressing com-plex and often highly technical policyprocesses that involve diverse knowl-edge, skills, and innovative problemsolving strategies (Brewer 1975).They can reduce conflict, improvecommunication, shift the focus ofdecision making from reactive to pro-active, promote leadership skillsamong members, and decrease prob-


lems associated with hierarchy andcompetition between stakeholders(Cunningham 1981).

The issue of group leadership iscritical, and in this regard decisionseminars may take many forms.Seminars can be led by a person out-side the management process underscrutiny by the seminar. In this case,the outsider must be someone who iswell respected by all group membersand who they are willing to welcomeinto the group in a leadership capac-ity to help the group achieve its goals.Optimally, an external leader wouldbe someone experienced with groupdynamics who can assist in refiningthe approach to learning and operat-ing as a cohesive unit. As well, a de-cision seminar can be led by a personwithin the group, chosen by groupmembers. In this case, the leadershould have direct involvement andexpertise in the issue at hand. Theyshould be respected and willing tocede certain authority in achievegroup goals. Also, they must be ableto help the group focus on both groupprocesses and outcome goals. Fi-nally, a decision seminar may be lead-erless or led by consensus of groupmembers rather than a single person.This is the most challenging leader-ship model because it requires an un-ambiguous shared commitment togoals and responsibilities and willing-ness by all group members to partici-pate vigorously in every aspect ofevery group activity.

In their review of past decisionseminars, Bolland and Muth (1984)identify the most prevalent shortcom-ing of the decision seminar methodof problem solving: that group mem-bers will default to a standard day-to-day or "brush fire" mentality andlose the seminar's emphasis on learn-ing, reflection, and insight. Thesefactors are all directed at how to mosteffectively operate as a group toachieve common goals.

The benefits of decision seminars

can far outweigh and overcome weak-nesses in ordinary endangered speciesrecovery in the United States andelsewhere. Because endangered spe-cies recovery is a crisis-oriented dis-cipline, most practitioners are toobusy working in the moment to con-sider approaches to learning and de-cision making that might benefit themboth today and in the long run (Clarket al. 1994). However, by becomingskilled and experienced in the meth-ods of the decision seminar, peoplewill increase both the effectivenessand efficiency of decision making andimproved species conservation. Aswith all new approaches to profes-sional practice, there is a learningcurve that must be passed before thefull benefits of the method can bereaped and become fully evident.

III. The eastern barred bandicootcasePerhaps one of the most successfulapplications of the decision seminarmethod in endangered species recov-ery occurred under the direction ofone of the authors (TWC) in Austra-lia. This effort was focused on theeastern barred bandicoot in Victoria(see Clark and Seebeck 1990 and the10 papers therein; Backhouse et al.1994; Clark et al. 1995).

The problemThe bandicoot is one of the most criti-cally endangered species in Victoria,showing a 99+% loss of abundanceand range by 1998. At that time itwas nearing extinction with less than150 animals in the wild at a singlelocation and few individuals in cap-tivity. Key data about the species andits plight were absent and the organi-zation and commitment needed to ef-fectively recovery the species was lack-ing. Later research showed the specieswas declining about 25% per year.

The solutionIn 1988 a new partnership was set up

to achieve species recovery and de-velop a model program. A key ele-ment in this was a decision seminarmode of organization and operation.It was not declared formally that thenew partnership would use a decisionseminar format. Instead, the partner-ship used a decision seminar modusoperandi in an informal way to guideinterpersonal and inter-organizationalinteractions, data gathering and analy-sis, and decisions about how to proceed.It was put in place without calling at-tention to it so that recovery team mem-bers and interested parties could stayfocused on bandicoot conservation,better interact with one another, and doso in an active learning mode.

The effort conformed to all ninefeatures of a decision seminar listedabove. First, a dedicated core groupof individuals met in the field, office,and decision room often for about fiveyears. Second, committed memberseventually came to carry out anagreed-upon and specific agenda.Third, members met in various com-binations frequently. Many meetingswere informal and no decisions weremade. Fourth, certain group mem-bers encouraged others to be actively,and systematically self-reflective.Fifth, members were contextual andbounded the problem practically.Sixth, the group was goal oriented.Seventh, the team used multiplemethods. Eight, some members fo-cused on innovation and creativity.Ninth, the group acquired the mini-mal support needed for productivemeetings. It took time and work toachieve these features, and even in theend, not all members were fully orproductively engaged. Achievingthese operational features allowed thebandicoot recovery group to be prob-lem-oriented, contextual, and usemultiple methods in its work.

By the mid- to late 1990s, thespecies' status had improved dramati-cally. Bandicoot numbers increasedto 1,000+ individuals at six reintro-


duction sites, plus the original wildpopulation, and a captive program.Prospects looked good for eventualrecovery of the species. The decisionseminar method deserves much creditfor these accomplishments. How-ever, it was impossible to perma-nently institutionalize the decisionseminar method into the bandicootprogram or the parent agencies in-volved. The causes of this were elec-tions and changes in governmentpolicy and agencies. The agencieswere dramatically reoriented to veryconservative agendas and clients, in-cluding reorganizing them to mimicfor-profit organizations. This in-cluded downsizing, transfers, and lossof staff in the bandicoot program.Budgets were also drastically cut.These changes prevented the benefitsof the decision seminar from beingfully capitalized on beyond the first5+ years of the recovery program.

ConclusionsDecision seminars are a means toimprove endangered species recov-ery. The two cases described here —the Hawaiian monk seal and the east-ern barred bandicoot — illustratevariables that contribute to the fail-ure or success of group work in re-covery. Successful recovery oftenhinges on relationships among par-ticipants and their ability to workcollaboratively; to identify problemsrealistically in a timely fashion; andto follow though with solutions.Identifying problems means givingfull attention to the social process orcontext involved. For a decisionseminar to succeed, its members mustachieve and maintain a focus on theprocess of group work and the out-comes of the seminar, both in termsof recovery actions and the grouplearning process. Ideally, when a de-cision seminar is complete, the out-comes include: biological trends sup-

porting a reduced need for recoveryactions and a group of highly trainedproblem solvers ready and able tocontribute much-needed skills andknowledge to other group recoveryactivities. Decision seminars, if usedwidely and with skill, hold promise ofgreatly improved endangered speciesrecovery. They also offer a way to growa population of professionals whoseskills, knowledge, and experience raisethe old standards for problem solvingand set new ones for the entire field ofendangered species recovery.

Literature citedBolland, J.M. and R. Muth. 1984. The deci-

sion seminar: A new approach to urbanproblem solving. Knowledge: Creation,Diffusion, Utilization 6(1):75-88.

Brewer, G.D. 1975. Dealing with complexsocial problems: The potential of the "de-cision seminar." In G.D. Brewer, and R.D.Brunner, eds. Political development andchange: A policy approach. The Free Press,New York.

Burgess, P.M. and L.L. Slonaker. 1975. Thedecision seminar: A strategy for problem-solving. The Mershon Center of The OhioState University, Columbus, Ohio.

Clark, T.W. 1997. Averting extinction: Recon-structing endangered species recovery. YaleUniversity Press, New Haven.

Clark, T.W. 2002. The policy process: A prac-tical guide for natural resources profession-als. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Clark, T.W. and R. Westrum. 1989. High per-formance teams in wildlife conservation:A species reintroduction and recovery ex-ample. Environmental Management13(6):663-670.

Clark, T.W. and J.H. Seebeck, eds. 1990.Management and conservation of smallpopulations. Proceedings of a conference,Sept. 26-27, 1989, Melbourne. ChicagoZoological Society, Brookfield, Illinois.

Clark, T.W., R.P. Reading, and A. Clarke, eds.1994. Endangered species recovery: Find-ing the lessons, improving the process. Is-land Press, Washington, D.C.

Clark, T.W., G.N. Backhouse, and R.P. Read-ing. 1995. Prototyping in endangered spe-cies recovery programmes: The easternbarred bandicoot experience. Pp. 50-62 inA. Bennett, G. Backhouse, and T.W. Clark,eds. People and nature conservation: Per-spectives on private land use and endan-

gered species recovery. Transactions of theRoyal Zoological Society of New SouthWales, Sydney.

Cunningham, L.L. 1981. Applying Lasswell'sconcepts in field situations: Diagnostic andprescriptive values. Educational Adminis-tration Quarterly 17:21-43.

Dobyns, H.F., P.L. Doughty, and H.D.Lasswell. 1971. Peasants, power, and ap-plied social change. Sage Publications,Beverly Hills, California.

Holmberg, A.R. 1958. The research and de-velopment approach to the study of change.Human Organization 17:12-16.

Lasswell, H.D. 1960. Technique of decisionseminars. Midwest Journal of Political Sci-ence 4(3):213-236.

Lasswell, H.D. 1971a. A pre-view of thepolicy sciences. American Elsevier Pub-lishing Company, New York.

Lasswell, H.D. 1971b. The continuing deci-sion seminar as a technique of instruction.Policy Sciences 2:43-57.

Lavigne, D.M. 1999. The Hawaiian monkseal: Management of an endangered spe-cies. Pp. 246-266 in J.R. Twiss, Jr. and R.R.Reeves, eds. Conservation and manage-ment of marine mammals. SmithsonianInstitution Press, Washington, D.C.

Marine Mammal Commission. 1990. Annualreport to Congress, calendar year 1989.Marine Mammal Commission, Washing-ton, D.C.

Muth, R. 1987. The decision seminar: A prob-lem-solving technique for school adminis-trators. Planning and Changing 18:45-60

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2001.Hawaiian monk seal stock assessment.National Marine Fisheries Service, La Jolla,California.

Ragen, T.J. and D.M. Lavigne. 1999. TheHawaiian monk seal: Biology of an endan-gered species. Pp. 224-245 in J.R. Twiss,Jr. and R.R. Reeves, eds. Conservation andmanagement of marine mammals.Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington,D.C.

Wallace, R.L. 2000. Marine mammal recov-ery: The human dimensions. Ph.D. disser-tation. Yale University School of Forestryand Environmental Studies, New Haven,Connecticut.

Wallace, R.L. In press. Social influences onconservation: Lessons from U.S. recoveryprograms for marine mammals. Conserva-tion Biology.

Willard, A.R. and C.H. Norchi. 1993. Thedecision seminar as an instrument of powerand enlightenment. Political Psychology14:575-606.


IntroductionPopulation viability assessment(PVA) is a procedure that allows man-agers to simulate, using computermodels, extinction processes that acton small populations and thereforeassess their long-term viability. Inboth real and simulated populations,a number of interacting demographic,genetic, environmental, and cata-strophic processes determine the vul-nerability of population extinction.These four types of extinction pro-cesses can be simulated in computermodels and the effects of both deter-ministic and stochastic forces can be

The Population Viability Assessment Workshop:A Tool for Threatened Species ManagementTim W. ClarkYale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 301 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511 and NorthernRockies Conservation Cooperative, Box 2705, Jackson, WY [email protected]

Gary N. BackhouseDepartment of Natural Resources and Environment, Victoria, Australia.

Robert C. LacyUniversity of Chicago Division of Biological Sciences and Department of Conservation Biology, Chicago Zoological Park,Chicago, [email protected]

AbstractPopulation viability assessment (PVA) is a powerful tool in assessing the viability (i.e. likely persis-tence) of small populations, and in setting target numbers and area requirements for species recov-ery. By using computer models, four types of extinction processes can be simulated, and the effectsof both deterministic and stochastic forces can be explored. PVA's also explore the outcome ofmanagement options. The utility of PVA was demonstrated at a workshop in Heidelberg, Victoria,Australia. Using the computer program, VORTEX, to simulate genetic, demographic, environmen-tal, and random events, workshop participants: (1) examined the status of data on six threatenedspecies (mountain pygmy-possum, Burramys parvus; leadbeater's possum, Gymnobelideusleadbeateri; eastern barred bandicoot, Perameles gunnii; long-footed potorroo, Potorous longipes;orange-bellied parrot, Neophema chrysogaster, and helmeted honeyeater, Lichenostomus melanopscassidix); (2) simulated their vulnerability to extinction; (3) examined outcomes of managementoptions to restore the species; (4) estimated population targets needed for recovery planning; and(5) evaluated the potential of PVA as a teaching aid to illustrate extinction processes and manage-ment options. Workshop results showed that the majority of the species were highly susceptible tolocal extinction, though more field data would have been helpful. Simulation of management op-tions demonstrated that early action in conservation management could have significantly reducedthe current predicament of these species and that use of PVA's could greatly improve conservationmanagement for all six species. PVA's are therefore highly useful in the planning and carrying outof species recovery programs.

explored. In turn, the outcome ofvarious management options, such asreducing mortality, supplementingthe population, and increasing carry-ing capacity can also be simulated.Thus, PVA provides managers with apowerful tool to aid in assessing theviability of small populations and insetting target numbers for species re-covery as a basis for planning andcarrying out recovery programs. Inaddition, having performance-basedmanagement programs enablesprogress to be quantified and as-sessed. PVA also offers managers apowerful strategic planning and

policy tool when vying for limitedfinancial resources. This paper de-scribes a PVA workshop that used astochastic computer simulation tomodel small populations of, and ex-plore management option for, sixthreatened/endangered wildlife spe-cies in Victoria, Australia.

The workshopThe workshop was co-sponsored bythe Department of Conservation andEnvironment (DCE), Victoria, andthe Zoological Board of Victoria(ZBV), in cooperation with the Chi-cago Zoological Society (CZS) and



was held at the Arthur Rylah Insti-tute for Environmental Research(DCE), Heidelberg, Victoria, fromMay 28 through June 1, 1990.

The objectives of the workshopwere to: (1) examine the adequacy ofdata on the six threatened species; (2)simulate the vulnerability to extinc-tion by using PVA; (3) examine out-comes of various management op-tions to restore the species; (4) esti-mate population targets needed forrecovery planning; (5) evaluate thepotential of PVA as a teaching aid toillustrate extinction processes andmanagement options.

The six species were: moun-tain pygmy-possum (Burramysparvus); leadbeater's possum(Gymnobelideus leadbeateri); east-ern barred bandicoot (Peramelesgunnii); long-footed potoroo(Potorous longipes); orange-belliedparrot (Neophema chrysogaster); andhelmeted honeyeater (Lichenostomusmelanops cassidix).

The 32 people attending theworkshop represented experiencedfield biologists and wildlife manag-ers with detailed knowledge of theseand other threatened species. Amonth prior to the workshop all par-ticipants were provided with back-ground reading material (e.g.,Shaffer 1981; Brussard 1985;Samson 1985; Gilpin 1989; Lacyand Clark 1990). A questionnaire onlife-history parameters to be com-pleted on each species as a basis forentering values into the computer wasalso provided. Following an intro-duction and overview of PVA, theparticipants formed teams and com-menced work. Simulations, analysis,and discussions were ongoing overthe next five days. The first weekconcluded with a report and review ofeach team's progress. During the fol-lowing week, teams further refinedtheir simulations and commencedpreparation of a final report with man-agement recommendations.

Population viability analysis:the VORTEX modelThe workshop used a computer pro-gram, VORTEX, to simulate demo-graphic and genetic events in the his-tory of a small population (<500 in-dividuals). VORTEX was written inthe C programming language by Rob-ert Lacy for use on MS-DOS micro-computers. Many of the algorithmsin the VORTEX were taken from asimulation program, SPGPC, writtenin BASIC by James Grier (Grier1980a, 1980b; Grier and Barclay1988). (See Lacy et al. (1989), Sealand Lacy (1989), and Lacy and Clark(1990) for earlier uses of VORTEX.)

Life tables analysis yield averagelong-term projections of populationgrowth (or decline), but do not revealthe fluctuations in population size thatwould result from variability in de-mographic processes. When a popu-lation is small and isolated from otherpopulations of conspecifics, theserandom fluctuations can lead to ex-tinction, even in populations that havepositive population growth on aver-age. Fluctuations in population sizecan result from several levels of sto-chastic effects. Demographic varia-tion results from the probabilistic na-ture of birth and death processes.Therefore, even if the probability ofan animal reproducing or dying is al-ways constant, the actual number re-producing or dying within any timeinterval would vary according to thebinomial distribution with meanequal to the probability of the event(p), and variance given by Vp = P*(1-P)/N. Demographic variation is thusintrinsic to the population and occursin the simulation because birth anddeath events are determined by a ran-dom process (with appropriate prob-abilities). Environmental variation(EV) is the variation in the probabili-ties of reproduction and mortality thatoccur because of changes in the en-vironment on an annual basis (orother timescales).

VORTEX models populationprocesses as discrete, sequentialevents, with probabilistic outcomesdetermined by a pseudo-randomnumber generator. VORTEX simu-lates birth and death processes andtransmission of genes through thegenerations by generating randomnumbers to determine whether eachanimal lives or dies, whether eachadult female produces broods of size0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 during each year,and which of the two alleles at a ge-netic locus are transmitted from eachparent to each offspring. Mortalityand reproduction probabilities aresex-specific. Mortality rates arespecified for each pre-reproductiveage class and for reproductive ani-mals. Fecundity is assumed to be in-dependent of age after an animalreaches reproductive age. The mat-ing system can be specified to be ei-ther monogamous or polygamous. Ineither case, the user can specify thatonly a subset of the adult male popu-lation is in the breeding pool (the re-mainder being excluded perhaps bysocial factors). The males in thebreeding pool all have equal probabil-ity of siring offspring.

Each simulation is started with aspecified number of males and fe-males in each pre-reproductive ageclass and the breeding age class. Eachanimal in the initial population is as-signed two unique alleles at somehypothetical genetic locus. The userspecifies the severity of inbreedingdepression, which is expressed in themodel as a loss of viability in inbredanimals. The computer programsimulates and tracks the fate of eachpopulation and then produces sum-mary statistics on: the probability ofpopulation extinction over specifiedtime intervals; the mean time to ex-tinction of those simulated popula-tions that went extinct; the mean sizeof populations not yet extinct; and thelevels of genetic variation remainingin any extant populations.


A population carrying capacityspecified by the user is imposed by aprobabilistic truncation of each ageclass if, after breeding, the populationsize exceeds the specified carryingcapacity. The program allows usersto model trends in the carrying capac-ity, as linear increases or decreasesacross a specified number of years.

VORTEX models environmentalvariation simplistically (which is bothan advantage and disadvantage ofsimulation modeling), by selecting atthe beginning of each year the popu-lation age-specific birth rates, age-specific death rates, and carrying ca-pacity from distributions with meansequal to the overall averages speci-fied by the user, and with variancesalso specified by the user. Unfortu-nately, rarely do we have sufficientfield data to estimate the fluctuationsin birth and death rates, and in carry-ing capacity, for a wild population.The population would have to bemonitored long enough to separatesampling error statistically from de-mographic variation in the number ofbirths and deaths, from annual varia-tion in the probabilities of theseevents. Such variation can be veryimportant in determining the probabil-ity of extinction, yet we rarely havereasonable estimates for most popula-tions of conservation concern. If dataon annual variation are lacking, a usercan try various values, or model the fateof the population in the absence of anyenvironmental variation.

VORTEX can model catastro-phes as events that occur with somespecified probability and which re-duce survival and reproduction forone year. A catastrophe is determinedto occur if a randomly generated num-ber between zero and one is less thanthe probability of occurrence (i.e. abinomial process is simulated). If acatastrophe occurs, the probability ofbreeding is multiplied by a severityfactor that is drawn from a binomialdistribution with a mean equation to

the severity specified by the user.Similarly, the probability of survivalfor each age class is estimated in asimilar manner.

VORTEX also allows the user tosupplement or harvest the populationfor any number of years in each simu-lation. The numbers of immigrantsand removals are specified by age andsex. VORTEX outputs the observedrate of population growth (mean ofN[t]/N[t-1]) separately for the yearsof supplementation/harvest and forthe years without such management,and allows for reporting of extinctionprobabilities and population sizes atwhatever time interval is desired (e.g.,summary statistics can be given atfive-year intervals in a 100-yearsimulation). Overall, the computerprogram simulates many of the com-plex levels of stochasticity that canaffect a population. Because it is adetailed model of population dynam-ics, often it is not practical to exam-ine all possible factors and all inter-actions that may affect a population.The user, therefore, must specifythose parameters that can be esti-mated reasonably, leave out of themodel those that are thought not tohave a substantial impact on the popu-lation of interest, and explore a rangeof possible values for parameters thatare potentially important but veryimprecisely known. A companionprogram, VORPLOTS, was used atthe workshop to produce plots ofmean population size, time to extinc-tion, and loss of gene diversity formsimulation results.

Equipment requiredVORTEX requires an MS-DOS mi-crocomputer with at least 640K ofmemory. A math co-processor speedsup the program substantially. TheVORPLOTS plotting program pro-duces files in the Hewlett PackardGraphics Language (HPGL), for useon a HP plotter or equivalent.

A Kodak Dataview EGA enable

projection of a computer display viaan overhead projector onto a largescreen so that all participants couldobserve demonstrations of VORTEXduring initial training.

Computers were used during thedaily sessions primarily for explanatoryanalysis with relatively few run (100or fewer) of a simulation; more exten-sive analysis were run overnight. A testwith 100 runs would take from 15 min-utes to three hours, depending on themachine used and the size of the popu-lation being simulated.

The workshop resultsEach team documented its activitiesand provided a preliminary report ofthe simulations completed, conclu-sions, and assessment of the conductof the workshop, and the usefulnessof the PVA process. Results will bepublished in peer-reviewed scientificjournals by each term.

All cases show similar results.First, most species and populationswere highly susceptible to local ex-tinction. Any further habitat loss orfragmentation or reduction in popu-lation size and density would resultin rapid extinction. Second, in allcases, more field data would havebeen helpful. Third, managementoptions to stave off extinction wereidentified and results were simulated.Options included strict habitat protec-tion, enhancement of existing habi-tat or restoration of lost habitat, cap-tive breeding, and reintroduction ofanimals to existing habitat patches inwhich the species has become extinctin recent decades or to newly createdhabitat. Various combinations ofmanagement strategies were recom-mended for future management.Fourth, the simulations demonstratedthat if proactive conservation manage-ment had been undertaken even five to10 years ago when populations andhabitats were considerably larger, thetask of present day managers would bemuch more tractable. And fifth, im-


proved conservation management forall six species is expected to result fromthe PVA exercises, enhanced research,and subsequent on-the-ground manage-ment. Three cases illustrate these con-clusions: the mountain pygmy-possum(Mansergh et al. in prep.), easternbarred bandicoot (Myroniuk andPatrick in prep.), and orange-belliedparrot (Brown et al. in prep).

Mountain pygmy-possumThe mountain pygmy-possum is asmall marsupial restricted to alpineand subalpine (> 1500 m altitude)rock screes and boulderfields withheathlands. The species has been wellstudied and much information isavailable on its ecology (Mansergh1989). Diet consists of invertebrates,seeds, and fruits. Breeding occursfrom September to December, withlitter size of three to four. The youngbecome independent by mid-January.Females can breed in their first year,and can live up to nine years. An un-usual feature of the life history ofBurramys is the fact that sexes are seg-regated during the non-breeding sea-son. The adult population is heavilybiased towards females (6F:1M) be-cause of the very high mortality expe-rienced by males post-dispersal.

The current total population isestimated to be 2,300 breeding adultsof which 80% are females. The spe-cies is regarded as vulnerable inVictoria and rare in New South Wales.The species is also susceptible to cli-matic changes associated with globalwarming. The mountain pygmy-pos-sum exists as a number of discretepopulations isolated from each otheron mountaintops. A total of sevenpopulations, ranging from 20 to 850individuals (representing the situationin the wild) was modeled. High prob-abilities of extinction were observedin small (<150 animals) populationsat 25 and 50 years; this could accountfor the absence of the species fromapparently suitable habitat within its

range. The large populations had adecreased likelihood of extinction.When modeled with a small butsteady decrease in carrying capacity(1% per annum) such as could occurthrough climatic change with globalwarming, the probability of extinctionincreased greatly (to 45% in the caseof the largest Victorian population of850 individuals, over 50 years). Dis-turbance to habitat and further frag-mentation of populations would in-crease the likelihood of extinction.

Eastern barred bandicootThe mainland population of this mar-supial species was formerly distrib-uted over about 23,000 sq km of vol-canic grassland in western Victoria.This population has now declined to200 or fewer individuals restricted toremnant habitat near Hamilton (Clarkand Seebeck 1990). The species ispolygynous, with females capable ofbreeding from three months of ageand males from four months of age.Gestation lasts about 12 days, withlitters comprised of one to five off-spring (usually two to three); youngremain in the pouch about 55 days.Females are capable of producingseveral broods per year. In spite ofthe very high reproductive potential,the population is believed to be de-clining at about 25% per annum. Ju-venile mortality at dispersal from thenest is very high (>90% within thefirst year). The decline of the spe-cies is attributed to habitat modifica-tion from pastoral activities and pre-dation from introduced predators, in-cluding the red fox (Vulpes vulpes)and the cat (Felis catus).

Wild and captive populations ofthe eastern barred bandicoot weresimulated. Modeling the wild popu-lation using available data withoutany change to current managementindicated 100% probability of extinc-tion within 25 years, with a mean timeto extinction of 7.2 years (+ 2.1).Doubling the carrying capacity and

leaving mortality unchanged had neg-ligible impact on the probability ofextinction and increased the meantime to extinction by only two years.Doubling the carrying capacity, re-ducing mortality by 30% and supple-menting the wild populations with theliberation of captive-bred animalsgreatly enhanced prospects for sur-vival of the wild population. Underthis scenario the probability of extinc-tion was reduced to 0% over 25 yearswith a mean final population size ofclose to the carrying capacity of 300animals. Modeling the existing andproposed captive populations allowedinvestigation of a variety of scenarios.The existing captive population of 16pairs has an extinction probability of83% over 25 years with a mean timeto extinction of 21.5 years. Doublingthe number of adult pairs decreasedthe extinction probability to 0% butthe surviving population had very lowgenetic variability, and there is littlepotential to harvest juveniles for re-lease into the wild. Increasing thecaptive population to 62 adult pairsincreased genetic variability and thepotential to harvest juveniles withoutjeopardizing the captive population.Maintaining a captive population of62 adult pairs (in two groups at sepa-rate locations to avoid catastrophe butmanaged as one population) and estab-lishing two semi-captive populationswith a capacity for 400 animals gavethe best prospects for long term sur-vival, maintenance of genetic variabil-ity, and production of sufficient off-spring to consider reintroduction tosuitable habitat within their formerrange. The exercise highlighted theneed for a combination of managementactions, rather than any single action,to prevent the almost certain extinctionof the wild population under the exist-ing management regime. Reduction ofmortality by predator control and traf-fic management is essential for the sur-vival of the eastern barred bandicoot.Captive management will be an im-


portant part of the recovery program,but with a more intensive programthan that currently underway.

Orange-bellied parrotThe biology and ecology of the or-ange-bellied parrot is comparativelywell known (Loyn et al. 1986). Thespecies is one of the rarest and mostthreatened birds in Australia, with atotal population of 150 to 200 indi-viduals. The orange-bellied parrotbreeds in coastal southwest Tasma-nia in woodlands adjoining extensivesedgelands. After breeding, it mi-grates across Bass Strait to overwin-ter in coastal regions of southernmainland Australia. The birds feedin a variety of coastal habitats includ-ing grassland, saltmarsh, and dunesystems, showing strong preferencesfor particular habitats and food typesin different parts of their winter rangeand at different times of the year. Anestimated 40 breeding pairs annuallyproduce a total of 50 to 70 juveniles.The orange-bellied parrot is consid-ered endangered. Loss of coastalhabitat for development and trappingfor the aviculture trade are consideredto be the primary causes of the spe-cies' past decline. Pressures for de-velopment on or adjacent to its mainwintering areas and habitat alterationare now the main threat to its survival.A captive breeding program is nowunderway to ensure the future sur-vival of the species.

Populations were modeled usingthe current carrying capacity (150), areduced carrying capacity (50), andan increased carrying capacity (500).Simulations, which involved varyingmortality, capture, and supplementa-tion rates of the wild population, wererun for all carrying capacities. Simu-lating the existing population usingcurrent data and management regimesindicated that the species would re-main extant over the next 50 years atleast, and stood a good chance of sur-viving for 100 years. Reducing the

carrying capacity to 50 under currentconditions somewhat surprisingly didnot increase the probability of extinc-tion over 50 years, although geneticvariability was greatly diminished.As would be expected, increasing thecarrying capacity to 500 birds furtherreduced the prospects of extinctionand greatly increased the genetic vari-ability of the population. When mod-eled with an increased juvenile mor-tality rate (75% of 50%), the popula-tion with the reduced carrying capac-ity showed a 70% probability of ex-tinction within 50 years, while thecurrent and increased carrying capac-ity populations showed extinctionprobabilities of 20% within that time.Imposing a capture and release cap-tive breeding program on the popu-lations only slightly decreased theextinction probability of the reducedcarrying capacity, high mortalitypopulation, but greatly improved theheterozygosity in the reduced carry-ing capacity, current mortality popu-lation. No extinctions occurred in thecurrent and increased carrying capac-ity populations even at the high mor-tality levels, when simulated withsupplementation from a captivebreeding program. The simulationsindicate several points. Juvenilemortality is of great significance tothe health of the population. Any in-crease above the present rate of 50%greatly increases the probability ofextinction, even with an enhancedhabitat carrying capacity. The cap-tive breeding program is an impor-tant back-up to the wild population,and will be extremely valuable if thewild population declines.

Evaluation of the workshopAn evaluation was considered to bean important part of the workshop.All participants rated the backgroundmaterial supplied prior to the work-shop as good to very good. Provi-sion of background material was es-sential as very few participants had

any prior experience with PVA. Or-ganization was rated as very good toexcellent by participants. The key tosuccess was the large number of mi-crocomputers available so that two tothree people per computer was pos-sible. Presentations were rated asvery good to excellent.

The workshop format was con-sidered to be a highly successful wayof presenting PVA. PVA was consid-ered to be a useful tool to aid threat-ened species management, providingits application and limitations wereunderstood. PVA can focus attentionon questions that should be addressedthrough additional research. PVA canbe applied to well-studied taxa, and thegeneral principles can be applied morewidely to other taxa providing programcharacteristics are kept in perspective.All participants would recommendPVA as a management tool.

ConclusionsThe PVA workshop proved a veryuseful way of quickly learning a newtechnique for threatened species man-agement and conservation. PVA wasapplied to six species allowing a criti-cal, quantitative analysis of extinctionprobabilities, as well as exploringmanagement options to prevent spe-cies loss. PVA results will be used inforthcoming management plans andactions directed towards restoringthese species to a status from whichthey will be relatively immune to ex-tinction form random processes. Inthe future, it can be expected thatPVAs will be carried out on additionalendangered species to help managetheir recovery.

AcknowledgementsSeveral people and organizationsmade this workshop a success. RodGowans, DCE; Gerry Griffin, ZBV;Pam Parker and George Rabb, CZS,supported the idea and supplied re-sources and staff time to permit itsrealization. Gary Backhouse, DCE,


and Amanda Embury, ZBV organizedthe workshop. The Wildlife Informa-tion Management Unit of DCE ac-quired and set up the equipment.Each of the species teams contributedinformation for this paper, and SimonBennett, DCE, contributed the equip-ment section. David Baker-Gabb andAndrew Bennett, DCE, reviewed anearlier draft and Denise Casey andCathy Patrick, Northern Rockies Con-servation Cooperative, USA, criticallyreviewed the final manuscript.

Literature citedBrussard, P.F. 1985. Minimum viable popu-

lations: How many are too few? Restora-tion and Management Notes 3(1):21-25.

Clark, T.W. and J.H. Seebeck, eds. 1990.Management and Conservation of SmallPopulations. Chicago Zoological Society,Brookfield, Illinois.

Gilpin, M. 1989. Population viability analy-

sis. Endangered Species UPDATE6(10):15-18.

Grier, J.W. 1980a. Ecology: A simulationmodel for small populations of animals.Creative Computing 6:116-121.

Grier, J.W. 1980b. Modeling approaches tobald eagle population dynamics. WildlifeSociety Bulletin 8:316-322.

Grier, J.W. and J.H. Barclay. 1988. Dynam-ics of founder populations established byreintroduction. Pp. 689-701. in T.J. Cade,J.H. Enderson, C.G. Thelander, and C.M.White, eds. Peregrine Falcon Populations:Their Management and Recovery. The Per-egrine Fund, Boise, Idaho.

Lacy, R.C., N.R. Flesness, and U.S. Seal. 1989Puerto Rican Parrot Population ViabilityAnalysis. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wild-life Service. Captive Breeding SpecialistGroup, Species Survival Commission,IUCN, Apple Valley, Minnesota.

Lacy, R.C. and T.W. Clark. 1990. Populationviability assessment of the Eastern BarredBandicoot in Victoria. Pp. 131-146 in T.W.Clark and J.H. Seebeck, eds. The Manage-ment and Conservation of Small Popula-

tions. Chicago Zoological Society,Brookfield, Illinois.

Loyn, R.H., B.A. Lane, C. Chandler, and G.W.Carr. 1986. Ecology of Orange-bellied Par-rots Neophema chrysogaster at their mainremnant wintering site. Emu 86(4):195-206.

Mansergh, I.M. 1989. The ecology and con-servation of the Mountain Pygmy-possum(Burramys parvus) in Victoria with com-parisons to populations in New SouthWales. PhD thesis, LaTrobe University,Victoria.

Samson, F.B. 1985. Minimum viable popula-tions — a review. Natural Areas Journal3(3):15-23.

Seal, U.S. and R.C. Lacy. 1989. Florida Pan-ther Population Viability Analysis. Reportto the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Cap-tive Breeding Specialist Group, SpeciesSurvival Commission, IUCN, Apple Val-ley, Minnesota.

Shaffer, M.L. 1981. Minimum populationsizes for species conservation. Bioscience31(2):131-134.

Red hills salamander ( Pseudotriton ruber ) by C.K. Dodd, Jr., USFWS.


IntroductionIn response to the current extinctioncrisis, managers and conservationistsare searching for innovative, moreeffective methods of species conser-vation. One such method is the trans-location or reintroduction of speciesinto formerly occupied habitat. Asthe list of threatened and endangeredspecies lengthens, the need for em-ploying reintroduction as a conserva-tion tool increases (Jones 1990).

Most reintroductions, however,fail (Griffith et al. 1989). One rea-son for this, we suggest, is that theprograms suffer from a narrow con-centration on biological and ecologi-cal considerations and exclude a hostof other equally important elements.As Clark (1989:3) stated: "Most de-scriptions of endangered species re-covery focus only on the biology ofspecies, thus creating the unrealisticview that conservation and recoveryare strictly technical biological tasks.

Towards an Endangered Species Reintroduction ParadigmRichard P. ReadingDenver Zoological Foundation, 2900 East 23rd Avenue, Denver, CO [email protected]


Stephen R. KellertYale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 301 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT [email protected]

AbstractReintroduction programs are becoming increasingly more common, but most fail. We suggest thatone reason for this lack of success is a narrow focus on biological and technical aspects of thereintroduction challenge to the exclusion of other important elements. We provide a more holisticparadigm for approaching reintroductions that centers on key actors who influence, and are influ-enced by a continuum of variables. Our model includes four classes of interacting variables: (1)biological considerations (ecology, genetic concerns, reintroduction techniques, etc.); (2) issues ofauthority and power (control of resources, laws and regulations, relations between actors, etc.); (3)organizational aspects (program structure, bureaucratic behavior, organizational cultures, etc.);and (4) socioeconomic considerations (people's values, attitudes, and perceptions, economics con-cerns, etc.). This model can aid people interested in reintroductions become more successful. Morecomprehensive approaches to reintroduction promise to improve success rates.

In fact, numerous non-biological fac-tors and forces have direct, immediateand paramount significance to endan-gered species recovery, and if the con-servation movement is to be effective,it must explicitly recognize the com-plexly interactive impacts and contri-butions of all the various dimensions."

Kellert (1985:528) also noted:"A compelling rationale and an effec-tive strategy for protecting endan-gered species will require recognitionthat contemporary extinction prob-lems are the result of socioeconomicand political forces." It has been ourexperience that these important ele-ments often go unrecognized by mostindividuals working on endangeredspecies reintroduction efforts.

To increase awareness and under-standing of the importance of theseelements, we are developing a sys-tematic, more holistic approach toendangered species reintroductionwhich explicitly includes socioeco-

nomic, organizational, and political(power/authority) aspects, as well asbiological sciences and technical as-pects. A broadly applicable paradigmfor the reintroduction of endangeredspecies promises to enhance successrates greatly by providing managersand conservationists with a frame-work for guiding future species' re-introductions. The paradigm can bothexpedite the restoration process andrender it more comprehensive, sys-tematic, and rational.

Reintroduction paradigmKey actors are the focus, or center, ofthe model (Figure 1). The key actorsinfluence, and are influenced by, sev-eral variables associated with reintro-ductions. Key actors are usually easyto identify in specific programs. Al-though the variables form a continuumof influencing factors that affect eachother in complex ways, we distinguishfour variable classes: (1) biological/



technical; (2) authority/power; (3) so-cioeconomic; and (4) organizational(Figure 1). These are briefly describedbelow. Several variables important tospecies recovery were previously iden-tified and discussed by Clark andKellert (1988), Clark (1989), andKellert and Clark (1991).

Biological/technical aspectsBooth (1988:241) summed up part ofthe difficulty of restoring endangeredspecies: "[A] continuing problemwith reintroductions is that biologistsmust often contend with manipulat-ing a dwindling species they do notfully understand. Wild animals inwild settings have a way of upsettingthe best laid plans."

Reintroduction is often an uncer-tain, risky venture. Indeed, Griffithet al. (1989) found thatmost past reintroduc-tion attempts failed,and Kleiman(1989:152) suggestedthat "high costs, logis-tical difficulties, andthe shortage of suitablehabitats make reintro-duction unfeasible as aconservation strategyfor most rare and en-dangered species heldin captivity." Never-theless, several reintro-ductions occur eachyear and many moreare planned. Of all thefactors influencing en-dangered species rein-troduction success, thebiological and technicalaspects are the most ob-vious and most oftenstressed (see almost anyU.S. Fish and WildlifeService Recovery Plan).

Plans must care-fully consider pros-pects for the species'survival in the release

area given the characteristics of theorganism and the ecosystem withwhich it is associated (Griffith etal.1989). Important considerationsinclude autecology (e.g., life historycharacteristics, habitat requirements,scarcity), population ecology (e.g.,demographics, genetics, dispersal),and community ecology (e.g., preda-tor/prey relations, competition, bioticand abiotic interactions; Stanley-Price1989; Kleiman 1989). Because of therarity of most endangered species,pertinent information is often absentand not easily obtained (i.e. techni-cal uncertainty). However, time is ata premium and conservationists mustproceed in the face of uncertaintyusing the best available data.

In addition to ecological consid-erations, plans must address reintro-

duction techniques. Kleiman (1989)and Griffith et al. (1989) identify sev-eral important aspects of reintroduc-tion techniques, including a well man-aged, self-sustaining source popula-tion, release site preparation, prepara-tion and training of animals to be re-leased, and demographic and geneticconsiderations in animal selection.

Getting the biology and technicalconsiderations right is, in itself, a diffi-cult and demanding job. Obtaining andusing this information at the right timeand in the right way only compoundsthe species restoration challenge.

Authority/power aspectsIn any situation where multiple ac-tors are working toward a commongoal, issues of authority and powerarise and can potentially dominate the

Figure 1. Universe of Reintroduction Paradigm Considerations.

BIOLOGICAL/TECHNICAL ASPECTSAutecologyPopulation EcologyCommunity EcologyHabitat ConsiderationsReintroduction TechniquesEtc.

ORGANIZATIONALASPECTSOrganizational ContextBureaucratic BehaviorIntra-Agency RelationsInteragency RelationsPersonnelEtc.

AUTHORITY/POWER ASPECTSLegal AuthorityCharismatic AuthorityTraditional AuthorityPowerResource DistributionEtc.

SOCIOECONOMIC ASPECTSValues & AttitudesNorms & CustomsDemographic & Geographic VariationEconomic ConsiderationsMoral/Ethical IssuesEtc.

KEY ACTORSFederal AgenciesState AgenciesLocal AgenciesUniversitiesPublicNGOs


interactive process. Endangered spe-cies recovery programs are no differ-ent. For example, in the Californiacondor (Gymnogyps californianus)case, Snyder and Snyder (1989:176)observed that: "The process of at-tempting to preserve this species hasbeen as much a political as a biologi-cal endeavor and has involved end-less polemics, confrontations, anddebates, as well as endlessly shiftingalliances, as old controversies havebeen resolved and new issues havearisen." Endangered species pro-grams tend to be characterized bybroad participation, high visibility,and large financial resources. In ad-dition, the restrictive nature of theEndangered Species Act (ESA) oftenmobilizes libertarians, agriculturalinterests, natural resource extractors,and others fearful of losing traditionalpower or authority (Yaffee 1982;Reading and Kellert 1993). The in-terplay of organizations, laws, tradi-tional roles, and power differentialscan result in power struggles andideological conflicts, which can signifi-cantly limit the effectiveness of theoverall program and in some instancespotentially cripple the entire reintroduc-tion effort (e.g., see Kohm 1990).

Authority relationships andpower dynamics among key actorsevolve as programs are carried out,although in many instances, tradi-tional inter-organizational relationsand preexisting laws, regulations, andmandates are set and strongly influ-ence the development of inter-actorrelations. Weber (1968) recognizesthree types of authority: (1) legalauthority, in which legitimacy isbased on formal laws rules and regu-lations; (2) traditional authority,wherein legitimacy rests with tradi-tion, custom, or loyalty; and (3) char-ismatic authority, which finds legiti-macy in devotion based on perceptionsof exceptional qualities of leaders bytheir followers or subjects. Any resto-ration program can contain all three

kinds of authority, and their interactionscan lead to unproductive conflict.

Resource distribution and powerregimes are closely related to con-cepts of authority, and to each other.Resources include money, personnel,knowledge or expertise, land tenure,and, importantly, control of the ani-mals to be reintroduced. In some pro-grams, conflict centers on who hasauthority over the animals and thedecision-making process surroundingthe animals. Power both determinesand is determined by the control ofthese resources and by authority(Lindblom 1980). Power maintainedin the absence of legal authority of-ten results in charismatic or tradi-tional authority dominating a pro-gram, which, in turn, often evolvesinto legal authority.

For these and other reasons, lo-cal people, organizations and indi-viduals staffing many restoration pro-grams are constantly vying for powerand authority. Factors influencing thepower structure and power relationsof local communities and organiza-tions include the land tenure patterns,access to, and control over, resources,property relations, social stratification,and traditional authority (Clarke andMcCool 1985; Kellert and Clark 1991).

Organizational aspectsA major variable in the success orfailure of a restoration effort is thekind of organizational system used.As Clark and Cragun (1991:1) con-cluded: "Understanding your organi-zation and knowing how to make itwork for species recovery can makethe difference between a program thatsucceeds and one that fails." The or-ganizational dimension is perhaps theleast explicitly perceived and under-stood of the four variable classes bypeople involved in species restora-tion. This fact has profound implica-tions for the kind of organizationalsystem used to restore a species andits effectiveness efficiency, and ad-

equacy (see Clark et al. 1989).Since several organizations often

participate in endangered species re-covery efforts, organizational consid-erations should be given explicit pro-fessional attention because they canaffect the success of these programs.Understanding organizations permitsdescription, diagnosis, and prescrip-tion of situations and problems en-countered within them (Gordon1983). Even apparently technicalproblems may have unrecognizedorganizational biases because of thehigh uncertainty and wide decision-making latitude characteristic of en-dangered species recovery programs(Yaffee 1982; Clark 1989). The in-ability of the black-footed ferret(Mustela nigripes) recovery programto maintain a wild population of fer-rets was at least partially attributableto organizational failures (see Clarkand Westrum 1987; Clark et al.1989).

An organization, especially agovernment-dominated bureaucracyhas several dimensions. First, thereis the context of the organization, in-cluding its internal and external en-vironments, its structure, its culture,its goal orientation, and the charac-teristics of its personnel. The inter-nal environment is shaped by severalfactors, including specialization andinterdependence, competition andconflict, status equalization, and overstaffing (Warwick 1975). Factorsshaping an organization's externalenvironment include complexity, un-certainty, threat, dispersion, diversity,and change (Warwick 1975; Gordon1983). An organization's culture andits goal orientation are derived fromphilosophies, legislation, policies,and the kind of professionals it hasas staff (Byars 1984).

Second, and closely related toorganization context, are variablesassociated with bureaucratic behav-ior. These include policy formationand implementation, managerial or-thodoxy or obedience, standard op-


erating procedures (SOPs), degree oforganizational conservativeness, andconstituency/public relations (Yaffee1982; Gordon 1983). Within agen-cies, formal policies are often signifi-cantly altered by substantial discre-tion in implementation and adminis-tration, which exists becausepolicymakers lack the technicalknowledge to specify implementationpolicies (Lindblom 1980; Yaffee1982). Finally, organizations are sen-sitive to external pressures from con-trollers, clientele groups, constituen-cies, allies, and adversaries (Yaffee1982; Warwick 1975). This is whyrestoration programs rapidly bureau-cratize even to the point of stiflingcreativity and problem solving (seeClark and Westrum 1987).

The last category of organiza-tional variables is inter- and intra-agency relations. Agency relationsoften deal with the authority andpower issues discussed above, butdifficulties may arise from differencesin the organization characteristics men-tioned above. In addition, organiza-tions often struggle for control of com-munication (Weinstein 1984).

The kind of organization thatdominates nearly all endangered spe-cies restoration efforts is conserva-tive, government bureaucracies withfixed SOPs. In some cases, powerdifferentials and states' rights versusfederalism ideology can come todominate the kinds and frequency ofinteractions among the program's or-ganizational actors (Ernst 1990). Inturn, this has major implications forthe actual work of restoring the en-dangered species.

Socioeconomic aspectsThe socioeconomic context of theendangered species reintroductioneffort is critical to the performanceof the program. For example, Tilt(1989:38) observed that: "The gen-eral public's perception of an endan-gered species issue may not seem

important to a wolf lover or a dartersupporter. But if the general percep-tion runs against an animal or plant'scontinued survival, all the biologicaldata in the world will be uselessagainst the perception."

A systematic examination of so-cioeconomic aspects is necessary tounderstand the values, attitudes, andperceptions held by people involvedwith, and potentially influenced by,endangered species reintroductions.Such considerations are usually lack-ing or insufficient in endangered spe-cies management efforts (Kellert 1985).

Local support is crucial. The ex-perimental reintroduction of easterntimber wolves (Canis lupes lycaen)into the Upper Peninsula of Michi-gan during the mid-1970s illustratesthis. All four wolves were killedwithin eight months of being released.Hook and Robinson (1982:382) ex-amined local attitudes following therelease and suggested that "the wolf'sfuture in Michigan depends upon theattitudes of Michigan residents to-ward this animal." Assessing publicviews and knowledge of wildlife per-mits program managers to design per-tinent and effective public relationscampaigns to develop support and toenable people to make more rationaland intelligent decisions (Kellert andBerry 1980; Reading and Kellert 1993).

A number of factors influencepeople's attitudes and values towardswildlife, including many character-istics of the species (e.g., phylogeny,morphology, size, sentient capacity),the perceived worth of the animal,and its symbolic nature (Kellert andBerry 1980). It is far easier to gainsupport for species with high publicappeal (i.e. the 'charismaticmegafauna') than for lesser-knownand so-called 'lower' life forms(Westman 1990). Values of wildlifeand attitudes toward wildlife arestrongly influenced by the perceivedeconomic or material worth of theanimal. These include aesthetic, ethi-

cal, ecological, biological, recre-ational, cultural, utilitarian, genetic,and unknown or undiscovered values(Ehrenfeld 1976; Ehrlich et al. 1977;Rolston 1981; Kellert 1987). Theperceived worth of a species is, inturn, often based on knowledge of thespecies, moral and ethical issues (i.e.animal rights), and traditional mar-ket values (i.e. pelt values). Localnorms and customs can also play astrong role in shaping attitudes andvalues, especially in the absence ofaccurate knowledge. Variations innorms and customs often follow de-mographic and geographic patterns.

Values and attitudes towards en-dangered species in general, the ESA,and endangered species recovery pro-grams are also important. Threatenedor endangered status elicits fear andhostility among certain sectors of so-ciety (e.g., agricultural interests) andcompassion support among others(e.g., members of conservation orga-nizations; Reading and Kellert 1993).Negative attitudes are often based onreal and perceived fears of the restric-tive components of the ESA, whichmany people view as a threat to theirlivelihoods and lifestyles, on nega-tive attitudes toward wildlife, and onthe effects of past recovery programs(Reading and Kellert 1993). Positiveattitudes are often rooted in recogni-tion of, and concern for, the loss ofbiodiversity and positive attitudes to-ward wildlife (Kellert 1985).

Finally, there are economic as-pects. In spite of their importance,most of the values of species conser-vation are difficult to quantify andtherefore often ignored. Costs asso-ciated with reintroduction, however,are more easily ascertained and moreoften stressed. Bishop (1978)stresses the irreversibility of extinc-tion and its implications in terms ofunknown future losses. He suggeststhat society should avoid extinctionunless the costs of maintaining viablepopulations are unacceptably large.


ConclusionsAs reintroductions become more im-portant in endangered species conser-vation and management, the need formore systematic, holistic reintroduc-tion efforts grows. Such effortsshould address the socioeconomic,political, and organizational aspectsof species reintroductions more com-prehensively, rather than focusingstrictly on biology, as is currently thecase. All the variables discussedabove affect the success of reintro-duction programs. Incorporation ofthese variables into reintroductionefforts promises to minimize prob-lems, barriers, and conflicts, and en-ables the program to draw upon theconstructive expertise of each keyactor involved. It is crucial that rein-troduction plans address these as-pects to ensure orientation of all theactors toward successful reintroduc-tion and rapid, efficient movementtoward that goal.

AcknowledgmentsSupport of this work comes fromWorld Wildlife Fund-U.S., theFanwood Foundation, Lost ArrowCorporation, Catherine Patrick Foun-dation (all to the Northern RockiesConservation Cooperative), the Na-tional Fish and Wildlife Foundation,the Chicago Zoological Society, TheWorld Society for the Preservation ofAnimals, the Montana Bureau of LandManagement, and the Montana Depart-ment of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks.Denise Casey reviewed the manuscript.

Literature citedBishop, R.C. 1978. Endangered species and

uncertainty: The economics of a safe mini-mum standard. Journal of Agricultural Eco-nomics 60:10-18.

Booth, W. 1988. Reintroducing a politicalanimal. Science 241:156-158.

Byars, L.L. 1984. Strategic management:Planning and implementation (cases andconcepts). Harper and Row Publ., Inc.,New York.

Clark, T.W. 1989. Conservation biology of theblack-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes).Wildlife Preservation Trust InternationalSpecial Scientific Report 3:1-175.

Clark, T.W. and J.R. Cragun. 1991. Organi-zation and management of endangered spe-cies programs. Endangered Species UP-DATE 8(8):1-4.

Clark, T.W., R. Crete, and J. Cada. 1989. De-signing and managing successful endan-gered species recovery programs. Environ.Manage. 13:159-170.

Clark, T.W. and S.R. Kellert. 1988. Toward apolicy paradigm of the wildlife sciences.Renewable Resources Journal 6:7-16.

Clark, T.W. and R. Westrum. 1987. Paradigmsand ferrets. Social Studies Science 3:3-33.

Clarke, J.N. and D. McCool. 1985. Stakingout the terrain: Power differentials amongnatural resource management agencies.Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore,Maryland.

Ehrenfeld, D. 1976. The conservation ofnon-resources. American Scientist 64:648-656.

Ehrlich, P.R., A.H. Ehrlich, and J.P. Holdren.1977. Ecoscience: Population, resources,environment. W .H. Freeman and Co., SanFrancisco.

Ernst, J.P. 1990. Federalism and the Act. Pp98-113 in K.A. Kohm, ed. Balancing on thebrink of extinction: The Endangered Spe-cies Act and lessons for the future. IslandPress, Washington, D.C.

Gordon, J.R. 1983. A diagnostic approach toorganizational behavior. Allyn and Bacon,Inc., Boston.

Griffith, B., J.M. Scott, J.W. Carpenter, andC. Reed. 1989. Translocation as a speciesconservation tool: Status and strategy. Sci-ence 345:447-480.

Hook, R.A. and W.L. Robinson. 1982. Atti-tudes of Michigan citizens toward preda-tors. Pp. 382-394 in F.H. Harrington andP.C. Paquet, eds. Wolves of the world: Per-spectives of behavior, ecology, and conser-vation. Park Ridge, New Jersey.

Jones, S.R. 1990. Captive propagation andreintroduction: A strategy for preserving en-dangered species? Endangered SpeciesUPDATE Special Issue, University ofMichigan School of Natural Resources,Ann Arbor, MI. 88 pp.

Kellert, S.R. 1985. Social and perceptual fac-tors in endangered species management.Journal of Wildlife Management 49:528-536.

Kellert, S.R. 1987. The contributions of wild-life to human quality of life. Pp. 222-229in D.J. Decker and G.R. Goff, eds. Valuingwildlife: Economic and social perspectives.

Westview Press Inc., Boulder, Colorado.Kellert, S.R. and J.K. Berry. 1980. Knowl-

edge, affection and basic attitudes towardanimals in American society. Supt. Docu-ments, U.S. Government Printing Office,Washington, D.C.

Kellert, S.R. and T.W. Clark. 1991. The theoryand application of a wildlife policy frame-work. Pp. 17-36 in W.R. Mangun and S.S.Nagel, eds. Public policy and wildlife con-servation. Greenwood Press, New York.

Kleiman, D.G. 1989. Reintroduction of cap-tive mammals for conservation: Guidelinesfor reintroducing endangered species intothe wild. BioScience 39:152-161.

Kohm, K.A. 1990. Balancing on the brink ofextinction: The Endangered Species Actand lessons for the future. Island Press,Washington, D.C.

Lindblom, C.E. 1980. The policy-making pro-cess. Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs,New Jersey.

Reading, R.P. and S.R. Kellert. 1993. Atti-tudes toward a proposed black-footed fer-ret (Mustela nigripes) reintroduction. Con-servation Biology 7:569-580.

Rolston, H. 1981. Values in nature. Environ-mental Ethics 3:113-128.

Snyder, N.F.R. and H.A. Snyder. 1989. Biol-ogy and conservation of the California con-dor. Current Ornithological Research6:175-267.

Stanley-Price, M.R. 1989. Animal re-intro-ductions: The Arabian oryx in Oman. Cam-bridge University Press, New York.

Tilt, W. 1989. The biopolitics of endangeredspecies. Endangered Species UPDATE6:35-39.

Wargo, J. 1984. Ecosystem preservationpolicy. Ph.D. Dissertation, Yale University,New Haven, Connecticut.

Warwick, D. 1975. A theory of public bureau-cracy: Politics, personality, and organiza-tions. Harvard University Press, Cam-bridge, Massachusetts.

Weber, M. 1968. Economy and society: Anoutline of interpretive sociology. Vol. I.Bedminster Press, New York.

Weinstein, D. 1984. Bureaucratic opposition:Whistle-blowing and other tactics. Pp. 254-268 in R. Westrum and K. Samaha, eds.Complex organizations: Growth, struggle,and change. Prentice-Hall Inc., EnglewoodCliffs, New Jersey.

Westman, W.E. 1990. Managing forbiodiversity: Unresolved science and policyquestions. BioScience 38:778-785.

Yaffee, S.L. 1982. Prohibitive policy: Imple-menting the federal Endangered SpeciesAct. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachu-setts.


IntroductionThose involved in endangered speciesrecovery programs often face ex-tremely complex situations as theytackle the nuts-and-bolts work of sav-ing species. Recovery programs thathave developed over the last 15 yearshave had to deal with technically de-manding biological tasks and uncer-tainties, limited resources, numerousparticipants, and intense public scru-tiny and involvement, among manyother difficulties. These factors com-bine to make species recovery a com-plicated, interactive, technical, and ad-ministrative challenge. Professionalsworking in these programs often view

Implementing Endangered Species Recovery Policy:Learning As We Go?Tim W. ClarkYale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 301 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511 and NorthernRockies Conservation Cooperative, Box 2705, Jackson, WY [email protected]

Anne H. HarveyNorthern Rockies Conservation Cooperative, Box 2705, Jackson, WY [email protected]

AbstractEndangered species recovery programs face many challenges; chief among them is the implementa-tion challenge. Implementation is a complex, dynamic, and multifaceted task requiring skilled lead-ership, an effective problem solving heuristic, and the capacity to learn and change course as feed-back suggests. In contrast, too often technically-oriented participants often assume that endan-gered species recovery is a purely biological problem and thus overlook the many extra-biologicaldimensions. For example, these participants and the overall recovery programs may not pay atten-tion to critical policy and organizational variables that ultimately determine if the program suc-ceeds or fails. Examples from the endangered black-footed ferret recovery program identify anddescribe four aspects of recovery programs that directly complicate implementation challenges.First is the inherent "complexity of cooperation" among multiple participants involved. They oftenhave distinct, different perspectives and use contradictory criteria by which success is measured.Second is "goal displacement" wherein the species conservation task is replaced by bureaucraticimperatives such as control and power goals. Third is the use of "inappropriate organizationalstructures" to interrelate the work, workers, and the species/environment. And fourth is "intelli-gence failures and delays" wherein key information is overlooked, underappreciated, or not ob-tained and used at all. This and other factors lead to costly delays. Learning from these four kindsof problems and avoiding them requires professionals and leaders to use knowledge from policyprocess and organizational design fields, subjects typically not taught in conventional conservationbiology programs. A commitment to learning and problem solving can help recovery programsavoid common implementation mistakes and achieve a successful species conservation outcome.

recovery primarily as a biological prob-lem. They have generally given muchless explicit attention to policy and or-ganizational variables in recovery pro-grams, instead attributing problemssimply to bad luck, lack of resources,"politics," or uncommitted individualsin other organizations. Yet the organi-zational arrangements, decision-mak-ing processes, and other policy vari-ables affecting recovery programs canbe as critical to success as technical andbiological tools. A better understand-ing of the policy and organizationaldimensions of endangered specieswork could greatly enhance the effec-tiveness of many recovery programs.

Participants in recovery pro-grams often view the problems theyencounter as unique to their speciesand their program. But problemsstemming from inappropriate organi-zational and decision-making ar-rangements may be more generic andprevalent than is currently recognizedin recovery efforts. By looking atthese programs through a policy andorganizational framework, commonpatterns may be detected which wouldotherwise remain underappreciated orinvisible. Lack of attention to theseaspects of recovery can result in in-effective and inefficient programs,and ultimately in species extinction.



With so much at stake, it is impera-tive to develop a framework foranalysis and to learn from past andongoing recovery efforts in order toimprove future programs.

Notable successes have beenachieved in many recovery programs.For example, the American alligator(A11igator mississippiensis) recov-ered rapidly in many parts of its rangeas a result of federal and state protec-tion under the Endangered SpeciesAct (ESA) (Endangered SpeciesTechnical Bulletin 1985). Yet manyaccounts of endangered species re-covery programs refer to implemen-tation difficulties encountered by par-ticipants (e.g., Duff 1976; Carr 1986;Askins 1987). In this paper, we dis-cuss four common features of recov-ery programs that have led to imple-mentation problems. First, speciesrecovery is a tremendously compli-cated task, often involving numerousparticipants who must somehow in-tegrate their diverse perspectives intoa workable program. Second, theseparticipants often have conflictinggoals, some of which have more todo with controlling the recovery coa-lition than saving the species. Third,explicit consideration of organiza-tional structure appropriate to the taskof saving species is rare; recoveryprograms tend to develop into tradi-tional hierarchical bureaucracies.Fourth, intelligence failures and pro-gram delays often occur because ofpreconceptions held by decision mak-ers and the large number of "clear-ances" required in programs withmultiple participants.

To illustrate our points, we drawon examples from the ongoing black-footed ferret recovery effort, whichhas much public and professional at-tention. Even though we focus on therecovery effort in the years 1981through 1986, from the discovery ofthe Meeteetse population until its ex-tinction in the wild, the four imple-mentation themes addressed in this

paper were apparent throughout thepast 15 years. Our use of the ferretcase history could be misunderstoodas blame finding and negative, andin fact, we have been urged to forgetpast, acknowledged implementationmistakes. We feel strongly, however,that unless these persistent featuresof implementation are scrutinized andgiven some meaning through a policyand organizational framework, theywill never be recognized for whatthey are and managed effectively. Byusing the ferret example as illustra-tion, we are not implying that it is anespecially good or bad program.Rather, we suggest that the examplesmay be representative of the implemen-tation problems found in many recov-ery programs, and that the lessons tobe learned from examining them canbe useful in many other cases.

In the second section of the pa-per we suggest ways to improve thepolicy, organizational, and individualdimensions of recovery programimplementation. Recovery programsare an implementation device in thelarger policy process, and participantsmust have knowledge of this process.The organizational dimension in-volves the structure and managementof the recovery program itself, includ-ing such factors as who is permittedto participate, how information isgathered and used, how authority andcontrol over the program are allo-cated, how decisions are made, andhow disagreements within the recov-ery coalition are resolved. The indi-viduals who make up recovery teamsare part of these policy and organiza-tional dynamics and can have rolesof influence. Careful attention to allthese overlapping and interactive el-ements is essential.

The black-footed ferret storyThe black-footed ferret (Mustelanigripes) is the most critically endan-gered mammal in North America. Itwas listed in the U.S. Fish and Wild-

life Service's (FWS) Redbook of En-dangered Species in 1964, and it wasplaced in the FWS endangered spe-cies priorities list in 1976. It is a soli-tary, nocturnal carnivore preying al-most exclusively on prairie dogs(Cynomys sp.). The ferret spends al-most all of its time below ground inprairie dog burrows where it huntsand finds shelter. In the 137 yearssince the ferret's scientific discovery,only two small populations have everbeen studied — one in South Dakota(1964-1974) and the second nearMeeteetse, Wyoming (1981-1987).Both wild populations are now extinct.

In 1920, an estimated one mil-lion ferrets existed in 40 million hect-ares of habitat (prairie dog colonies)over 12 states and two Canadianprovinces (Anderson et al. 1986).Widespread and long-lasting prairiedog poisoning programs, with thegoal of rangeland improvement, de-stroyed ferret habitat. This loss, com-bined with other factors, such as dis-eases, pushed ferrets to the edge ofextinction by 1980. In fact, manypeople and agencies considered theferret extinct by that time.

The Meeteetse ferrets were dis-covered serendipitously: a ranch dogkilled a dispersing male. The sourcepopulation of ferrets was foundnearby occupying 37 prairie dog colo-nies (about 3,000 ha) scattered overabout 260 square kilometers on nineranches in a mix of private and pub-lic lands. The presence of this ferretpopulation surprised everyone. A fewmonths after the discovery, the FWStransferred authority for the ferret re-covery program to the WyomingGame and Fish Department. Ferretecology and behavior were exten-sively studied, as ferrets were ob-served directly, tracked in snow, andradio-collared. Spotlight surveyseach summer revealed peak annualnumbers (1984, 129 ferrets including25 litters). Annual ferret losses werehigh, about 50-90+ % (Forrest et al.


1988). By early July 1985, countsshowed a much lower population thanin all previous years (58, including13 litters). By early September, mark/recapture population estimatesshowed that the population had de-clined to 31±8 ferrets. By early Oc-tober, the population had declined to16±5. And by November, only aboutsix ferrets were thought to remain inthe wild. The catastrophic loss ofabout 150 ferrets between fall 1984and fall 1985 was documented. Dur-ing July to September 1985, ferretswere lost at the rate of one every twoto three days. The decline wasthought to be caused by canine dis-temper, a disease 100% fatal to fer-rets. Techniques were developed tolocate ferrets and extensive searcheswere conducted over several states.No ferrets or recent sign were found.

During the fall of 1985, sixMeeteetse ferrets were captured toprevent loss of the species. Theseferrets were housed in close proxim-ity, and two ferrets infected with ca-nine distemper transmitted it to theother four. A1l six died shortly there-after. Another six were hastily cap-tured and housed individually; allsurvived. These six, added to the sixthought to exist in the wild, consti-tuted the world's known population— about 12 individuals in early 1986.In 1986, the six captive ferrets did notreproduce, but the six wild ferretsproduced 10 young in two litters, andmost were added to the captive popu-lation. This brought the world'sknown population to 18, all in cap-tivity. The captive ferrets producedseven surviving young in two littersin 1987. No more wild ferrets werefound. Breeding success was betterin 1988, with 44 young in 13 littersbeing produced. Ten of the 44 youngborn in 1988 died. The fate of thespecies now depends on the captiveferrets and any wild ferrets that mayexist (Maguire et al. 1988).

In late 1985, the International

Union for theConservation ofNature andNatural Re-sources' (IUCN)Captive Breed-ing SpecialistGroup enteredthe ferret recov-ery program inan advisory role,bringing consid-erable technicalinformation andexpertise to thecaptive breeding program. The cap-tive population is presently held in asingle location in Wyoming. Theagencies responsible for the ferretsare planning to divide the populationin order to minimize the chances ofthe entire population being elimi-nated by a disease epidemic or othercatastrophe (Oakleaf 1988). The par-ticipants in the ferret program hopeto use captive-bred ferrets to establisha second or third captive breedingcolony in other states in late 1988, andan Interstate Coordinating Committeehas been formed to identify potentialreintroduction sites (Thorne 1988).

Implementation problems inrecovery programs1. Complexity of cooperation:multiple participants and perspectivesLike most endangered species pro-grams, the ferret program includes anumber of governmental and nongov-ernmental participants, who becameinvolved — formally and informa1ly— for a variety of reasons. More than20 organizations and 100 individualshave participated in the ferret pro-gram since 1981. The primary par-ticipant groups are the FWS, theWyoming Game and Fish Depart-ment, ranchers, and the conservationcommunity. The management com-plexities involved in coordinating theactions of multiple participants inwildlife programs can compound an

already difficult biological task(Harvey 1987). This is not to arguethat participation should be limited toonly a few. To the contrary, a multi-plicity of participants provides an es-sential diversity of knowledge, skills,and perspectives as well as a usefulsystem of checks and balances thatcontribute significantly to recovery.But to capture these needed interestsand skills and meld them into produc-tive, coordinated action requires acarefully constructed and managedprogram and an explicit and effectivedecision and policy process.

Each participating organizationin a recovery program possesses adistinct perspective from which itsees the program, its operation, andother actors. Each organization maydiffer from the others in its sense ofurgency about recovery of a speciesand in its thoughts about the best lo-cation and means for recovery. Forexample, conflict arose between par-ticipants in the ferret case over thequestion of when and where to ini-tiate a captive breeding program.

Because perspectives vary somuch, the participating organizationsmay have contradictory criteria bywhich each measures program suc-cess. For example, some agenciesgauge success primarily by increasesin a species' numbers, successful cap-tive breeding, or gains in data collec-tion leading to letter understanding of

Black-footed ferret ( Mustela nigripes ) by Richard P. Reading.


the species' ecological requirements.For others, the major criterion of suc-cess is the degree to which they canprevent public controversy or effec-tively control key aspects of the pro-gram. Disagreement over these cri-teria has led to conflicts in recoveryprograms, as technicians, scientists,managers, and administrators seek toimpose their readings of the "facts"and their values on other participants(see Latour 1987).

2. Goal displacement: task goalsversus control goalsAll participants in endangered speciesprograms genuinely seek species re-covery. Despite this common goal,however, program participants oftendisagree about the means to achieveit, for a variety of reasons: profes-sional disagreements; legal and pro-cedural differences; differences ofopinion on leadership and properorganizationa1 roles; and direct in-compatibility of the suggested actionswith other goals held by their organi-zation (or simply a preference forthese other goals) (see Pressman andWildavsky 1973). Participants maytry administratively to redefine the re-covery program to fit their own agen-cies' perspectives and priorities, whichcan be quite inflexible (Yaffee 1982).

In some cases, a very obviousconflict arises between the "task goal"(i.e. saving the species) and the"power/control goal" of some agen-cies (i.e. gaining and maintainingcontrol of the recovery program)."Goal displacement" occurs when anagency becomes more focused onpower/control goals than on substan-tive biological task goals. A programdriven by power/control goals islikely to compromise the biologicaltask goals when the two come intoconflict, as they invariably will. Ifthe organization relies on a bureau-cratic top-down style of decisionmaking, control and power goals tendto dominate, whereas if goals are set

from the bottom up, by those indi-viduals most directly in contact withthe species, task goals tend to domi-nate (Daft 1983).

A conflict between task and con-trol goals was evident over all theyears of the Wyoming ferret recov-ery program. The Wyoming Gameand Fish Department, which had beengiven lead agency status by the FWS,wanted to keep the ferrets within thestate and carry out captive breedingonly after the state had developed fa-cilities to do so. Weinberg (1986: 65)wrote, "As [Wyoming] officials ac-knowledge, they never seriously con-sidered allowing ferrets to leave thesite [for captive breeding]. 'We'd haveno control over them.'" Analysis in-dicates that Wyoming's insistence oncontrolling the program created un-productive conflict and caused delays(Carr 1986; May 1986).

3. Organizational structuresOne major cause of a program's fail-ure to meet its goals is the use of in-appropriate organizational structures(Hall 1987). Most recovery chal-lenges go well beyond the boundariesof any single organization. Coalitionsare formed which must integrate di-verse structures, ideologies, and stan-dard operating procedures to meet thecommon task goal. But agencies set-ting up a new recovery program rarelygive explicit thought to how the re-covery coalition should be structured.Programs are often set up along stan-dard bureaucratic lines, not becausesuch an arrangement has proven to bethe most effective, but because noother structure is considered. Thislimits the set of ideas that seem plau-sible, and that are tried. In the first15 months of the ferret recovery pro-gram, the recovery coalition's orga-nizational structure evolved from asimple matrix to a traditional bureau-cratic arrangement, where remained(See Figure 1).

Organizational structure has pro-

found effects on task divisions, re-source allocations, distribution of in-formation, and controls, and hence onthe overall effectiveness of the pro-gram. If task goals cannot be met orare stifled because of structural con-straints, then the program will falteror fail. Bureaucratization is impli-cated as a root cause of implementa-tion problems (War 1975). Thosewho implement recovery programsshould give explicit consideration toother organizational structures, suchas horizontally-coordinated taskforces and project teams (Clark andCragun 1994).

Program structure is both a det-riment and an outcome of organiza-tional power. A structure that con-centrates decision-making authorityand control in the hands of oneagency makes it easy for that agencyto reduce or eliminate the role of otherorganizations, and to control informa-tion for its own benefit. The leadagency in the ferret program usedseveral widely recognized bureau-cratic mechanisms (Salancik andPfeffer 1977) to consolidate its power.For example, it filled positions ofpower in its "advisory" team with itsown personnel (e.g., "chairman andsecretary"). By restricting permitsand limiting contact with the press, italso controlled data generation andpublic access to that data. The bu-reaucratic structure chosen by Wyo-ming helped to solidify its top-downcontrol over decision making, alloca-tion of resources, definition of par-ticipant roles, and the timing and lo-cation of recovery activities. Unfor-tunately, this structure also closed thedecision-making process to signifi-cant available information and sug-gestions for solutions from both insideand outside participants, and reducedthe program's ability to be creative andresponsive (see Etheredge 1985).

4. Intelligence failures and delaysIntelligence failures and delays have


been common problems in recoveryprograms, resulting in part from con-flicts among participants, goal dis-placement, and use of inappropriateorganizational structures. Qualitydecision making depends on intelli-gence (i.e. the use of information orthe "acquisition, analysis, and appre-ciation of relevant data." (Betts1978:61, emphasis in original)).Even when information is availableto decision makers, a variety of fac-tors may lead them to dismiss it aserroneous, inaccurate, or misleading.In the ferret program, agency officialsat first discounted 1985 field data in-dicating that the ferret population wasin a rapid decline. Officials took themost sanguine view of the situation,arguing that it was just a normal popu-lation fluctuation, that the field meth-

ods and data were in error, or that theferrets had migrated elsewhere(Weinberg 1986; Randall 1986;Zimmennan 1986).

A root cause of intelligence fail-ures, according to Betts (1978), is thatdecision and policy makers operateunder policy premises that constrictperceptions and lead to "selective in-attention" to facts and outright "blind-ness" in some instances (Lasswell1971; Schon 1983). These precon-ceptions can block learning, change,and adaptation (Etheredge 1985).Organizational arrangements thatstifle legitimate dissenting views ex-acerbate intelligence failures.

In such a difficult and uncertaintask as recovering species, wherenumerous participants are involved,disagreements over the best course of

action are to be expected. When dealtwith constructively, such disagree-ments and conflicts have been valu-able to recovery programs by provid-ing alternative ideas and solutions forthe group to consider. But the needto reach agreement on these points ofcontention has often caused delays.In some cases a participant who wasintensely opposed to a program, andwho had adequate resources to blockit, has held up recovery actions untilmajor concessions were made.

There is evidence that this oc-curred in the ferret case. BecauseWyoming initially had no captivebreeding facility, resources to buildone, or staff to man one, and becauseof their agency's strong opposition tosending ferrets to other facilities out-side Wyoming, captive breeding

Figure 1. Organizational arrangements for recovery of the black-footed ferrets: (A) simple matrix; (B) complex matrix;(C) bureaucracy; (D) heightened bureaucracy (Clark and Harvey 1988).


could not move forward when firstcalled for. Extensive bargaining overseveral years between Wyoming andother participants and the dramaticcollapse of the wild population en-sued before Wyoming initiated cap-tive breeding in 1985 (Weinberg1986; Randall 1986).

Not all delays are intentional.Some delays result from the time re-quired to formulate and approve plansand funding requests or from compet-ing demands on participants' time.Regardless of the source, programdelays are often difficult to separatefrom program failures (Pressman andWildavsky 1973). Does Wyoming'smove to breed ferrets in captivity,which occurred a year or two laterthan recommended by field teams andconservationists (Weinberg 1986) andafter the wild population had sharplydeclined, count as failure or as suc-cess? In view of the captive breed-ing program's results in 1988, someobservers may reasonably argue,"better late than never." Although theoutcome of the captive breeding pro-gram to-date gives cause for opti-mism, we should not assume that theprogram's delays were of no signifi-cance. If we can learn from past mis-takes, we collectively can be more re-sponsive to such crises in the future.

ImprovementsHow can participants in recovery pro-grams begin to deal with these imple-mentation problems and others? Toimprove future performance in con-serving species and the ecosystemson which they depend, appreciationof the actual complexity of the workto be done is required. This meansdeveloping a broad understanding ofthe interactive web of biological, or-ganizational, and policy componentsinvolved. Such a "systems perspec-tive" can be very different from theconventional views held by tradi-tional biologists and bureaucrats,views which are rooted in single uni-

versity disciplines and reinforced incertain agency cultures and loyalties(Brewer 1988).

Improvements in recovery pro-grams are possible in three areas:policies, organizations, and individu-als — in addition to the constant striv-ing to improve technical biologicalwork. The ideas presented below area brief look at some analytical andproblem solving techniques and ap-proaches that could help to broadenparticipants' perspectives and im-prove their ability to adapt quickly tothe demands of species recovery. Weare aware that many recovery pro-grams face extreme resource short-ages, and that participants may viewsome of these suggestions as beingtoo time consuming and expensive tobe practicable. We argue that theseideas and techniques can help recov-ery programs anticipate and avoidcommon pitfalls that have hinderedefficient and effective action in thepast. Since we can give only thebriefest introductions to these ideasand techniques, we urge readers todelve into the literature cited for morethorough explanations.

1. Improvements in the policy processBy policy, we mean the complex setof interactive decisions and actionsby which societies and governmentsestablish goals based on their valuesand establish the means to reach thosegoals (Ham and Hill 1987). It is es-sential in defining a recovery chal-lenge to explore thoroughly its his-tory, scientific and management con-text, and trends, and to identify allfactors which may have a bearing onthe success of the program. Evidencesuggests that some of these factors,particularly policy and organizationalvariables, are underappreciated or"invisible" to some participants. Or-ganization and management struc-tures, resource limitations, uncer-tainty, and jurisdictional and controlissues are just a few of the variables

which can fundamentally affect thedecision and policy processes andultimately the outcome of a recoveryprogram. Many of these variablesinvolve participants' values. Thepolicy sciences offer analytical toolsthat can minimize the subjective dis-tortions and simplifications that causemany implementation problems(Lasswell 1971). The policy sciences'problem-solving tools are specificallydesigned to address both technical andvalue-laden issues. Policy scientistslook at how knowledge is used in thedecision and policy processes, and si-multaneously, at how well these pro-cesses are working. By contrast, tech-nical experts tend to generate basicknowledge and pay little attention tocomplex decision processes.

One model that could be veryuseful for recovery programs is the"decision seminar," a technique de-signed to allow a group of specialistsand decision makers to integrate theirknowledge to solve complex prob-lems (Lasswell 1960; Brewer 1975).A core group of l0 to 15 participantsmust be willing to commit the timeneeded to understand the problem(over months or years, if necessary),although the seminar is also open tooutsiders. An explicit problem-solv-ing orientation is used. The groupmaps the context of the problem anddetermines its vast trends, probablefuture outcomes, and options avail-able to solve the problem. The pro-cess by which decisions are made isalso explicitly and continuously con-sidered. Participants' independentassessments of the problem are com-pared, common views are discussed,and discrepancies are considered. Allrelevant methods for analysis of theproblem are used, and new methodsare encouraged. When the group ar-rives at a decision, responsibilities forcarrying it out are assigned. Docu-mentation of participants' activitiesbecomes the group's "institutionalmemory" (Brewer 1975). An inter-


disciplinary approach is essential.Many recovery programs incorporatesome aspects of the decision seminarmodel. But, for the most part, theylack the explicit attention to multiplemethods and the breadth of analysisthat characterize decision seminars.Recovery programs, which fullyadopt a decision seminar format,could be expected to improve boththeir openness to problem-solvingtechniques and their awareness oftheir own decision-making processes.

Another specific tool that hasproven useful in species recovery pro-grams is decision analysis which al-lows managers to integrate ecologi-cal theory, objective data, subjectivejudgments, and financial concerns inmaking decisions under conditions ofuncertainty (Maguire 1986). Proba-bilistic models are developed relat-ing the outcomes of alternative ac-tions to random events in the envi-ronment, and probability values areassigned to each possible outcome ofa decision. For example, the prob-ability of extinction of a species canbe estimated under current manage-ment conditions and then comparedwith extinction probabilities underdifferent management scenarios. Theprobabilities and effects of randomevents such severe weather and dis-ease, and the costs of different man-agement actions can be explicitlyconsidered. Parties that dispute thefacts can see where they agree anddisagree and suggest ways of assem-

bling information to resolvedisputes. Analysts have ap-plied decision analysis to thecritically endangeredSumatran rhino(Dicerorhinus sumarensis)and other species (Maguire etal. 1987; Maguire et al. 1988).

"Adaptive manage-ment" (Hollings 1978) is athird way of guiding recov-ery group actions. From thisperspective, decision mak-

ing should be treated explicitly as aprocess of making mistakes and cor-recting errors (Brewer 1988). Insteadof seeking and relying on a single"best answer," managers should con-sider many plausible approaches andsolutions, adapting to changes in theproblem and its context. The key toadaptive management is to monitorthe outcomes of decisions carefullyso as to learn from each and to cutlosses when solutions are not work-ing. Since recovery programs almostalways involve risk and uncertainty,managers should use contingencyplanning to anticipate the possibilityof failure.

Through the decision seminarprocess, using decision analysis andadaptive management, an explicitunderstanding can be gained not onlyof the substantive problem but of theprocesses most useful for solving it.Some movement in this direction hasoccurred in the ferret program. Theparticipation of the IUCN CaptiveBreeding Specialist Group (CBSG) inthe ferret recovery program since1985 has improved the program'stechnical capabilities and broadeneddiscussion of a range of ideas andproblem-solving approaches. Thishas brought the program a little closerto the decision seminar model than itwas before. Although the programstill functions under several policyand organizational constraints dic-tated by Wyoming, CBSG's partici-pation to-date has resulted in a more

focused problem-solving orientationand has contributed greatly to the suc-cess of the captive breeding effort.2. Organizational improvementsThe second kind of improvementsneeded in recovery programs is or-ganizational. Organizations are morethan just a collection of individuals;they persist over time and have es-tablished norms, traditions, and ac-tivities above and beyond the indi-viduals who direct and staff them.They are major determinants of thebehavior of those individuals andmajor actors in policy implementa-tion. The nature of endangered spe-cies recovery programs — complex,rapidly changing, and highly uncer-tain — requires organizational ar-rangements that fit these task proper-ties. Highly bureaucratized organi-zations with rigid standard operatingprocedures probably lack the flexibil-ity needed. Recovery program man-agers should question whether theprogram's organizational structure ishindering the recovery effort. Organi-zational development consultants couldprovide valuable expertise in matchingrecovery program structures to organi-zational tasks and environments.

An effective organization shouldprocess information well and learnrapidly from its own mistakes. Use-ful organizational models for endan-gered species recovery include taskforces and project teams operatingunder adaptive management and de-cision seminar guidelines. (Taskforces tackle temporary problems, andproject teams address problems thatneed long-term, continuous coordina-tion; Daft 1983). A recovery teamshould ideally be composed of profes-sionals with formal training and expe-rience, who are focused on completingthe job successfully and willing to ac-cept the uncertainty and risk inherentin endangered species challenges.

Certain characteristics are key tothe effective functioning of recoveryteams. As the recovery task and its

Daurian pika ( Ochotona daurica ) by Richard P.Reading.


larger context change, the team mustbe able to respond quickly andadaptively, using all available infor-mation. Communication practices,which facilitate high creativity, suchas emotional supportiveness, brain-storming, and non-personally di-rected evaluation of ideas, are help-ful. A willingness to examine any andall alternatives is essential. Teamsmust avoid "groupthink," in whichdisagreements and conflicting per-spectives are muted in the interest ofmaintaining group cohesion (Janis1972). A strong, mutually support-ive atmosphere in which mistakeswill not result in withdrawal of thegroup's support is important. Mis-takes and failures should be viewedas occasions for learning and for im-proving the system.

Clark and Cragun (1994) providea framework for analyzing organiza-tional problems and for implement-ing change in species recovery pro-grams. This 14-step procedure in-cludes four major stages: problemidentification, development of alter-native strategies, development of anaction plan, and implementation andevaluation of the action plan. It canguide participants in defining prob-lems and objectives, identifying forcesthat could help or hinder movement to-ward objectives, analyzing strategies toovercome obstacles, outlining specifictasks to be accomplished, and evaluat-ing the success of their efforts. It pro-vides an explicit method for recoveryprograms to use in solving both tech-nical and organizational problems.

3. Individual improvements Improvements can also occur at theindividual level. Many participantsand observers believe the root causeof faltering programs is misguided orselfish individuals. This "human re-lations" view of organizations over-simplifies the many complex organi-zation, management, and policy as-pects introduced here (see Hall 1987;

Ham and Hill 1987.) Individuals aremolded and constrained by conven-tional experience and establishedpolicy prescriptions. Analysis is of-ten less important than values andpreconceptions as a basis for decisionmaking, and agency structures andprocedures. Nevertheless, individualperformance in a recovery programis an important factor in the successof the program and it can, in manycases, be improved.

An admonishment often heard isthat if only individuals would act withmore professional integrity, a pro-gram could significantly be im-proved. But as Betts (1978:82) noted,"Integrity untinged by political sen-sitivity courts professional suicide."Betts suggests that individuals can tryto improve programs by asking hardquestions of their superiors, acting assocratic agnostics, nagging decisionmakers into awareness of the fullrange of uncertainty, and making au-thorities' calculations harder ratherthan easier. But most leaders will notappreciate these approaches by indi-vidual professionals (e.g., Craighead1979; Homocker 1982; Clark 1986).Simply providing more reliable factsor new arguments to decision mak-ers will not reverse their basic beliefs.Analysis is often less important thanvalues and preconceptions as a basisfor decision making (Betts 1978).Real solutions depend on the open-ness of decision makers and theirunderstanding of the premises theyuse in accepting or rejecting intelli-gence. Individuals should continuetrying to improve their programs, butthey should do so with an understand-ing of the potential politic conse-quences of their efforts.

The sheer complexity of endan-gered species and ecosystem conser-vation tells us there is no single,straightforward, technocratic recipefor success. The essential challengein species and ecosystem conserva-tion, as in complex situations, has al-

ways been addressing unboundedproblems successfully when our ana-lytical resources are bounded (Ascher1986). Real improvements will comeabout by refining the conceptual toolsthat enhance understanding of com-plex conservation problems and bydeveloping practical tools that allowthe problem to be dealt with realisti-cally. A number of conceptual andpractical tools already exist but golargely unused. Improvements willnot come quickly, even with increaseduse of these tools. There are manybarriers to learning and improvement(Etheredge 1985), but with so muchat stake in every recovery program,we must learn to recognize and over-come those barriers. The full extentof these problems across all endan-gered species recovery programs isunknown. But we hope that this pa-per will stimulate further documen-tation, discussion, and analysis, andwe are hopeful that improvementswill ensue.

AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank Thomas. M.Campbell III, Leonard Carlman,Archie Carr III, Denise Casey,Pamela Parker, Debra Patla, ChrisServheen, John Weaver, Michael B.Whitfield, Dusty Zaunbrecher, andthree anonymous reviewers for theirthoughtful comments on earlier draftsof this paper. We acknowledge thatnot all the reviewers endorse the con-tent of this paper, but such is the na-ture of policy process in which we allwork in trying to protect and restoreendangered species.

Literature citedAnderson, E., S.C. Forrest, T.W. Clark, and

L. Richardson. 1986. Paleobiology, bioge-ography, and systematics of the black-footed ferret, Mustela nigripes(Audubonand Bachman), 1851. Great Basin Nat.Mem. 8:11-62

Ascher, W. 1986. The evolution of the policysciences: understanding the rise and avoid-ing the fall. J. Policy Analysis and Man-agement 5:367-373.


Asins, R. 1987. Wolf recovery in theYellowstone ecosystem: a progress report.Endangered Species UPDATE 4(11):1-4.

Betts, R.K. 1978. Analysis, war, and decision:why intelligence failures are inevitable.World Politics 31:61-89.

Brewer, G.D. 1988. An ocean sciences agendafor the 1990s. The McKerman Lecture,University of Washington, Seattle, Wash-ington.

Brewer, G.D. 1975. Dealing with complexsocial problems: the potential of the "deci-sion seminar." In G.D. Brewer and R.D.Brunner, eds. Political development andchange: a policy approach. Free Press, NewYork.

Carr, A. 1986. Introduction: the black-footedferret. Great Basin Nat. Mem. 8:1-7

Clark, T.W. 1986. Professional excellence inwildlife and natural resource organizations.Renewable Resources J. Summer: 8-13.

Clark, T.W. and J. Cragun. 1994. Organiza-tional and managerial guidelines for endan-gered species restoration programs and re-covery teams. Pp. 9-33 in M.L. Bowles andC.J. Whelan, eds. Restoration of endan-gered species. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Craighead, F.C. 1979. Track of the grizzly.Sierra Club, San Francisco.

Daft, R.L. 1983. Organization theory and de-sign. West Publ. Co., St. Paul, Minnesota.

Duff, D. 1976. "Managing" the pupfish provesfruitless. Defenders 51:119-120.

Endangered Species Technical Bulletin. 1985.Final action taken on eight species. 10(7):1,6-8.

Etheredge, L.S. 1985. Can government learn?Pergamon Press, New York.

Forrest, S.C., D.E. Biggins, L. Richardson,T.W. Clark, T.M. Campbell III, K.A.

Fagerstond, and E.T. Thorne. 1988. Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) populationattributes at Meeteetse, Wyoming, 1981-1985. J. Mamology 69:261-273.

Hall, R.H. 1987. Organizations: structure,processes, and outcomes. 4th ed. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Ham, C. and M. Hill. 1987. The policy pro-cess in the modern capitalists state.Wheatsheaf Books, Sussex, England.

Harvey, A.H. 1987. Interagency conflict andcoordination in wildlife management: acase study. Masters thesis, University ofMichigan, Ann Arbor.

Hollings, C.S., ed. 1978. Adaptive environ-mental assessment and management. JohnWiley and Sons, New York.

Hormocker, M. 1982. Letter to the editor. TheWildlifer November-December: 51-52.

Janis, I.L. 1972. Victims of groupthink: a psy-chological study of foreign-policy deci-sions and fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin, Bos-ton.

Lasswell, H.D. 1960. Technique of decisionseminars. Midwest Journal of Political Sci-ence 4:213-236.

Lasswell, H.D. 1971. A pre-view of the policysciences. American Elsevier Publ., NewYork.

Latour, B. 1987. Science in action. HarvardUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Maguire, L.A., U.S. Seal, and P.F. Brussard.1987. Managing critically endangered spe-cies: the Sumatran rhino as a case study.Pp. 141-158 in Viable populations for con-servation. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Maguire, L.A., T.W. Clark, R. Crete, J.Cada,C. Groves, M.L. Shaffer, and U.S. Seal.1988. Black-footed ferret recovery in Mon-tana: a decision analysis. Wildl. Soc. Bull.

16:111-120.May, R.M. 1986. The black-footed ferret: a

cautionary tale. Nature 320:13-14.Oakleaf, B. 1988. Divide the breeding colony?

An agreement is reached. The Black-footedFerret Newsletter 5(1):2.

Pressman, J.L. and A. Wildavsky. 1973. Thecomplexity of joint-action. Pp. 87-124 inImplementation. University of CaliforniaPress, Berkeley.

Randall, P. 1986. Survival Crisis at Meeteetse.Defenders 61(1):4-10.

Salancik, G.R. and J. Pfeffer. 1977. Who getspower — and how they hold on to it: a stra-tegic-contingency model of power. Orga-nizational Dynamics Winter : 2-21

Schön, D.A. 1983. The reflective practitio-ner: how professionals think in action. Ba-sic Books, Inc., New York.

Thorne, E.T. 1988. 1987 black-footed ferretcaptive breeding season successful. Con-servation Biology 2(1): 11-12

Thorne, E.T. and E. Williams. 1988. Diseaseand endangered species: the black-footedferret as a recent example. ConservationBiology 2(1):66-73.

Warwick, D.P. 1975. A theory of public bu-reaucracy: politics, personality, and orga-nization in the State Department. HarvardUniversity Press, Cambridge, Massachu-setts.

Weinberg, D. 1986. Decline and fall of theblack-footed ferret. Nat. Hist. Mag. 95:62-69

Yaffee, S.L. 1982. Prohibitive policy: imple-menting the federal endangered species act.MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Zimmerman, D.L. 1986. Protecting the black-footed ferret. New York Newsday, Jan 21:Pt. 111:1-3.

Saiga (Saiga tatarica ) by Richard P. Reading.


IntroductionThe unifying goal of conservationbiology is the preservation of biologi-cal diversity through the maintenanceof viable ecosystems. Even thoughthere is general agreement about theparamount goal, there is debateamong its practitioners as to the scopeof acceptable professional practice.We believe that a "policy orientation"can complement rigorous scientificmethods and is essential for achiev-ing many conservation aims. Further-more, scientific professionalism neednot be sacrificed. We briefly exam-ine the elements of the biodiversityconservation challenge and how pro-fessionals can better meet this chal-lenge with a "policy orientation" thatwe introduce. Unfortunately, mostuniversity programs provide few op-portunities for future professionals to

Conserving Biodiversity in the Real World:Professional Practice Using a Policy OrientationTim W. Clark*, Peter Schuyler, Tim Donnay, Peyton Curlee, Timothy Sullivan,Margaret Cymerys, Lili Sheeline, Richard P. Reading, Richard L. Wallace, TedKennedy, Jr., Arnald Marcer-Batlle, and Yance De FretesYale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 205 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT [email protected]*

AbstractConservation biologists often take the view that their role is simply to provide biological informa-tion to policy makers and resource managers, not to engage in the overall conservation processabout endangered species conservation. Considering the many challenges to biodiversity conser-vation, stemming from social, political, and economic issues, we argue that professionals couldbetter aid species recovery if they broadened their role and activities, as well as knowledge andskill, beyond conservation biology. A more effective professional approach to endangered speciesconservation might be to teach conservation biologists a "policy orientation" to their importantwork. A policy orientation encourages its holder to best integrate the biological and social sciencesto help managers, leaders, and the public make sound choices, and to solve problems effectively. Inorder to apply this orientation, biologists must first understand the conservation (policy) process.One practical model of this process describes six phases or activities through which all policies andprograms pass (i.e. initiation, estimation, selection, implementation, evaluation, and termination).Therefore, we recommend that university conservation biology programs, particularly at the gradu-ate level, teach policy orientation and that professionals actively make an effort to learn and applya policy orientation. Significantly improved endangered species conservation can be expected fromusing this innovation.

learn what a "policy orientation" is,much less how to apply it responsi-bly and practically to benefitbiodiversity conservation efforts.

The biodiversity conservationchallengeConservation biology is a "mission-oriented crisis discipline"(Soulé1986:3) that exists to address the chal-lenge posed by the loss of biologicaldiversity. Few would debate the ulti-mate aims of conservation biology,but what is less clear to professionalconservation biologists is their spe-cific role in meeting this challenge.The loss of biological diversity hasmultiple causes and efforts to redresslosses will require contributions frommany disciplines. One approach con-servation biologists have adopted isto use scientific methods to provide

information useful to natural resourcemanagers or decision makers. Thisapproach uses tools such as field sur-veys, population viability assess-ments, and analyses of preserve de-sign and management. Some conser-vation biologists are apt to accept theview that production of useful bio-logical knowledge is the only goal oftheir profession. While we accept thatgood science must remain at the coreof conservation biology and that thereshould be limits to the sort of advo-cacy a scientist pursues, it is a practi-cal mistake to limit the training andexperience of conservation biologiststo scientific fields only.

Few would deny that the ultimatecauses of biological impoverishmentare social, political, and economic innature. Conservation biology, how-ever, should not be about directly

Reprinted from Endangered Species UPDATE: 1992, 9(5/6):5-8.


changing the social forces that arecausing our environmental problems.Murphy (1990) is right when he con-cludes that conservation biologyshould be about providing the scien-tific information necessary to correctthe problems leading to the loss ofbiological diversity. But we need torecognize that the process of correct-ing biological problems takes placein the same social and political arenaas the processes that are driving en-vironmental degradation in the firstplace. If conservation biologists areto be effective in promoting solutionsto environmental problems, they mustunderstand the non-biological factorsbehind environmental change and bewilling and able to participate effec-tively and offer solutions in the are-nas where social change occurs. Pro-viding the scientific information toguide policy, and not "just provokeit" (Pool 1990:673), is necessary forreal conservation actions. Hales(1987:81) identified one aspect of theproblem in noting that the "trainedanalytical approach of the biologist,or any other disciplinarian, oftenseems to lead to fragmented problemdefinitions and unimaginative solu-tions, the success of which, over time,is not particularly impressive."

An alternative, and we arguemore effective, way for conservationbiologists to approach the challengeposed by the loss of biological diver-sity is to understand the policy pro-cess well enough to maximize oppor-tunities so that science-based recom-mendations are applied. It is at thislevel that a policy orientation to con-servation biology can be most help-ful, particularly when the policy sci-ences are taught along with the bio-logical sciences in a comprehensiveuniversity training program. In dis-cussing the weaknesses of endan-gered species recovery programs,Clark (1989:3) states:

"Most descriptions of endan-gered species recovery focus only on

the biology of the species, thus creat-ing the unrealistic view that conser-vation and recovery are strictly tech-nical, biological tasks. In fact, nu-merous non-biological factors andforces have direct, immediate andparamount significance to endan-gered species recovery, and if the con-servation movement is to be effective,it must explicitly recognize the inter-active impacts and contributions ofall the various dimensions."

For conservation biologists to besuccessful, they must become moreproficient at understanding the pro-cesses that drive environmental deg-radation and at providing remedialstrategies and tactics. Accepting thispremise still leaves some questionsas to the scope of acceptable profes-sional practice for conservation biolo-gists. Conservation biologists are andmust remain above all else scientists;applying scientific methods to con-servation questions. Systematic, ra-tional, fact-theory driven, experimen-tal, and "objective" science is a must.However, if experience or knowledgeof the policy process makes conser-vation biologists more effective, howmuch farther should they go? As Orr(1990:9) asked, "how should thosecalling themselves conservation bi-ologists deal with politics and thequestion of management in their re-search, writing and teaching?" Ifknowledge of the policy process isvaluable, how should it be incorpo-rated into training programs for con-servation biologists?

The professional challenge: aproblem of definitionThe limitations of traditional wildlifemanagement programs and "normalscience" (see Kuhn 1970) that pro-mote narrow, "technical," "fix-it" ap-proaches, and their failure to encom-pass the biodiversity conservationchallenge, have been outlined byClark (1986, 1988), Norton (1988),Orr (1990, 1991) and others. More

recently, Soulé (1990:1) observed that"solutions to environmental problemshave as much to do with politics andperceptions as with biologicalfact…when it comes to influencingpublic policy, we will need politicalas well as research skills." Yet, thequestion remains, where should thescience of conservation biology endand the advocacy of other constitu-encies begin? Should conservationbiology assume itself to be a "value-free" science, merely providing infor-mation to resource and political man-agers? Or do conservation biologistshave an obligation to "participatewith the public in a debate regardingthe very nature of ecological health,even while trying to protect it?"(Norton 1988:238).

A growing number of authorshave suggested that conservation bi-ologists need to become more profi-cient at understanding, participatingin, and anticipating policy processes.Firstly, Noss (1989) concluded thateffective conservation biologistsmust walk the narrow line betweenscience and policy-making and ad-dress concerns raised by both. Sec-ondly, Carr (1987:86) observed thatgood conservation biologists shouldbe "willing to use their training andanalytical skills beyond the confinesof biology, reaching out to examinethe cultural or sociological factorsthat bear on the survival of their fa-vorite species." Thirdly, Maguire(1990:125) recently presented ascheme to guide conservation biolo-gists towards responsible advocacy,by using risk analysis to assess man-agement options and illuminate "theconsequences of silence and inac-tion" should traditional scientificconservatism prevail.

Can conservation biologists ac-tually play an effective role beyondthe confines of biology without sac-rificing their effectiveness and cred-ibility as scientists? Can both capa-bilities exist in the same individual


professionalism? We believe the an-swer is "yes" — a professional canbe expert in scientific pursuits and atthe same time possess an explicit ori-entation to the policy process.

How can a policy orientationhelp professional conservationbiologists?We all know of instances where goodscientific knowledge has been ig-nored, dismissed, misapplied, or onlypartially used by decision and policymakers (see, for example, Snyder1986). If conservation biologists areto make greater conservation gains,they must facilitate the integration ofdecision and policy processes withreliable information. The way a sci-entist presents data and interacts withdecision makers and the public mayvery well make the difference be-tween the success or failure of a con-servation program. The stakes arehigh when extinction of species or theloss of biological communities canresult from inappropriate decisionsand policies. Conservation biologists,therefore, must produce reliableknowledge through research and par-ticipate in the socio-political contextin which that knowledge is used. Theterm "policy orientation" was coinedby Harold Lasswell (1951). "Policy"is a broad strategic intent to accom-plish a goal (Brewer and deLeon1983); the aim here being the conser-vation of biodiversity. "Orientation"reflects a direction or the relationshipof an idea or concept to the dynamicpolicy process. Having a policy ori-entation means having knowledgethat is directly useful in the processas well as having knowledge of theprocess itself (Lasswell 1971).Therefore, conservation biologistsmust have two kinds of knowledge.First, the biological skills to generatebasic and applied knowledge; andsecond, the social science skills toencourage the wise use of scientificknowledge by policy makers.

The policy sciences study deci-sion and policy processes, using bothexperimental hard science and obser-vations or experience in order to de-termine how these processes workindependent of their reliance upontechnical knowledge (see Lasswell1971). The term policy science

"is not another way of talking aboutthe 'social sciences' as a whole, or ofthe 'social and psychological sciences.'Nor are the 'policy sciences' identicalwith 'applied social sciences' or 'ap-plied social and psychologicalsciences'…Nor are the 'policy sci-ences' to be thought of as largely iden-tical with what is studied by the 'politi-cal scientists' (Lasswell 1951:3)."

Policy scientists are problem-ori-ented, focused on defining and solv-ing real-world problems (Brewer anddeLeon 1983). They use a variety oftools to understand the context of aproblem as completely as possible;examining its history and trends, ex-plaining the trends, projecting thetrends into the future, evaluating thetrends, and inventing and selecting al-ternative solutions. Policy scientists'problem-solving approaches are notreductionistic or "positivistic" (seeBrunner 1988; Norton 1988; Clark1993), in the sense that discipline-based biological science and evenmuch of conservation biology tendsto be. It is beyond the scope of thissmall paper to develop this observa-tion and contrast the problem-solv-ing approaches of the policy and con-servation sciences. The policy sci-ences are a fundamentally differentway of thinking in contrast to tradi-tional science; they are a way ofthinking, in the sense that logic is away of thinking. Norton (1988) ad-equately outlined the limitations andfailures of scientific positivism as aphilosophy for problem-solving andthe need for a new post-positivisticphilosophy. Even if a conservationbiologist possesses only a little policyscience knowledge or a few of its

problem-solving skills, it might makea considerable difference in construc-tively influencing the pertinent deci-sion and policy processes.

Having a useful "map" of thepolicy process is essential for a policyorientation. Just as there are modelsof ecological systems, there are alsomodels of policy processes. Thesemodels can aid in practical appliedconservation by revealing the manyaspects of a problem's setting anduseful paths of action. The modelscan direct one's intellectual attentionand highlight areas where informa-tion is lacking (Brewer and deLeon1983). People adept in the policyprocess have been likened to expert,general problem solvers (Lasswell1971; Buffington, 1989). A conser-vation biologist, expert in science,can also be expert in general prob-lem solving without compromisinghis or her scientific standing. Thepractitioners' primary interest may beconservation science, for example,but they should also have an interestin the decision and policy processesthat use their science. If such biolo-gists are viewed to be outside thebounds of accepted professionalpractice, then perhaps the boundsneed to be redefined.

The best model of the policyprocesses that we know of was de-veloped by Brewer and deLeon(1983), based on Lasswell (1971),and describes the six phasesthrough which nearly all policies orprograms pass. They are: problemidentification (initiation); expertanalysis and technical consider-ations (estimation); policy formu-lation, debate, and authorization(selection); specification and appli-cation (implementation); expostappraisal (evaluation); and discon-tinuation or revision of the policyor program (termination). Each ofthese phases can be very complex,but there are recurring characteris-tics and weaknesses in each phase


regardless of the specifics of thecase (Ascher and Healy 1990).Examples of weaknesses in severalphases of conservation programshave been described in Kohm(1991). If a conservation biologistis knowledgeable about thesephases and what is likely to happenin each, then he or she is in a posi-tion to influence outcomes of deci-sions and policies and aidbiodiversity conservation. Wereadily acknowledge, however, thatnot all decision and policy processesare accessible for improvements.

The Brewer and deLeon (1983)policy process model was modifiedand expanded in 1988 (Clark andKellert 1988; Kellert and Clark 1991)to fit more explicitly the needs ofpeople interested in the conservationof biodiversity and management ofwildlife resources. This modifiedmodel employs the same six phasesand identifies four classes of "factorsor forces" that make up the policydynamic: biophysical (physical prop-erties of the resource), valuational(human values about the resource),social-structural (property rights andaccess to the resource), and institu-tional-regulatory (organizations andtheir directives).

More conservation biologistsnow recognize the need for a policyorientation in their professional prac-tice, but not all authors refer to it bythat label. Three illustrations of thispoint follow. Lovejoy (1989:329)noted that "An awareness of this pub-lic role [of conservation biologists],whether sought by ourselves or thrustupon us uninvited, is essential. Wedo not help either science or societyby evading our social responsibilitiesas experts." Deskmukh (1989:321)concluded that: "As conservation biolo-gists we can help decide what to con-serve and where, within a policy frame-work that we should help to formulate."Lastly, Clark and Kellert (1988:7) notedthat if the field of conservation science

"is to contribute fully and ad-equately to the critical societal deci-sions affecting the future abundanceand well-being of our nation's floraand fauna, then it seems essential thatyoung wildlife professionals be suf-ficiently educated in the complexi-ties, subtleties and techniques of thepolicy process."

The training for conservationbiologists could benefit frombroadening the scope of what theyteach to incorporate a policy orien-tation to conservation.

Professionals and the futureIn addition to the obvious need forgood science education, there isgrowing recognition that universityconservation biology programsshould teach an explicit policy ori-entation. Professional conservation bi-ologists educated with a policy orien-tation can be expected to be more ef-fective in achieving conservation aims.

A policy orientation can be in-troduced at an undergraduate level,but is most effective in Master's andPh.D. programs, after students havehad some "real" world working ex-perience. Beissinger (1990:457) callsfor an expanded course requirementfor conservation biologists to incor-porate disciplines outside the tradi-tional departments, and recommendsthat "Conservation biology may bebest taught at the master's level,where breadth of knowledge, scien-tific methodology, and problem-solv-ing skills can be emphasized…" Weassert here that an essential problem-solving skill that should be taught isa policy orientation involving ex-plicit, practical, applied knowledgeof the policy sciences. With a policyorientation as introduced above,conservation biologists should beable to communicate and partici-pate within the public policy dy-namic with enhanced creativity andleverage applied to our commongoal of preserving biodiversity.

Space precludes a complete de-scription of a sample course thatteaches a policy orientation. Our ex-perience in a graduate-level course atYale University's School of Forestryand Environmental Studies offers oneexample. Our course was titled:"Species and ecosystem conserva-tion: developing and applying apolicy orientation." It sought to edu-cate conservation biology studentsabout the professional, institutional,and policy settings in which they arelikely to work. The course surveyeda range of policy and organizationaltheories, techniques, and contextsusing exercises and national and in-ternational case studies. It examinedthe policy sciences, as well as theconservation sciences, in some detailand applied problem-solving con-cepts and tools to various species andecosystem conservation challenges.It included a survey of techniques,such as population viability assess-ment and geographic inventory sys-tems, and how these are used in de-cision and policy processes. Perhapsthe greatest value of the course camefrom examining cases where goodtraditional science had failed to leadto effective conservation actions. Byexplicitly recognizing the limits ofscience to produce desired results,students were forced to explore andlearn about other skills and perspec-tives that promise to make futurebiodiversity management effortsmore effective.

Our course at Yale is just oneexample of how a policy orientationcan be incorporated into a trainingprogram for scientists. We encour-age students and faculty associatedwith similar programs to reach out tocolleagues in other disciplines, nota-bly economics, sociology, and politi-cal science which share similar inter-ests in conservation and wise man-agement of natural resources. Theyshould collaborate with them in trans-disciplinary efforts to examine how


conservation biology can be mademore effective.

ConclusionGiven the urgent threats tobiodiversity, it is crucial that conser-vation scientists, managers, adminis-trators, policymakers, and others beas effective as possible. As "the rela-tionship between people and the bio-logical resources upon which theirwelfare depends" changes (McNeelyet al. 1990:16), new methods of ad-dressing conservation issues are re-quired. This changing relationshipand its consequences are being appre-ciated in various ways. For example,Gorbachev (1990:33) said: the"greening of politics is an affirmationof the priority of values common tohumanity…and [the development of]a new and contemporary attitude to-ward nature." An example, on a mod-est scale, is the origin of the profes-sion of conservation biology. Theleadership and professional activitiesof conservation biologists have muchto offer in these uncertain times ofextraordinary global environmentalchange. Nevertheless, we shouldconstantly question how professionalconservation biologists can be mosteffective in meeting the overallbiodiversity conservation challengeand bringing about Gorbachev's "newcontemporary attitude toward na-ture." We are convinced that knowl-edge of how to apply a policy orien-tation can significantly improve pro-fessional effectiveness.

AcknowledgmentsSteve Beissinger, Steve Kellert, Den-nis Murphy, and three anonymous

reviewers critically reviewed themanuscript.

Literature citedAscher, W. and R. Healy. 1990. Natural re-

source policymaking in developing coun-tries: environmental, economic growth, andincome distribution. Duke University Press,Durham, North Carolina.

Beissinger, S.R. 1990. On the limits and di-rections of conservation biology.BioScience 40:456-457.

Brewer, G.D. and P. deLeon. 1983. The foun-dations of policy analysis. The DorseyPress, Homewood, Illinois.

Brunner, R.D. 1988. Conceptual tools forpolicy analysis. Center for Public PolicyResearch, University of Colorado, Boulder,Colorado.

Buffington, P.W. 1989. No problem! SKY18:93-95, 97

Carr, A.C. III. 1987. Letter (Diversity). Con-servation Biology 1:80,86

Clark, T.W. 1986. Professional excellence inwildlife and natural resource organizations.Renewable Resource Journal 4 Winter :8-13.

Clark, T.W. 1988. The identity and images ofwildlife professionals. Renewable Re-sources Journal 6, Summer:12-16.

Clark, T.W. 1989. Conservation biology of theblack-footed ferret. Wildlife PreservationTrust International Special Scientific Rept.No. 3.

Clark, T.W. 1993. Creating and using knowl-edge for species and ecosystem conserva-tion: science, organizations, and policy.Perspectives in Biology and Medicine.

Clark, T.W. and S.R. Kellert. 1988. Toward apolicy paradigm of the wildlife sciences.Renewable Resources Journal 6 Winter :7-16.

Deskmukh, I. 1989. On the limited role ofbiologists in biological conservation. Con-servation Biology 3:321.

Gorbachev, M.S. 1990. Two world leaders onglobal environmental policy: remarks byGeorge Bush and Mikhail S. Gorbachev.Environment 32(3):12-13, 32-35.

Hales, D.F. 1987. Letter (Diversity). Conser-vation Biology 1:81-86.

Kellert, S.R. and T.W. Clark. 1991. The theoryand application of a wildlife policy frame-

work. In Mangun, W.R. ed. Public PolicyIssues in Wildlife Management. Green-wood Press, New York.

Kohm, K.A., ed. 1991. Balancing on the brinkof extinction: the Endangered Species Actand lessons for the future. Island Press,Washington, D.C.

Kuhn, T.S. 1970. The structure of scientificrevolutions. Univ. Chicago Press, Illinois.

Lasswell, H.D. 1951. The policy orientation.Pp. 3-15 in D. Lemer and H.D. Lasswell,eds. The policy sciences. Stanford Univer-sity Press, Stanford, California.

Lasswell, H.D. 1971. A pre-view of the policysciences. American Elsevier Publ., NewYork.

Lovejoy, T. 1989. The obligations of a biolo-gist. Conservation Biology 3:329-330.

Maguire, L.A. 1990. Risk analysis for con-servation biologists. Conservation Biology5:123-125.

McNeely, J.A., K.R. Miller, W.V. Reid, R.A.Mittermeier, and T.B. Werner. 1990. Strat-egies for conservation biodiversity. Envi-ronment 32:16-20, 36-40.

Murphy, D. 1990. Conservation biology andscientific method. Conservation Biology4:203-204.

Norton, B.G. 1988. What is a conservationbiologist? Conservation Biology 2:237-238.

Noss, R.F. 1989. Who will speak forbiodiversity? Conservation Biology 3:202-203.

Orr, D. 1990. The question of management.Conservation Biology 4:8-9.

Orr, D. 1991. Politics, conservation, and pub-lic education. Conservation Biology 5:10-12.

Poor, R. 1990. Struggling to do science forsociety. Science 248:672-673.

Snyder, N.F.R. 1986. California condor recov-ery program. Pp. 56-71 in S.E. Senner,C.M. White, and J.R. Parrish, eds. Raptorconservation in the next 50 years. RaptorResearch Report No. 5, Raptor ResearchFoundation, Hasting, Minnesota.

Soulé, M.E. 1986. Conservation Biology.Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.

Soulé, M.E. 1990. Editorial. Tropinet. Asso-ciation for Tropical Biology and the Orga-nization for Tropical Studies, Durham,North Carolina. 5:1.


cases

Mexican gray wolf ( Canis lupus ) by Jim Clark, USFWS


IntroductionThe ongoing conflict about black-tailedprairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus)policy is one of the most contentiouswildlife conservation issues in theUnited States. In 1999, the UnitedStates Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) designated the black-tailedprairie dog as a "candidate species" forlisting under the Endangered SpeciesAct (ESA). One journalist said"[S]ome worry that any effort to pro-tect prairie dogs will ignite a range warbetween endangered species advocatesand landowners." Broadly speaking,

Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Conservation:A New Approach for a 21 st Century ChallengeRichard P. ReadingDenver Zoological Foundation and Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative, 2900 East 23rd Avenue, Denver, [email protected]


Lauren McCainDepartment of Political Science, University of Colorado at Boulder, Campus Box 333, Boulder, CO [email protected]

Brian J. MillerDenver Zoological Foundation, 2900 East 23rd Avenue, Denver, CO [email protected]

AbstractBlack-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) policy is highly contentious. We use the policysciences to examine how prairie dog conservation became so controversial and suggest ways toincrease the prospects for success. We begin by describing the context of prairie dog management— who is involved and how they interact. Stakeholders with diverse values, strategies, sources ofpower, goals, and demands conflict in their struggle to influence prairie dog management. Thisconflict stems from the diverse perspectives and interactions of those involved, including ranchers,conservationists, animal rights activists, agency personnel, prairie dog shooters, developers, andthe general public. We next examine management and policy responses to the problem. The agen-cies have begun responding, but are largely offering a replay of old ideas, perspectives, and pat-terns of interaction that contributed to the decline of prairie dogs. The current mixed federal andstate agency program is highly fragmented, and likely will meet with limited success. Progress hasbeen plagued by a narrow focus on biological issues, agency inertia, powerful special interest po-litical forces, and negative attitudes. To improve matters, we suggest keeping participation openand including all stakeholders. We further recommend using adaptive, interdisciplinary, and multi-method approaches. Using a "best practices" approach would capitalize and build on past suc-cesses. Only by improving conservation practices can we hope to restore the black-tailed prairiedog to levels that permit it to function as a keystone species across the Great Plains.

the overall goal of prairie dog manage-ment, and the assemblage of associatedspecies (i.e. the prairie dog ecosystem),is to ensure the ecosystem's viability inwell-distributed populations in waysthat benefit from broad public support(Clark et al. 1989). Achieving this goalis proving very difficult in practice be-cause "Today's West is at war over natu-ral resources, with wildlife the refu-gees" (Frasier 1999:A8). How did thisissue move to the top of controversies?In this paper we examine this and otherquestions and suggest ways to achieveprairie dog conservation in a more co-

operative, practical way.We begin by describing the con-

text of prairie dog management — whois involved and how they are interact-ing. Next we examine managementand policy responses to the problem.Finally, we offer recommendations toimprove matters. We use the policysciences in our analysis, which requiresthat we address both the content (e.g.,biology) and procedures (e.g., humaninteraction) involved (Clark et al. 2001;Clark 2002). We have more than 35years combined experience in prairiedog management. We seek to contrib-


ute constructively to prairie dog con-servation, lessen the conflict involved inthe current effort, and achieve a success-ful conclusion in the common interest.

Who is involved? What are theirperspectives?For decades prairie dog policy wascharacterized by stability. Soon afterEuropeans began settling the GreatPlains to ranch and farm, the U.S. Gov-ernment embarked on a campaign toeradicate prairie dogs. At that time,around 1900, biologists estimated thatprairie dogs inhabited 41 million hect-ares (Mac et al. 1998). Prairie dogswere classified as agricultural pests.Near consensus existed among scien-tists (most employed by the UnitedStates Department of Agriculture), live-stock ranchers, and other appointed andelected government officials that theserodents consumed as much as 50 to75% of the forage available for cattleand must be diligently controlled (Di-vision of the Biological Survey 1902;Merriam 1902; State of Colorado 1915;Jones 2000).

The prairie dog issue became sa-lient because the situation changed;new players with a new set of demandsgained power in the political arena. By1960, prairie dog populations haddwindled to about 600,000 hectares —a reduction of more than 98%. The1960s also brought a rise in citizen en-vironmental consciousness with socialmovements devoted to reducing indus-trial pollution and saving declining spe-cies. The new science of conservationbiology emerged and often conflictedwith science serving industrial and ag-ricultural constituencies. Though theU.S. had some early wildlife conser-vation laws on the books (e.g., theLacey Act of 1900 protected somegame animals and the Migratory BirdTreaty Act of 1918 regulated huntingof designated birds), the 1973 Endan-gered Species Act brought a seachange with sweeping protection forplant and animal species deemed en-

dangered or threatened.The contemporary prairie dog

sociopolitical arena reflects a tensionrooted in these shifts. In 1998 black-tailed prairie dogs covered only280,000 to 320,000 hectares(Biodiversity Legal Foundation 1998;National Wildlife Federation 1998).The further decline of prairie dogs isno longer universally viewed as thesuccess of science and technology tocontrol an agricultural pest, but also asa failure to protect a species importantto an entire ecosystem. The data andwhat they mean for policy are highlydisputed among interested groups. Themovie Varmints captures much of theconflicting views of people involved incontemporary prairie dog management(Hawes-Davis 1998). The complexity,and conflict, stems from the diverseperspectives of people now involvedand the way they choose to interact withone another. Currently, many well-or-ganized groups hold deeply-felt, butcontradictory views on prairie dogmanagement. To understand the issuerequires that we know who is involvedand why. Each participant has a uniquevantage point, holds special interests,and often "defines" the problem in anarrow and incomplete manner thatreflects these interests; thus each view-point proposes a different solution(Weiss 1989).

RanchersThe agricultural industry generallywants prairie dogs eliminated or heldat low numbers. Ranchers believe thatprairie dogs reduce forage and cropsavailable for their livestock and liveli-hood. More broadly, they feel a chang-ing economy and culture threaten theirtraditional lifestyle. They also see thatthey are losing control over public andprivate grazing lands, particularly whenspecies are protected under the Endan-gered Species Act. Ranchers' views ofprairie dogs are an outgrowth of aworldview that promotes dominationover nature, libertarianism, an endless

frontier, and the control of nature foreconomic gain. Ranchers use their be-liefs, the powerful symbol of theAmerican cowboy, and their traditionalinfluence over local politicians to sup-port their interests.

ConservationistsThese participants view prairie dogs asa native keystone species and demandtheir protection. They tend to be moti-vated to conserve and expand prairiedog populations because of their im-portance to prairie ecosystems. Theroot of this viewpoint lies in assump-tions and philosophies associated withecological and conservation thought,the right-to-existence for all organisms,and changing human relationships tothe natural world (Kellert 1995). Themyth challenges other popular andpowerful myths that define quality oflife in solely economic terms, insteadarguing that society should balancesome economic growth for a healthyenvironment. Powerful symbols in-clude wilderness, endangered species,and charismatic animals. Proponentslargely distrust and often vilify big busi-ness (e.g., corporate America) and natu-ral resource extractors, including many,if not most, ranchers.

Animal rights activistsAnimal rights activists want decreasedhuman impact on the environment anddesire an end to pain and suffering toprairie dogs caused by poisoning andother extermination methods. Theysupport extending legal rights to ani-mals that are now reserved for humans(Wise 2000), including prairie dogs.The views of animal rights activists canbe traced to the urban animal welfaremovement, and developed into a pow-erfully organized interest in the last fewdecades (Rudacille 1998). These stake-holders, often in conjunction with con-servationists, demand increased in-volvement in wildlife and public landmanagement and often use lawsuits,media publicity, and appeals to public


pressure, including citizen ballot initia-tives, to achieve their interests.

Agency personnelFederal, state, local, and tribal agencypersonnel hold personal views that varygreatly, but can be quite similar withina single agency. Despite multiple usemandates, most agencies are stronglyinfluenced by a more limited numberof special interests (e.g., hunters, log-gers, miners, or ranchers), and this in-fluence is manifest in policies that of-ten clash with the common interest(Meier 1993). In extreme cases, thisleads to agency "capture" by a specialinterest group that the agency was cre-ated to manage or regulate (Clarke andMcCool 1985). There are alsostruggles for power among the agen-cies (Fischer 2000). State, local, andtribal government personnel maintainan interest in maximizing power vis àvis the federal government, especiallyin the western U.S. Despite these dif-ferences, some broad generalizationsamong agencies are possible. Agencypersonnel generally embrace the "tech-nical rationalist/expert" role (see Clark1997). In this view, control of naturefor human purposes is both possibleand desirable, and professional re-source managers should be entrustedwith making decisions and manipulat-ing nature. With respect to prairie dogs,formal agency policy at all levels re-sulted in substantial prairie dog declinesover past decades. Today, most agen-cies seek to keep prairie dogs off theendangered species list, and often thisgoal appears to be more important thanspecies conservation (e.g., see BLM2000; EDAW 2000; NGPC 2001). Inaddition, an anti-prairie dog attitude re-mains strong among wildlife profes-sionals and especially land managers,but this is changing (Reading 1993).

Recreational shootersRecreational shooters form a small butvocal stakeholder group. They wantprairie dogs to be abundant enough to

serve as livetargets for theirs h o o t i n g .Shooters viewthemselves ashighly skilledagents of con-trol for agri-cultural pestsand identifywith the agri-cultural com-munity. Theymostly em-brace a liber-tarian view,one that is an offshoot of the frontier/cowboy worldview. Prairie dog shoot-ers want free access to public lands forhunting with minimal governmentregulation, and they support continuedshooting opportunities provided onmany public lands and Indian reserva-tions. They influence prairie dog man-agement by actively promoting theirinterests and enlisting support of ranch-ers, gun rights activists, and local busi-nesses that benefit from their pursuits.

DevelopersDevelopers play a restricted role in theprairie dog management debate, butthey are key stakeholders alongColorado's Front Range, for example.Developers focus on generating wealthfor themselves and view prairie dogsas pests that interfere with urban de-velopment. As housing tracks are putin, prairie dogs are killed or relocated.Developers are searching for inexpen-sive solutions to the prairie dog man-agement challenge that will permitthem to continue developing land (e.g.,exterminate or move animals in the wayof development).

General PublicThe American public is diverse, andmost citizens are unaware of the prai-rie dog conservation problem. How-ever, public support for conservingwildlife is strong. For example, a sur-

vey by Czech and Krausman (1997)found 84% of the public support thecurrent ESA or would like it strength-ened. Some publics, such ashomeowners living near urban prairiedog colonies, are a part of the develop-ment debate. Zinn and Andelt (2001)found that support for prairie dogs in-creased with the distance respondentslived from prairie dog colonies in thecity of Fort Collins, Colorado. Alter-natively, some of the most vocal sup-porters of prairie dogs in urban envi-ronments are people living near thecolonies who like to watch the animalsor recognize their ecological impor-tance (Prairie Dog Coalition 2002).Fox-Parrish (2002) found that antago-nism toward prairie dogs increased astheir exposure to and experience withprairie dogs increased among the gen-eral public in rural Kansas. Many Na-tive Americans with traditional culturalbeliefs consider prairie dogs to be aspecies with which they are intimatelyinterconnected. They demand that ev-eryone can and should be more con-nected to nature, that all species are im-portant, and that therefore the tribes areobligated to protect and restore nativecommunities on reservation lands.

Prairie dogsBlack-tailed prairie dogs are partici-pants in this issue too, as are a myriadof other associated species. Prairie

Black-tailed prairie dog ( Cynomys ludovicianus ) by RichardP. Reading.


dogs are one-kilogram ground squirrelsthat live in colonies of strongly de-fended family groups, known as "co-teries" (Hoogland 1995). One of fivespecies of prairie dogs, the black-tailedform is the only species that inhabitsthe Great Plains, ranging over most ofthe short and mid-grass prairies fromsouthern Canada to northern Mexico.Because they are colonial and live inburrows they excavate, and constantlyclip tall vegetation, prairie dogs alterthe grassland ecosystem's structure,processes, and composition (Kotliar etal. 1999). To ecologists, these changesindicate their importance as a "keystonespecies" that enriches ecosystem func-tion in a unique and significant waydisproportionate to their abundance(Miller et al. 2000). Their interest, tothe extent their interest can be known,appears to be for continuation of theirspecies and individual well-being.Miller and Reading (2002) list eightthreats facing black-tailed prairie dogs:continued habitat destruction; uncon-trolled recreational shooting; intro-duced diseases (especially plague); in-adequate regulatory mechanisms bygovernment agencies; continued andwidespread poisoning; the inability ofprairie dogs to respond evolutionarilyto present threats; lack of adaptive man-agement; and negative attitudes towardprairie dogs.

Right or wrong, humans will de-cide the prairie dogs' fate. The catego-ries delineated above provide a generalcharacterization of the players involvedin prairie dog policy. Many participantsfall into more than one category; muchvariance exists within categories. In-tensity of belief and the degree to whichindividuals are willing to work withother groups vary as well. However,conflict and polarization largely typifyinteractions between groups in the prai-rie dog policy arena that have includedlawsuits, arrests of activists at protests,and even threats of violence (Gutierrez1998; Proskocil 1999; Fong 1999).While some debate can be constructive,

unmanaged conflict can erode trust ingovernment institutions and lead topolicy failure.

Prairie dogs as a policy problemDefining the prairie dog "problem"practically is a challenge. As Weiss(1989:97) noted, "problem definition isa package of ideas that includes, at leastimplicitly, an account of the cause andconsequences of undesirable circum-stances and a theory about how to im-prove them." Key questions include:"Just what is the problem?;" "How bigis it?;" and "Who is it a problem for?;"as well as "What might be done aboutit?" Prairie dog conservation is aboutmaking choices, like "How will theprairie dog ecosystem be managed?"and "Who gets to decide?" In otherwords, it is largely a human value prob-lem in decision-making, althoughmany technical elements are involved.In fact, much of the behind-the-scenespolitics is masked by technical discus-sions. The answers to the last two ques-tions are determined by who has au-thority and, especially, control of themanagement process. Authority meanshaving the right to make a decision, andcontrol means having the power to carryout an action in the face of opposition.

Prairie dogs on the political agendaBlack-tailed prairie dogs made it ontothe U.S. political agenda as a conser-vation issue in 1998 when several con-servationists petitioned the USFWS tolist the species as threatened under theESA (National Wildlife Federation1998; Biodiversity Legal Foundationet al. 1998). The USFWS had rejectedan earlier petition filed by BiodiversityLegal Foundation and Sharps (1995).

Following the second petition, allparticipants positioned themselves ei-ther for or against the petition and uti-lized their resources to substantiate orrefute its claim that prairie dogs wereor were not in need of special help. Insome cases, participants recognizedthat prairie dogs needed protection, but

stated that they favored local controlover federal listing as the best way tomanage the species. Persuasion as wellas coercion were used to influence theevolving definition of the prairie dogconservation "problem," shape a pre-ferred "solution," and control the over-all decision-making process to themaximum extent possible (see Clark1997). Attention during this phase fo-cused on the USFWS. Ranchers andgovernment agencies, especially stateagencies, largely opposed listing. Thestates, in particular, banded together toform an anti-listing coalition.

Caught between savvy conserva-tionists, ranchers, and state govern-ments, often backed by their represen-tatives in the U.S. Congress, theUSFWS took the most risk-averse path.The agency decided to designate thespecies as "warranted" for listing asthreatened under ESA, but "precluded"it from listing because of other, higherpriority species that needed attentionfirst (USFWS 1999). The USFWSappeared reluctant to grant prairie dogscandidate species status, and so far hasabdicated its responsibility to protect aspecies it accepts as meeting the re-quirements for ESA protection. TheUSFWS's 90-day and 12-month find-ings supported a definition of the prob-lem as articulated in the petitions, thatprairie dog populations had indeed de-clined by as much as 99% due to threatsincluding habitat loss, plague, inadequacyof existing regulatory mechanisms, andlong-term rodent control (USFWS 1999;USFWS 2000). This move sent shockwaves through the Western cattle and realestate industries (Matthews 1999:8). The"warranted, but precluded," or candi-date species, designation focused thecontroversy that had been brewing foryears and fueled great activity by agri-cultural interests, government land andwildlife management agencies, nongov-ernmental conservation organizations, sci-entists, and others (e.g., Predator Conser-vation Alliance 2001; Thacker 2001; Prai-rie Dog Coalition 2002).


The agencies respondIn response to the candidate speciesdesignation, federal land managementagencies made some prairie dog man-agement changes. The U.S. Forest Ser-vice declared a temporary moratoriumon poisoning prairie dogs within Na-tional Grasslands. The U.S. Bureau ofLand Management also ceased poison-ing prairie dogs on land it manages, andboth agencies began more active prai-rie dog conservation, such as tempo-rary shooting bans. The USFWS rec-ommended including incentives forlandowners in the 2002 farm bill to paylandowners for helping to conserveprairie dogs. But the USFWS basicallyturned prairie dog management over tothe states that had lobbied for controlof implementation, moving the statesto center stage. A directive to them that"doing nothing" was not a policy op-tion accompanied delegation of author-ity to the states. The USFWS retainsoversight of states' efforts and reviews thestatus of candidate species each year.

The states have begun respondingto the USFWS's "warranted, but pre-cluded" ruling, but progress towardprairie dog conservation has been slow.The 11 states within the range of theblack-tailed prairie dog formed the In-terstate Black-tailed Prairie Dog Con-servation Team and produced a conser-vation plan, the "Black-tailed PrairieDog Conservation Assessment andStrategy" with subsequent draftaddendums, to conserve the species andaddress factors causing its decline (VanPelt 1999; Luce 2001a, 2002). Thedraft interstate plan's main goal appearsto be to prevent listing prairie dogs un-der the ESA and the associated loss ofcontrol over management (Miller andCully 2001). That goal arguably takesprecedence over recovery of the spe-cies — a classic case of goal substitu-tion driven by competition for power.Throughout the draft plans, recoveryis never discussed as such; instead, theplans refer to prairie dog conservationwith respect to precluding the need for

listing under the ESA (Luce 2002).The objectives of the draft inter-

state plan ". . . set an adaptive manage-ment strategy target to increase occu-pied acreage [of prairie dog colonies]to exceed 1% of historic range in thenext 10 years (by 2011)," while statingthat present acreage figures are "slightlyless than 1% of historic (Luce2002:13)." Thus, the plan is strivingfor a vague goal that is just marginallybetter than the status quo. In addition,the plan never clarifies how success orfailure in adaptive management will beassessed, or how the plan will beadapted or terminated. The draft inter-state plan goes on to call for conduct-ing additional research and monitoring,identifying focal areas that contain highdensities of prairie dogs, creating finan-cial incentives for cooperating land-owners who conserve prairie dogs, andincreasing regulation of and oversightover prairie dog shooting and poison-ing (Luce 2001c, 2002). The draft planalso permits unrestricted shooting andcalls for providing money to cooperat-ing landowners for poisoning, even ifa state remains below its target objec-tives for prairie dog acreage.

After three years, the interstate planremains in draft form, but all states aredeveloping conservation plans andsome states have begun taking action(Luce 2001b). For example, a fewstates have removed "pest" species des-ignations from prairie dogs and othersare working toward that end (PredatorConservation Alliance 2001). A num-ber of state agencies have also startedregulating prairie dog poisoning andshooting, which were formerly unlim-ited (Luce 2002). Arizona, Colorado,and South Dakota have already bannedshooting for part or all of the year, pri-marily on public land (Luce 2002). In2002, Colorado started a $600,000 pi-lot program that uses lottery money toprovide financial incentives to land-owners that conserve prairie dogs(Davis 2002). Other initiatives includedeveloping education programs and

exploring the use of regulatory amend-ments to the ESA to encourage partici-pation by landowners, tribes, and stateagencies, such as Candidate Conserva-tion Agreements with Assurances.

Annual reviews by the USFWSand states claim the agencies are mak-ing adequate progress (USFWS 2001;Luce 2001b). Indeed, some progresshas been realized at the federal and statelevel, but it has been slow to arrive.Conservation efforts thus far have beenlargely evaluated by the agencies them-selves; a task ideally conducted by anexternal organization with no stake inthe outcome (Kleiman et al. 2000).Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota,and Wyoming already claim that theyexceed the target figures laid out in theirindividual state plans. (Luce 2002).Colorado and Wyoming suggest they al-ready exceed the draft interstate plan's tar-get figures (CDOW 2002; Luce 2002).

What the states have so far pro-posed and carried out is necessary forprairie dog conservation, but far fromsufficient. Calls for more research,frequent meetings, and regular revis-ing of the draft plan give the impres-sion that the states are working to-ward conservation goals, but theseactivities are not substitutes for ef-fective policy and real action. Thedraft interstate plan promotes tradi-tional decision-making, without fullyaddressing how the states will reversetheir lack of success in protecting theprairie dog ecosystem to date. In-stead, the interstate plan, the perspec-tives behind it, and the interests itserves, offer a replay of old ideas andpatterns of interaction that have fordecades contributed to the decline ofprairie dogs. As a result, current prai-rie dog conservation efforts are plaguedby a narrow focus on biological issues,agency inertia, powerful special inter-est political forces, and negative humanattitudes toward prairie dogs. In addi-tion, agencies have dominated conser-vation planning, with little input fromother important stakeholders.


One of the most significant defi-ciencies of the interstate and individualstate plans are their failure to providemechanisms for addressing thesociopolitical factors affecting prairiedog conservation policy. The plans failto establish how the states will man-age their political environments, suchas powerful conservative governors,agricultural lobbies, urban and subur-ban developers, and conservation in-terest groups. For example, how willthe interstate plan address the fact thatpolitically powerful stakeholders (e.g.,ranchers) hold strongly negative atti-tudes toward prairie dogs that leadsthem to continue fighting conservationinitiatives and arguing for continuedpoisoning (e.g., see Reeder 2002). Bothstate and federal agencies have pitchedsimplistic solutions to this problem.For example, the agencies advocatelandowner incentives as a primary toolto protect the species. While potentiallyhelpful, incentives are insufficient, asthey do little to address the underlyingnegative attitudes toward prairie dogsheld by many stakeholders (Reading etal. 1999; Lamb et al. 2001; Fox-Parrish2002). Ranchers are already resistingvoluntary measures, even financial in-centives that reward prairie dog pro-tection on private land (Omaha-WorldHerald 2002). Indeed, an incentive pro-gram in Colorado was largely unsuc-cessful in finding ranchers willing toparticipate, possibly because they dis-like prairie dogs for far more than fi-nancial reasons (e.g., prairie dogs areseen as symbols of poor land steward-ship, a loss of control over public andprivate land, outsiders telling themwhat to do, and threats to theirlifestyles; Reading and Kellert 1993;Reading et al. 1999). There is a alsorisk of non-compliance to new rules, es-pecially poisoning and shooting restric-tions that are difficult to monitor on hugeswaths of private and public land.

Overall, the draft plan currentlyoffers little that is new, creative, andhelpful in maximizing cooperation

among stakeholders. The plan offersno recognition of these complex andcontentious sociopolitical variables andno methods to provide policy-relevantinformation about them. This is notsurprising, given the traditional, bio-logical focus of the training that mostconservationists and wildlife and landmanagers receive (Clark 2001). How-ever, the states ignore sociopoliticalvariables at their own peril.

Inattention to the relevant socialcontext can lead to increased tensionand ultimately policy failure. Problemsexist that impede prairie dog conser-vation. Some states face hostile statelegislatures and commissions. For ex-ample, in 2001 the Wyoming Game andFish Commission voted to bar the statefrom endorsing the states' conservationplan. And recently, Wyoming joinedNorth Dakota and Colorado in with-drawing from the official interstate ef-fort, calling into question the neworganization's ability to coordinate ef-fective regional conservation. In addi-tion, animal rights and conservationgroups have sued to gain protection forprairie dogs resulting in resource inten-sive court battles for federal and stateagencies (McCullen 2000).

Currently, the prairie dog programis on a fixed course and there seems tobe no effort by either the federal or stateagencies involved to seek out more ef-fective management in the commoninterest. The program chosen is themost conservative and the closest to thestatus quo as possible. Moreover, it isfailing to advance the common inter-est in ensuring the survival of prairiedogs and the viability of prairie dogecosystems in ways that benefit frombroad public support.

How can prairie dogconservation be improved?The prairie dog conservation challengeis complex and contentious and it likelywill not yield to more government bu-reaucracy. The practical problem athand now is to decide what can be done

to improve matters.One of the biggest challenges is

convincing the key participants thatachieving broad public support for andrealizing prairie dog conservation is inthe common interest and in their owninterest. For example, how will ranch-ers, who see prairie dogs and prairiedog conservation as threatening to theirlivelihood and lifestyle, ever tolerateprairie dog protection policies? Whyshould conservationists care if enactedpolicies receive broad support when formany the goal is conservation usingscience not public opinion as indica-tors, regardless of the level of coercionneeded to achieve it? Opponents resis-tant to popular conservation proposalsrisk provoking more coercive regula-tions — such as ESA measures —which they despise. They also risk los-ing some popular support for agricul-tural programs that are increasinglycontested by the conservation commu-nity. On the flip side, even strict prai-rie dog protection codified by the ESAis likely to fail without the political willneeded to effectively implement andenforce enacted policies. It is the stateand federal agencies, those formerlycharged with eradicating prairie dogs thatwill have discretion over the applicationof prairie dog conservation measures.

We recommend building new co-operative relationships and expandingon successful practices to date — "prac-tice-based" approaches. Practice-basedconservation is adaptive managementat its best. It involves finding and tak-ing advantage of opportunities that ex-ist or can be created to address prob-lems. Practice-based conservation in-volves three steps, each of which re-quires on-going evaluation (Kleimanet al. 2000). First, participants iden-tify the "best practices" being em-ployed. Second, these are adaptedand applied to similar circumstanceselsewhere in the prairie dog's range.Finally, the most effective practicesare diffused as widely as possible,where professionals continue to


adapt, refine, and upgrade them re-lying on their own experience. Suchadaptive management should be car-ried on endlessly. Thus, the prudentway for conservation to proceed is tofind and continually upgrade perfor-mance in the light of experience(Clark and Brunner 1996). Indepen-dent evaluations of policies and prac-tices are essential to prevent self-serving appraisals. "Watch dogging"the agencies and helping them tolearn and upgrade their performanceis necessary. We have chosen to high-light a few of what we consider "best prac-tices," each of which could be improvedthrough evaluation and refinement.

Outcome-driven initiativesWhile the federal and state govern-ments have not considered alterna-tives to the interstate prairie dog plan,some bottom-up approaches areworth considering. Several privateindividuals and organizations haveinitiated conservation projects forblack-tailed prairie dogs in recentyears. For example, several recentlycreated land trusts focus on conserv-ing wildlife and ecosystems. Withrespect to the prairie dog ecosystem,the Southern Plains Land Trust wasfounded in 1998 to capitalize on therelatively low price of land in andaround southeastern Colorado. Theyfocus on land inhabited by prairiedogs and located close to large blocksof public land. Their experience hasmuch to offer others involved in prai-rie dog conservation. Similarly, othernon-profit organizations, such as TheNature Conservancy, and for-profitorganizations, such as Turner Enter-prises, Inc., are purchasing land andworking to restore prairie dogs andtheir associated species. They andtheir collaborators have taken an ex-perimental approach to restoring theprairie dog ecosystem that promisesto benefit similar restoration effortsthroughout the range of prairie dogs(Truett et al. 2001).

Process-focused initiativesOpening up a dialogue between tradi-tional antagonistic stakeholders holdsthe promise of reducing unproductiveconflict and stimulating discussionsthat can help dispel inaccurate mythsand build bridges for conservation.Such dialogues must occur in "safe-harbor" situations, where people feelsafe to come together and freely statetheir true opinions without resorting torhetoric (i.e. opening "real" dialogueamong stakeholders). For example, in1999 the Denver Zoological Founda-tion and the Northern Rockies Conser-vation Cooperative held a daylongworkshop at the Denver Zoo on prairiedog conservation. Participants in-cluded representatives from the West-ern Governor's Association; ranching,animal rights, environmental, and con-servation organizations; and tribal, city,county, state, and federal governmentagencies. Many of these individualsand groups had never met in such a set-ting before. Although the workshopwas a modest beginning, it succeededin bringing together diverse interests,in sharing values, concerns, and strate-gies for addressing prairie dog manage-ment, and in opening a dialogue forfuture collaboration, coordination, or atleast communication. Unfortunately,this process was discontinued, but itserves as a model that could be dupli-cated and expanded in the future.

Process/outcome initiativesMontana was the first state to set up aprairie dog working group to seek ap-propriate conservation and manage-ment of prairie dogs within the state.The group recently put together a man-agement plan (Montana Prairie DogWorking Group 1999), which involvedstate and federal agencies, tribal repre-sentatives, conservation organizations,and private interests and builds on theMontana Prairie Dog ManagementGuidelines developed in 1988 by theMontana Black-footed Ferret WorkingGroup (1988). Focusing on both prai-

rie dog species (black-tailed and white-tailed) that inhabit Montana, its goal is"for the state of Montana to provide formanagement of prairie dog populationsand habitats to ensure long-term viabil-ity of prairie dogs and associated spe-cies." Five objectives follow and a strat-egy to meet each objective is outlined.Annual review is required. Althoughlacking in some areas, the plan is theproduct of a cooperative effort amongdiverse interests over several years andis arguably the best state plan currentlyaddressing prairie dog management.More importantly, it provides a basisfor upgrading conservation planningand implementation in the future.

Several other best practices shouldbe identified, adapted, and spreadamong participants in prairie dog con-servation efforts. Particularly impor-tant areas for analysis include federalagricultural policies (including bothworking to halt perverse agriculturalsubsidies that encourage prairie dogeradication and creating incentives forlandowners that manage their proper-ties for prairie dog conservation), ini-tiatives on tribal lands, actions under-taken at the city and county levels, fed-eral land management (including na-tional grasslands, wildlife refuges,parks, and monuments, as well as landsmanaged by the BLM), and appliedresearch, especially on managing intro-duced diseases. We suggest holdingwell-mediated, problem-orientedworkshops on each of these issues tofacilitate the process.

Finally, prairie dog conservationrequires sound leadership at all levels.Leaders should strive for a strong, open,objective, fair, and competent leader-ship style. Westrum (1994) refers tosuch competent, dynamic leaders as"maestros." Maestro coordinatorscould greatly improve both social anddecision processes in prairie dog con-servation efforts by facilitating infor-mation flow, communication, coordi-nation, efficient use of resources, theidentification and dissemination of best


practices, and more. Quality leader-ship at state levels is also required forsimilar reasons.

ConclusionsBlack-tailed prairie dog populationshave declined dramatically and becomeincreasingly fragmented over the pastcentury. That decline has importantimplications for the entire ecosystembecause of the prairie dog's role as akeystone species. The USFWS recog-nized the plight of the prairie dog in1999 by declaring the species war-ranted for listing under the ESA. How-ever, the USFWS also precluded suchlisting, stating the need to focus onother, higher priority species. Prairiedog conservation is highly contentious,wherein stakeholders with diverse val-ues, strategies, sources of power, goals,and demands conflict in their struggleto influence the prairie dog manage-ment process. The current mixed fed-eral and state agency program is highlyfragmented, especially among the fed-eral and state governments. The cur-rent program likely will meet with lim-ited success. We recommend a moreinnovative response.

We suggest that prairie dog con-servation is more likely to succeed ifparticipation remains open and includesthe full range of stakeholders. This re-quires movement toward adaptive, in-terdisciplinary, and multi-method ap-proaches. We provide recommenda-tions for using a "best practices" ap-proach that capitalizes and builds onactivities that have already proven suc-cessful in prairie dog conservation.Using workshops and a more represen-tative, open, and flexible organizationalstructure offers a better chance for re-solving the conflict of values currentlydominating prairie dog conservationand moving more quickly toward moreeffective and efficient practices that areacceptable to more stakeholders. De-spite recent attention to the plight ofthe black-tailed prairie dog, the speciescontinues to decline across most of its

range. We must improve conservationpractices if we hope to restore the black-tailed prairie dog to levels that permitit to function as a keystone speciesacross the Great Plains.

AcknowledgmentsSupport for this work was provided bythe Denver Zoological Foundation, theNorthern Rockies Conservation Coop-erative, Yale University School of For-estry and Environmental Studies, andthe Southern Plains Land Trust. Com-ments by Richard Wallace and espe-cially Denise Casey greatly improvedthe manuscript.

Literature citedBiodiversity Legal Foundation and J.C.

Sharps. 1994. Petition to classify the Black-tailed Prairie Dog (Cynomys ludovicianus)as a Category 2 Candidate species pursu-ant to the Administrative Procedures Actand the intent of the Endangered SpeciesAct. Unpublished Petition, USFWS Region6, Denver, Colorado.

Biodiversity Legal Foundation, J.C. Sharps,and Predator Project. 1998. Black-tailedprairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus). Un-published Petition, USFWS Region 6, Den-ver, Colorado.

Brunner, R.D. and T.W. Clark. 1997. A prac-tice-based approach to ecosystem manage-ment. Conservation Biology 11(1):48-58.

Brunner, R.D. and R. Klein. 1999. Harvest-ing experience: a reappraisal of the U.S.Climate Change Action Plan. Policy Sci-ences 32:133-161.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2000.Candidate determination of the black-tailedprairie dog. U.S. Bureau of Land Manage-ment, Instruction Memorandum No. 2000-140.

Clark, T.W. 1997. Averting extinction: Re-structuring the endangered species recov-ery process. Yale University Press, NewHaven Connecticut.

Clark, T.W. 2001. Developing policy-orientedcurricula for conservation biology: Profes-sional and leadership education in the pub-lic interest. Conservation Biology 15:31-39.

Clark, T.W. 2002. The policy process: A prac-tical guide for natural resources profession-als. Yale University Press, New Haven,Connecticut.

Clark, T.W. and R.D. Brunner. 1996. Makingpartnerships work in endangered speciesconservation: An introduction to the deci-

sion process. Endangered Species Update13:1-4.

Clark, T.W., D. Hinckley, and T. Rich, eds.1989. The prairie dog ecosystem: Manag-ing for biological diversity. Montana BLMWildlife Technical Bulletin No. 2.

Clark, T.W., M.J. Stevenson, K. Ziegelmayer,and M.B. Rutherford, eds. 2001. Speciesand ecosystem conservation: An interdis-ciplinary approach. Yale University'sSchool of Forestry and EnvironmentalStudies, Bulletin Series 105:1-275.

Clarke, J.N. and D. McCool. 1985. Stakingout the terrain: Power differentials amongnatural resource agencies. State Universityof New York Press, Albany, New York.

Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW).2002. Division to compensate landownerswho protect black-tailed prairie dogs.CDOW Press Release, January 15, 2002,CDOW, Denver, Colorado.

Czech, B. and P.R. Krausman. 1997. PublicOpinion on Species and Endangered Spe-cies Conservation. Endangered SpeciesUpdate 5/6:7-10.

Davis, T. 2002. Division of Wildlife to com-pensate landowners who protect prairiedogs. The Colorado Conservator 18(1):9.

Division of the Biological Survey. 1902. An-nual Reports of the Department of Agri-culture for the Fiscal Year ended June 30,1902. Government Printing Office, Wash-ington, DC. xci.

EDAW. 2000. Black-tailed prairie dog studyof eastern Colorado. Unpublished reportprepared for Colorado Department of Natu-ral Resources, Denver, Colorado.

Fischer, F. 2000. Citizens, experts, and theenvironment: The politics of local knowl-edge. Duke University Press, Durham,North Carolina.

Frasier, C. 1999. The turtles in the shoe box.Casper Star Tribune 12/23/99:A8.

Frost, R. Undated. Possible answer to diffi-cult questions. Cooperative Extension Ser-vice, New Mexico State University, LasCruces, New Mexico.

Fong, T. 1999. Activists sue to save prairiedogs complaint directed at federal prison.Denver Rocky Mountain News. November25, p. 44A.

Fox-Parrish, L. 2002. Attitudes and opin-ions of landowners and general citizensrelative to the black-tailed prairie dog. M.S.Thesis, Emporia State University, Empo-ria, Kansas.

Gutierrez, H. 1998. Town faces ruckus overprairie dogs; woman arrested in Lafayetteduring protest over gassing of animals fordevelopment. Denver Rocky MountainNews. March 26, pg. 36A.

Hawes-Davis, D. 1998. Varmints. High PlainsFilms, Missoula, Montana.


Hoogland, J.L. 1995. The black-tailed prairiedog: social life of a burrowing mammal.University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Jones, S. 1999. Becoming a pest: prairie dogecology and the human economy of theEuroamerican West. Environmental His-tory. 4(4):531-552.

Kellert, S.R. 1995. The value of life. IslandPress, Covelo, California

Kleiman, D.G., R.P. Reading, B.J. Miller, T.W.Clark, J.M. Scott, J. Robinson, R. Wallace,R. Cabin, and F. Fellman. 2000. The im-portance of improving evaluation in con-servation. Conservation Biology 14(2):1-11.

Kotliar, N.B., B.W. Baker, A.D. Whicker, andG. Plumb. 1999. A critical review of as-sumptions about the prairie dogs as a key-stone species. Environmental Management24:177-192.

Lamb, B.L., K. Cline, A. Brinson, N. Sexton,and P.D. Ponds. 2001. Citizen knowledgeof and attitudes toward black-tailed prairiedogs: Completion report. U.S. GeologicalSurvey Open-File Report 01-471.Midcontinent Ecological Science Center,Fort Collins, Colorado.

Licht, D.S. 1997. Ecology and economics ofthe Great Plains. University of NebraskaPress, Lincoln, Nebraska.

List, R. 1997. Ecology of kit fox (Vulpesmacrotis) and coyote (Canis latrans) andthe conservation of the prairie dog ecosys-tem in northern Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation,University of Oxford, Oxford, UnitedKingdom.

Luce, R. 2001a. An umbrella, multi-state ap-proach for the conservation and manage-ment of the black-tailed prairie dog,Cynomys ludovicianus, in the UnitedStates. Black-tailed Prairie Dog Conserva-tion Team, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Luce, R. 2001b. Letter of November 12 fromthe Interstate Coordinator of the Black-tailed Prairie Dog Conservation Team toPeter Gober. USFWS, Ecological ServicesField Office, Pierre, South Dakota.

Luce, R. 2001c. Conserving black-tailed prai-rie dog habitat through landowner incen-tives. Black-tailed Prairie Dog Conserva-tion Team, Rock Springs, Wyoming.

Luce, R.J. 2002. A multi-state conservationplan for the black-tailed prairie dog,Cynomys ludovicianus, in the United States– an addendum to the black-tailed prairiedog conservation assessment and strategy,November 3, 1999. Unpublished Draft #3,Black-tailed Prairie Dog ConservationTeam, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Mac, M.J., P.A. Opler, C.E. Puchett Haecker,and P.D. Doran. 1998. Status and trends ofthe nation's biological resources. U.S. De-partment of the Interior, U.S. GeologicalSurvey, Reston, Virginia.

McCullen, K. 2000. State faces suit over prai-rie dogs group says poisons affect otherspecies. Denver Rocky Mountain News.March 14, Pg. 20A.

Meier, K.J. 1993. Politics and the bureau-cracy: Policymaking in the fourth branchof government. Wadsworth PublishingCompany, Belmont, California.

Merriam, C.H. 1902. The prairie dog of theGreat Plains. Yearbook of the United StatesDepartment of Agriculture. United StatesGovernment Printing Office, WashingtonDC.

Miller, B. and R.P. Reading. 2002. The black-tailed prairie dog: Threats to survival anda plan for conservation. Wild Earth12(1):46-55.

Miller, B., R. Reading, J. Hoogland, T.W.Clark, G. Ceballos, R. List, S. Forrest, L.Hanebury, P. Manzano, J. Pacheco, D.Uresk. 2000. The role of prairie dogs askeystone species: A response to Stapp.Conservation Biology 14:318-321.

Miller, S. and J.F. Cully, Jr. 2001. Conserva-tion of black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomysludovicianus). Journal of Mammalogy82:889-893.

Montana Black Footed Ferret Working Group.1988. Prairie dog management guidelines.Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife andParks, Bozeman, Montana.

National Wildlife Federation. 1998. Petitionfor rule listing the black-tailed prairie dog(Cynomys ludovicianus) as threatenedthroughout its range. USFWS Region 6,Denver, Colorado.

NGPC [Nebraska Game and Parks Commis-sion]. 2001. Draft Nebraska conservationplan for the black-tailed prairie dog. Ne-braska Game and Parks Commission, Lin-coln, Nebraska.

Omaha World-Herald. 2002. Keep trying onprairie dogs UNL survey indicates feweropportunities for voluntary conservation.January 20:10b.

Prairie Dog Coalition. 2002. Prairie dog sum-mit forms coalition. Prairie Dog Tales1(1):1.

Predator Conservation Alliance. 2001. Restor-ing the prairie dog ecosystem of the GreatPlains: Learning from the past to ensure theprairie dog's future. Predator ConservationAlliance, Bozeman, Montana.

Proskocil, N. 1999. Groups Sue Over DelayIn Ruling on Prairie Dogs. Omaha World-Herald. February 11:23.

Reading, R.P. 1993. Toward an endangeredspecies reintroduction paradigm: A casestudy of the black-footed ferret. Ph.D. Dis-sertation. Yale University, New Haven,Connecticut.

Reading, R.P., and S.R. Kellert. 1993. Atti-tudes toward a proposed reintroduction ofblack-footed ferrets (Mustela nigripes).

Conservation Biology 7:569–580.Reading, R.P., B.J. Miller, and S.R. Kellert.

1999. Values and attitudes toward prairiedogs. Anthrozoos 12:43–52.

Reeder, J. 2002. Prairie dogs threateningranchers crops and livelihoods. DurangoHerald, May 2:8.

Rudacille, D. 1998. Activism for animals. Pp.1-3 in M. Beckoff and C.A. Meaney, eds.Encyclopedia of animal rights and animalwelfare. Greenwood Press, Westport, Con-necticut.

Schneider, A.L and H. Ingram. 1997. Policydesign for democracy. University of Kan-sas Press, Lawrence, Kansas.

State of Colorado. 1915. Horticulture pests.Laws Passed at the Twentieth Session ofthe General Assembly of the State of Colo-rado. Western Newspaper Union, StatePrinters, Denver, Colorado.

Thacker, P. 2001. A new wind sweeps theplains. Science 292:2427.

Truett, J.C., J.A.L.D. Dullum, M.R. Matchett,E. Owens, and D. Seery. 2001. Translocat-ing prairie dogs: A review. Wildlife Soci-ety Bulletin 29:863-872.

USFWS. 1999. 90-day finding for a petitionto list the black-tailed prairie dog as threat-ened. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wash-ington, DC.

USFWS. 2000. 12-month finding for a peti-tion to list the black-tailed prairie dog asthreatened. Federal Register 65(24):5476-5488.

USFWS. 2001. Endangered and threatenedwildlife and plants: Annual notice of find-ings on recycled petitions. Federal Regis-ter 66(5):1295-1300.

Van Pelt, W.E. 1999. The black-tailed prairiedog conservation assessment and strategy.Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoe-nix, Arizona.

Van Putten, M. and S.D. Miller. 1999. Prairiedogs: The case for listing. Wildlife SocietyBulletin 27:1113-1120.

Weiss, J.A. 1989. The powers of problem defi-nition: The case of government paperwork.Policy Sciences 22:92-121.

Westrum, R. 1994. An organizational perspec-tive: Designing recovery teams from theinside out. Pp. 327-349 in T.W. Clark, R.P.Reading, and A.L. Clarke, eds. Endangeredspecies recovery: Finding the lessons, im-proving the process. Island Press, Wash-ington, DC.

Wise, S.M. 2000. Rattling the cage: Towardlegal rights for animals. Perseus Books,Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Zinn, H.C., and W.F. Andelt. 1999. Attitudesof Fort Collins, Colorado residents towardprairie dogs. Wildlife Society Bulletin27:1098–1106.


IntroductionThe great apes and other wildlife aredisappearing from large areas of Cen-tral Africa, largely due to hunting forbushmeat. Conservationists seek tomaintain remaining wildlife and re-store populations back to healthy, vi-able levels in ways that benefit fromlasting public support (Robinson andBennett 2000; Bushmeat Crisis TaskForce 2002). Achieving this commongoal is difficult given the rate of wild-life loss and magnitude of forces driv-ing bushmeat hunting. Many areasnow contain little wildlife, a condi-tion known as the "empty forest syn-drome" (Bennett et al. 2002:28). Thisconservation crisis is an outcome ofmany choices by many people thattogether form a complex decision

Great Ape Conservation in Central Africa:Addressing the Bushmeat CrisisHeather E. EvesBushmeat Crisis Task Force, 8403 Colesville Road, Suite 710, Silver Spring, MD [email protected]

Elizabeth A. GordonSchool of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, 205 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT [email protected]

Julie T. SteinBushmeat Crisis Task Force, 8403 Colesville Road, Suite 710, Silver Spring, MD [email protected]


AbstractThe commercial trade in bushmeat presents an immediate and rapidly growing threat to Africa'sgreat apes and other wildlife. Unresolved, this trade risks extinction of many ape populationswithin 10 to 20 years. Although great apes, including gorillas (Gorilla gorilla ssp.), chimpanzees(Pan troglodytes ssp.), and bonobos (Pan paniscus), make up only one to four percent of the wide-spread trade in wildlife, they are a key focus of this problem for a variety of cultural, economic,ecological, political, medical, and ethical reasons. A solution to the bushmeat crisis requires changingthe outcome of many existing decision processes involving diverse participants. This requires amultilateral and interdisciplinary effort to find and support actions that are appropriate, effective,and respect each nation's decision-making authority. This paper examines the decision process forthis issue and recommends ways to resolve the problem, including information coordination, devel-opment of nutritional and economic alternatives for urban people, and public awareness campaignsacross Africa and the world.

process that must be understood andaddressed if the crisis is to be re-solved. Resolution of the crisis alsorequires addressing growing nutri-tional, educational, and other localdemands. Despite the fact that themajority of wildlife species huntedare elephants, duikers, pigs, rodents,and other primates, Africa's great apes(gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos)dominate media coverage of thebushmeat crisis (Stein and BCTF2001), perhaps due to morphological,behavioral, and genetic closeness be-tween humans and apes (Beck et al.2001). This focus is also importantfor cultural, economic, ecological,political, medical, and ethical reasons(see Noss 1998; Gao et al. 1999;Auzel and Wilkie 2000; Eves and

Ruggiero 2000).This paper gives a brief overview

of the bushmeat crisis, especially withrespect to great apes, its context, andways to improve conservation. Weuse the learning and analytic ap-proach described by Clark et al.(2001) and Clark (2002) to examineand present this case. This empiri-cal, systematic approach is problemoriented, contextual, and multi-method. It has been used to under-stand and improve other complexconservation challenges in an inter-disciplinary manner.

H.E. Eves has been working onwildlife utilization and the bushmeatissue in Africa since the 1980s includ-ing dissertation research on the com-mercial and subsistence bushmeat trade


in northern Congo (Brazzaville). J.T.Stein has studied community wildlifemanagement issues in Kenya, and isinterested in finding solutions to en-sure the survival of Africa's wildlifethat are supported by local commu-nities. E.A. Gordon has studied ani-mal behavior and wildlife conserva-tion, and is interested in finding prac-tical ways to protect non-human ani-mals from exploitation and extinc-tion. T.W. Clark focuses on speciesand ecosystems conservation at pro-fessional, scientific, organizational,and policy levels. He has conductedfield research and applied projects inNorth America, Australia, Asia, Cen-tral America, and Africa.

The context of the great apecrisisThe bushmeat crisis is caused by hu-mans making decisions to hunt andconsume animals, almost to the pointof extinction in some instances. Acomplex set of choices stands behindthese decisions. Before examiningthese decisions, it is essential to un-derstand who is involved in the prob-lem, how, and why. This requires thatwe look briefly at the human contextof the species loss problem.

The people involved — the socialcontext of the problemExamining the human social processallows us to understand who is in-volved, as well as their perspectives andvalues, the situations in which they in-teract, the strategies they use to achievetheir goals, and the outcomes and ef-fects of these interactions (Lasswell1971). These features comprise thesocial process of the bushmeat crisisand embedded in this social process liethe solutions for this conservation anddevelopment problem.

There are many participants inthe bushmeat crisis. Among them arethe great apes themselves, hunters,traders, market sellers, urban con-sumers, governments, multinational

corporations, and international con-servation organizations. Participantsinclude local, national, and interna-tional stakeholders. Logging compa-nies, their financing institutions, andemployees, for example, play a keyrole in facilitating the bushmeat trade,as these operations expose areas offorest historically off-limits to hunt-ing and construct roads that facilitaterapidly transporting wildlife meat outof the forest and into urban centers.Other participants, including interna-tional coalitions such as the BushmeatCrisis Task Force (BCTF), have re-cently grown in importance in thisprocess. In thinking about how toresolve the problem, both temporaryand permanent solutions lie withinthis set of participants.

Participant perspectives are asvaried as they are numerous. Therange of perspectives across govern-ment personnel are linked in complexrelationships that determine the na-ture of their participation in thebushmeat crisis. These include na-tional and international nongovern-mental organizations (NGOs), indus-try developers (e.g., timber, mining,rail), and the public (bushmeat con-sumers in and out of Africa as wellas foreign consumers of the productsof natural resource exploitation).Examining the interaction of theserelationships in greater detail is cru-cial to identifying potential solutions.It is important to note that the basicbeliefs and worldviews of people in-volved in this issue are often at odds.Most Western conservationists adhereto a view of global scarcity that callsfor conserving biodiversity to main-tain ecological and human health. Incontrast, many African communitieshave a perspective of local abundance(BCTF 2000) that guides their use ofnatural resources. Perceived respon-sibility for conservation in many ofthese communities rests outside thecommunity and either belongs tosome supernatural entity or with the

government authorities (Mordi 1991).Their practices are justified in termsof well-being, survival, and security.

Participants interact in varioussituations; some are disorganized,while some are organized. Thebushmeat trade extends from groupsof hunters in the Central Africanrainforest to Central African loggingconcessions where the transport ofmeat is often facilitated via loggingroads and vehicles. The meat is thentransported to roadsides and smallmarkets and then to urban restaurantsand "chop bars" where the meat isconsumed. Other participants, suchas the international community, maybe organized and interact in otherpolitical, economic, or diplomaticcontexts, by designing policies orlaws that affect land use, or in design-ing global agreements to protect en-dangered species.

All people possess and seek ba-sic values, regardless of where orwhen they live. Lasswell (1971)identified eight base values that in-fluence human behavior — power,enlightenment, wealth, well-being,skill, affection, respect, and rectitude.Many participants in the bushmeattrade are motivated by wealth andwell-being. Many consumers arepurchasing bushmeat to meet basicnutritional needs, as this is the onlyaffordable source of protein availablein markets, often costing less thandomestic protein sources (Wilkie2001). Most hunters, traders, andsellers are engaged in the bushmeattrade because it is a lucrative busi-ness. The cash generated is signifi-cant — it has been described as a bil-lion dollar industry in Central Africaalone (Wilkie and Carpenter 1998).In contrast, scientists and the inter-national community are driven byrectitude and enlightenment values.These values may be at odds with tra-ditional and even the modern valuesystems of African societies.

Field researchers have discov-


ered that gorilla populations cannotbe adequately protected if their ex-istence is perceived as an obstacle tothe well-being of human beings shar-ing the ecosystem (Tutin and Vedder2001). There are attendant costs(such as crop raiding by gorillas andconflicts over conversion of gorillahabitat for agricultural production)for these local communities that, un-derstandably, are interested in im-proving their family's standard of liv-ing in the short term through activi-ties such as development, agriculture,and livestock grazing. In addition,some human populations that previ-ously held taboos against hunting andeating great apes have ceased follow-ing these traditions and have beguneating these animals as human popu-lations and the demand for affordableprotein increases (Bowen-Jones1998; Tashiro 1995).

Participants in the process utilizedifferent strategies to obtain imme-diate and long-term goals. The inter-national community engages in strat-egies of communication among elitesof governmental and non-govern-mental organizations, as well as thegeneral public. Conservation orga-nizations, for example, may use edu-cation campaigns to assist key deci-sion makers and the public's under-standing of the ecological and socialimpacts of the bushmeat crisis.Bushmeat hunters, traders, and mar-ket sellers engage in primarily eco-nomic strategies, like maximizingtheir income, to indulge their chiefvalues. Despite arguments for theeconomic contributions of thebushmeat trade to rural communities,the majority of wealth actually ac-crues to the traders and market sell-ers in urban centers, not to localpeople: "Access to capital allowstraders to supply new hunting tech-nology (e.g., guns, wire snares, flash-lights, etc.) to hunters, who frequentlyremain in continuous debt to thetraders…This debt peonage serves to

increase hunting intensity",(Robinson and Bennett 2000:511).Not only is the income frombushmeat for local communities lim-ited, this commercial trade removesa valuable protein source from sub-sistence communities. In the end,wildlife is destroyed and communityvalues regarding the importance ofwildlife for future generations arepermanently compromised.

Choices involved – the decisioncontext of the problemThe bushmeat problem is the out-come of many choices made by manypeople. To solve this problem, thecurrent decision process must changeso that choices made are life sustain-ing, not life destroying. A criticallyimportant question emerges: Whereis the most important point(s) of en-try to effect change in the bushmeatcrisis? To identify areas for interven-tion, it is helpful to divide the deci-sion process into smaller componentsand analyze each. Brewer (1983)identified six functions that make upa complete decision process — ini-tiation (start up), estimation (defin-ing the problem), selection (the plan),implementation (work in the field),evaluation (monitoring and ap-praisal), and termination (solving theproblem and moving on or changingtactics). The decision process for aparticular issue may pass throughthese functions more than once or si-multaneously as the problem evolves.

It is difficult to identify when thebushmeat decision process was initi-ated. There were at least two initia-tion phases for this issue from an in-ternational perspective. The first waswithin the scientific community. Inthe early 1990s, Robinson andBennett (2000) offered a global per-spective of the bushmeat trade as aresponse to increasing awarenessabout unsustainable trends in wildlifeexploitation. Although there werelimited pockets of interest in the

bushmeat issue from a public stand-point (i.e. media), a second, morelikely initiation of the issue was theannouncement that HIV/AIDS waslinked directly to chimpanzees in Af-rica (Gao et al. 1999). This dramaticannouncement and the potential linkswith the bushmeat issue galvanized arapidly expanding effort to under-stand and address the crisis.

Throughout the late 1980s andearly 1990s, research was conductedin Central Africa and around the globe(Robinson and Bennett 2000). Theestimation phase included studiesaimed at defining the problem, under-standing its scope, and projecting itslong-term impacts. Similar assess-ments took place throughout East andSouthern Africa during the mid to late1990s (Barnett 2000). Many peoplewere surprised to learn that abushmeat crisis was occurring inthese regions as well.

Selection and implementationactivities are currently underway in-ternationally and locally. Many sig-nificant actions have recently takenplace internationally, including ac-tions by The World Bank, AfricanHeads of State, CITES, and theIUCN. Four examples follow.

In 1998, the World Bank con-vened the first meeting of the ChiefExecutive Officer's ad hoc Forum onForests. The World Bank consideredthis a critical step toward forging aworking partnership between interna-tional forest industries and environ-mental and social development orga-nizations. Working Group # 3ii onTropical Africa continues to facilitatedialogue on sustainable forest man-agement options, including wildlifemanagement and the bushmeat tradeand how such initiatives can be imple-mented in the Congo Basin (WorldBank 2002).

Second, the Yaoundé Declarationwas signed in 1999 as the result ofthe six nation Yaoundé Forest Sum-mit. This event, organized by the


World Wildlife Fund, brought to-gether heads of state from CentralAfrica to explore sustainable manage-ment of the Congo Basin. The Dec-laration committed signatories toimplementing measures to protectthese important landscapes. Follow-ing this historic event, ongoing policyinitiatives, including alliances be-tween groups such as World WildlifeFund and the World Bank, are defin-ing ways to implement the 12-pointDeclaration (WWF 2000).

Third, in Nairobi in 2000 at the11th meeting of the Conference ofParties of the Convention on Interna-tional Trade in Endangered Speciesof Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), theinternational community agreed thatthere was clear evidence of illegal,widespread, and unsustainable tradein bushmeat, including endangeredand threatened species. The Confer-ence was particularly concernedabout the trade's impact on endan-gered animals, such as elephants andthe great apes. In response to thisthreat, the Parties agreed to form theCITES Bushmeat Working Groupwith the aim of identifying solutionsthat can be willingly implemented byrange states (CITES 2001).

Finally, the World ConservationUnion (IUCN) adopted a BushmeatResolution (IUCN 2000), originallydrafted by the Bushmeat Crisis TaskForce, recognizing bushmeat trade asa complex cultural and socio-eco-nomic issue that represents one of theworld's most pressing conservationproblems. Since then they have helda joint workshop with the Food andAgriculture Organization in an at-tempt to review the status of majortaxa and identify an action agenda foraddressing the crisis (IUCN 2000).

This list of international policydecisions illustrates the will to ac-knowledge the bushmeat issue as apriority focus area at senior politicallevels. NGOs, local communities,and governments are carrying out

specific activities to address the cri-sis in Africa (BCTF 2002). Theseprojects focus on a range of activi-ties, including education, anti-poach-ing controls, research, policy devel-opment, identifying protein and in-come alternatives, and creating sanc-tuaries for apes (a.k.a. orphans of thebushmeat trade).

The evaluation and terminationphases of the decision process are theleast developed at this time. Althougha number of policy and programmaticactions are taking place, there is cur-rently no system for evaluating orcommunicating evaluation results.There is a clear need for a project thatidentifies, lists, monitors, analyzes,and disseminates information regard-ing the bushmeat problem and effortsto address it. Because evaluation hasnot adequately occurred, no termina-tion or modification can take place(and none has).

Finding common interest goalsGiven the complexity of the bushmeatcrisis, a common interest goal that amajority of participants might agree tois to achieve sustainable wildlife con-servation, including all African greatapes, and ensure meeting basic needs[economic and protein] and human dig-nity for African human communities.Any effective bushmeat program mustempower and ensure the health of lo-cal communities while simultaneouslyensuring the long-term viability ofwildlife populations. In addition, werisk species extinctions if we do not takeimmediate action to curb current trendsin commercial wildlife exploitation.

The past, present, and future ofthe bushmeat crisisMany causative factors underlie thebushmeat crisis and current trends areexpected to continue into the foresee-able future unless effective action istaken soon. A brief examination ofpast trends, the causative factors be-hind them, and likely future trends are

discussed below. Three trends arehighlighted here — ecological, eco-nomic, and social-political.

Ecological trendsThe last few decades have seen therapid decline of great ape populations(Bailey and BCTF 2001). Wild chim-panzee numbers have declined fromone to two million in 1900 to about150,000 today (Goodall 2001).Bonobo populations are under severethreat from civil war and decliningadherence to cultural taboos (Baileyand BCTF 2001). A number of go-rilla populations have experiencedsignificant declines from bushmeathunting. The low reproductive rateof great apes makes them particularlyvulnerable to hunting.

Despite earlier reports recom-mending the potential for utilization ofwildlife as a major source of protein(Cremoux 1963; Asibey 1966), trendsin unsustainable hunting have been re-corded since the 1970s (Asibey 1974;Hart 1978). Forest ecosystems inhab-ited by African great apes are extremelyvulnerable to over-hunting (Bennett etal. 2002). The low productivity of Cen-tral African Forests, especially com-pared to woodland, savannah, and ma-rine ecosystems, means that these habi-tats may be unable to meet the futuredietary and economic needs of humanpopulations. This trend will likely per-sist as human populations increase, in-frastructure grows, and supply and de-mand for bushmeat continue rising andcausing further unsustainable wildlifeharvests and extinction.

Economic trendsAfrica is currently unable to meetdemands for food through direct pro-duction. Insufficient foreign ex-change is available to provide suffi-cient substitutes. As a result, wild-life consumption has increased inmany areas to meet basic humanneeds. The resulting unsustainableexploitation to meet increasing de-


mands drives many local wildlifepopulations to extinction and causeshunters to exploit species not previ-ously targeted (Ntiamoa-Baidu 1997;Robinson and Bennett 2000). With-out engaging and implementing so-cial systems that meet the basic eco-nomic and protein needs of Africa'sgrowing populations, not only willmany species of wildlife disappear,but also dependent human commu-nities will face food shortages andresulting tragedy.

Improved transport systems andmodernized hunting methods have con-tributed to dramatic increases in wild-life exploitation and resulted in unsus-tainable harvests in nearly every areawhere commercial bushmeat huntingoccurs (Robinson and Bennett 2000).The combination of the large-scaleimpacts of international logging opera-tions, the limited capacity for enforc-ing existing wildlife laws, and the lackof economic alternatives presents amulti-layered challenge to curtailingthe trade. These regionally and inter-nationally driven economic trends willlikely increase as human populationsplace more pressure on the world'snatural resources.

Socio-political trendsAlthough the ecological and economictrends above predict a dim future forwildlife populations in general andAfrica's great apes particularly, a simul-taneous positive trend provides hope.Increasingly, stakeholder groups areimproving their ability to leveragepower and resources to address conser-vation issues collaboratively. Expand-ing use of the Internet for informationsharing and the widespread understand-ing of the need for broad collaborationamong stakeholder groups have re-sulted in unprecedented cooperationamong those working to solve thebushmeat crisis. The rise of collabora-tive initiatives such as BCTF and theApe Alliance and the effectiveness oftheir approach exemplify this trend.

In addition, high-level decisionmakers have demonstrated a shift inperspective and have begun a com-mitted focus on resolving the unsus-tainable utilization of wildlife. Suchefforts include the previously men-tioned Yaoundé Declaration as wellas the UK Bushmeat Campaign andthe US Congressional OversightHearing on Bushmeat in the HouseSubcommittee on Fisheries Conser-vation, Wildlife and Oceans. The fo-cus of these campaigns include notonly the importance of assuring eco-logical systems that function but alsothe necessary engagement of privateindustry and development efforts.International conservation effortsmust consider African nations' statedpriorities involving development ininnovative ways. It is essential thatawareness about the importance ofecosystem health and how it relatesto human health and economicstrength be raised. Although researchon efforts toward integrated conser-vation and development projects haveshown limited success (Peters 1998;Browder 2002), current trends sug-gest the essential nature of assuring amatrix of land-use options includinga core system of protected areascoupled with establishment of sys-tems that engage industry developersin environmentally appropriate landuse activities. Examples of this in-clude the innovative approaches innorthern Congo (Brazzaville) to in-clude wildlife management andbushmeat control programs in log-ging concessions (Glave 2001) aswell as current efforts to address im-pacts of bushmeat hunting in coltanmining operations in eastern Demo-cratic Republic of Congo.

RecommendationsImproving the bushmeat crisis re-quires changing the social and deci-sion processes in ways that supportsustainable wildlife conservation.Fortunately, a heightened sense of the

moral, political, and cultural impor-tance of great apes inspires conser-vation action. In this light, we evalu-ate the most practical and justifiableentry points in the decision process.

First, a review of the decisionprocess identified a need for evalua-tion of current bushmeat policies andprograms (Kleiman et al. 2000). Thisevaluation process is being led by theBushmeat Crisis Task Force, whichplays a significant role in providingtimely information to key decisionmakers, media, wildlife managers,local communities, and others to as-sist in developing specific actions thatdirectly address the problem.

The Bushmeat Crisis Task Forcewas established by several of theworld's leading wildlife organizationsand given a mandate of establishinga network of individuals and organi-zations from the US, Europe, andAfrica involved in addressing thebushmeat problem and providing aninformation base to help its membersidentify appropriate solutions andtake action. BCTF's primary goalsare to: (a) work with its general mem-bers to focus attention on thebushmeat crisis in Africa, (b) estab-lish an information database andmechanisms for information sharingon the issue, (c) engage African part-ners and stakeholders in addressingthe problem, and (d) promote collabo-rative planning, decision-making,fund-raising and actions among themembers and associates.

Second, a review of the socialcontext revealed a set of actors whoare often at odds with one another'sbase values, perspectives, and prob-lem identification (Robinson andBennett 2000). Because the urbanmarket demand for bushmeat is oneof the significant driving factors be-hind the bushmeat trade it is the mostlikely entry-point for successful miti-gation. It is unlikely that hunters willrefrain from killing an animal largeenough to generate a profit and trans-


port easily (Wilkie and Godoy 1996).If hunting of apes is to end, it will bebecause they are either no longeravailable or profitable to hunt.

Developing economic and proteinalternatives in areas with high humanpopulations is a primary mitigationtechnique. Focusing efforts on urban,rather than rural, locales is critical sincecontrol programs are likely to have thegreatest impact and opportunity forsuccess in urban centers where re-sources are concentrated and informa-tion can be transmitted quickly. Solu-tions to the crisis should enable in-creases in the availability of both eco-nomic and protein alternatives in urbancenters where the demand driving thebushmeat trade originates.

Third, a public awareness cam-paign is needed that focuses on in-creased recognition and the eventual re-emergence of traditional cultural taboosand totemic status of great apes. Mordi(1991) suggests that conservation ac-tion follows a three-phase evolution indeveloping nations. The first phase istheistic passivism wherein wildlife'sabundance is attributed to some exter-nal force. Responsibility for wildliferests outside the individual and soci-ety, and with some supernatural force.The second phase, naturalistic passiv-ism, is initiated by Western educationand culminates in a general understand-ing that wildlife can indeed be depletedand that the rate of habitat loss is in-creasing. Responsibility for wildlifeconservation in this phase is seen asbelonging to the central government,still outside the individual but withinsociety. In the third and final phase,humanistic activism, concern for wild-life loss is based within the local soci-ety and individual. It is brought aboutby "A combination of widespread edu-cation, severe depletion of animals, andan incipient self-recrimination for theimminent loss of the cultural heritagethat animals represent" (Mordi1991:147). The transition to such aphase rests with the middle class.

Mordi (1991:148) suggests, "self-blame is precisely the unsettling forcewhich will awaken the educated andeconomically secure middle class to theurgent need for personal involvementin animal conservation."

To shift African perspectives to-wards personal responsibility andbehavioral changes regarding thebushmeat crisis, a massive awarenesscampaign is essential. This campaignmust be developed by African expertsfor the African public, and should linkthe severe depletion of great apes andother species to African cultural heri-tage. Focusing on the urban middleclass may provide a unique opportu-nity for conservation action, as Afri-can societies become increasinglyurbanized and, like the rest of thedeveloped world, further removedfrom the reality of rural communitiesand natural ecosystems. This is anoptimal intervention point for tworeasons. First, it enables participantsin the bushmeat issue to target effortsin areas of highest human andbushmeat commerce density. Sec-ond, this option has a great chance ofimmediately impacting the target au-dience in areas where substitutes —both economic and protein — have agreater chance to occurring. In addi-tion, it enables local communities toretain some level of legal wildlifeharvest to supplement both incomeand protein needs.

A focused and effective mediacampaign is already showing prom-ising results in Ghana, where Conser-vation International (CI) has led aunique prototype effort (Bakarr et al.2001). Following a local meeting,community leaders agreed that anappeal to the public that focused onthe totemic link of wildlife to ethnicgroups would be optimal. Such anapproach is exactly what Mordi(1991) described as humanistic activ-ism. The loss of cultural heritagecoupled with severe depletion ofwildlife and effective awareness cam-

paigns enables understanding of thepersonal significance of such loss. Itis this personal connection with lossthat engages people to action throughaccepting individual responsibility.

CI's Bushmeat Campaign inGhana has already begun to generateresults with significant numbers ofchop shop sellers deciding not to sellillegal bushmeat (Okyeame, personalcommunication). The BCTF ispartnering with several institutions,including CI in West Africa, to imple-ment a pilot program called TheBushmeat Promise which providesindividuals with a statement of prom-ise to sign stating they will take indi-vidual action on the bushmeat issue.These promises will be trackedthrough a database system to docu-ment and further encourage indi-vidual responsibility toward address-ing the bushmeat crisis.

As discussed above, focusing ongreat ape conservation is justifiableand practical for multiple reasons. Atthe most basic level, all species ofgreat apes are either endangered orcritically endangered, and all are sen-sitive to even low hunting rates. Be-yond their moral and cultural signifi-cance, great apes are also central eco-nomically and politically. Great apescan generate enormous funds forwildlife conservation through eco-tourism, which can increase localcommunity support for conservation.Furthermore, great apes are the focusof several large-scale conservationfunds (US Great Ape ConservationFund, UNEPs Great Ape SurvivalProject). Great apes are protectedfrom hunting both nationally and in-ternationally, which provides a politi-cal and legislative mandate for con-servation. Finally, great apes andbushmeat are at the center of one ofthe most significant human health is-sues facing the globe — HIV/AIDS.Protection of Africa's great apes couldhold the key to both current and fu-ture global human health issues as


populations of primates are found tobe living with pre-cursor strains ofHIV which may provide a useful linkto enabling development of solutionsfor humans living with AIDS.

ConclusionThe crisis affecting great apes has gal-vanized participants in a way that fewconservation issues have. Solving thiscrisis will require the collaborative in-volvement of the private sector, gov-ernments, universities, non-govern-mental organizations, and the generalpublic. In addition, we must understandthe social and decision processes sur-rounding the bushmeat crisis becauseit is at their nexus that solutions will befound. We identify several methods ofaddressing this problem. First, we canupgrade evaluation of current bushmeatpolicy and programs as a basis for im-proving future intervention. Second,we must generate economic and pro-tein alternatives in areas of high hu-man population as soon as possible.Third, we should carry out an effec-tive public awareness campaign inthe urban centers across Africa andelsewhere to develop the broad-scalesupport necessary for implementingconservation programs.

AcknowledgementsWe acknowledge our supporting in-stitutions and the following individu-als for their contributions to this docu-ment: Natalie Bailey, BCTF ProgramCoordinator; Jane Ballentine AZADirector of Public Affairs; RebeccaHardin; David S. Wilkie; Doug Cress,Executive Director of the Great ApeProject and Jocelyn Ziemian.

Literature citedAsibey, E.O.A. 1966. Wild animals and

Ghana's economy. Investigations intobushmeat as a source of protein. GhanaGame and Wildlife Department (Mimeo).

Asibey, EOA. 1974. Wildlife as a source ofprotein in Africa south of the Sahara. Bio-logical Conservation 6(1):32-39.

Auzel, P. and D.S. Wilkie. 2000. Wildlife use

in northern Congo: hunting in a commer-cial logging concession. Pp. 413-426 in J.G.Robinson and E.L. Bennett, eds. Huntingfor Sustainability in Tropical Forests. Co-lumbia University Press, NY.

Bailey, N.D. and BCTF. 2001. Effects ofBushmeat Hunting on Populations of Afri-can Great Apes. Bushmeat Crisis TaskForce, Silver Spring, Maryland. http://w w w . b u s h m e a t . o r g / h t m l /apesbushmeat.htm

Bakarr, M., W. Oduro, and E. Adomako. 2001.West Africa: Regional Overview of theBushmeat Crisis. In N.D. Bailey, H.E. Eves,A. Stefan, and J.T. Stein, eds. BCTF Col-laborative Action Planning Meeting Pro-ceedings. Bushmeat Crisis Task Force. Sil-ver Spring, Maryland. http://www.bushmeat.org

Barnett, R. 2000. Food for Thought: The Uti-lization of Wild Meat in Eastern and South-ern Africa. TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa.Nairobi, Kenya.

BCTF. 2002. Bushmeat Crisis Task ForceProjects Database. Bushmeat Crisis TaskForce, Silver Spring, Maryland. http://www.bushmeat.org

BCTF. 2000. Bushmeat: A Wildlife Crisis inWest and Central Africa and Around the

World. Bushmeat Crisis Task Force. Avail-able from: \t "_blank" http://www.bushmeat.org/pdf/BCTFBRIE.PDF\t"_blank"

Beck, B.B., T.S. Stoinski, M. Hutchins, T.L.Maple, B. Norton, A. Rowan, E.F. Stevens,and A. Arluke, eds. 2001. Great Apes andHumans: The Ethics of Coexistence.Smithsonian Institution Press, WashingtonDC.

Bennett, E.L., H.E. Eves, J.G. Robinson, andD.S. Wilkie. 2002. Why is eating bushmeata biodiversity crisis? Conservation in Prac-tice 3(2):28-29.

Bowen-Jones, E. 1998. The African bushmeattrade — a recipe for extinction. Ape Alli-ance/Fauna and Flora International, Cam-bridge.

Brewer, G.D. 1983. The policy process as aperspective for understanding. Pp. 57-76 inE. Zigler, S.L. Kagan, and E. Klugman, eds.Children, Families, and Government: Per-spectives on American social policy. Cam-bridge University Press, New York, NewYork.

Browder, J.O. 2002. Conservation and devel-opment projects in the Brazilian Amazon:Lessons from the community initiative pro-gram in Rondonia. Conservation Biology29(6):750-762.

CITES. 2001. Communiqué of the 1st CITESBushmeat Working Group. http://www.c i tes .o rg /p rogramme/BWG/communique.shtml

Clark, T. W. 2002. The Policy Process: A Prac-tical Guide for Natural Resource Profes-sionals. Yale University Press, New Haven,Connecticut.

Clark, T. W, M. Stevenson, K. Ziegelmayer,and M. Rutherford, eds. 2001. Species andEcosystem Conservation: An Interdiscipli-nary Approach. Yale School of Forestry andEnvironmental Studies, Bulletin Series105:1-276.

Cremoux, P. 1963. The importance of gamemeat consumption in the diet of sedentaryand nomadic peoples of the Senegal RiverValley. IUCN Publications, New Series,1:127-129.

Eves, H.E. and R.G. Ruggiero. 2000.Socioeconomics and the sustainability ofhunting in the forests of northern Congo(Brazzaville). Pp. 427-454 in J.G.Robinson and E.L. Bennett, eds. Huntingfor Sustainability in Tropical Forests. Co-lumbia University Press, New York.

Gao, F., E. Bailes, D.L. Robertson, Y. Chen,C.M. Rodenburg, S.F. Michael, L.B.Cummins, L.O. Arthur, M. Peeters, G.M.Shaw, P.M. Sharp, and B.H. Hahn. 1999.Origin of HIV-1 in the chimpanzee Pan tro-glodytes troglodytes. Nature 397:436-441.

Glave, J. 2001. "Logging company returnsrainforest land." The Associated Press. July6, 2001.

Hart, J.A. 1978. From Subsistence to Mar-ket: A Case Study of the Mbuti Net Hunt-ers. Human Ecology 6(3):325-353.

IUCN. 2000. International Spotlight on Grow-ing Trade in Bushmeat. IUCN News Re-lease October 11, 2000. http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/pressreleases/bushmeat.html

Jane Goodall Institute. 2001. JGI Addressingthe Bushmeat Crisis in Africa's Congo Ba-sin. Jane Goodall Institute, Silver Spring,Maryland. http://www.janegoodall.org/jgi/programs/congo.html

Kleiman, D., R.P. Reading, B.J. Miller, T.W.Clark, M. Scott, J. Robinson, R.L. Wallace,R.J. Cabin, and F. Felleman. 2000. Improv-ing the evaluation of conservation pro-grams. Conservation Biology 14(2):356.

Lasswell, H.D. 1971. A Pre-View of PolicySciences. American Elsevier, New York.

Mordi, A.R. 1991. Attitudes Toward Wildlifein Botswana. Garland Publishing, Inc.,New York.

Noss, A.J. 1998. The impacts of cable snarehunting on wildlife populations in the for-ests of the Central African Republic. Con-servation Biology 12(2):390-398.

Ntiamoa-Baidu, Y. 1997. Wildlife and FoodSecurity in Africa. FAO ConservationGuide 33. Food and Agriculture Organiza-tion of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

Peters, J. 1998. Transforming the integrated


conservation and development approach(ICDP): Observations from theRanomafana National Park Project, Mada-gascar. Journal of Agricultural & Environ-mental Ethics 11(1):17-47.

Robinson, J.G. and E.L. Bennett, eds. 2000.Hunting for Sustainability in Tropical For-ests. Columbia University Press, New York.

Stein, J.T. and BCTF. 2001. BCTF ResearchArchive Analysis Project: Summary Sta-tistics. Bushmeat Crisis Task Force. SilverSpring, Maryland.

Tashiro, Y. 1995. "Economic difficulties inZaire and the disappearing taboo againsthunting bonobos in the Wamba area." PanAfrica News, Vol. 2, No. 2. http://j inrui.zool.kyoto-u.ac.jp/PAN/2(2)/tashiro.html

Tutin, E.G.C. and A. Vedder. 2001. Gorilla

conservation and research in Central Af-rica: A diversity of approaches and prob-lems. Pp. 429-448 in W. Weber, L.J.T.White, A. Vedder, and L. Naughton-Treves,eds. African Rain Forest Ecology and Con-servation. Yale University Press, New Ha-ven, Connecticut.

Wilkie, D.S. 2001. Relative price of bushmeat.Discussion paper compiled for theBushmeat Crisis Task Force Members.Bushmeat Crisis Task Force. http://w w w . b u s h m e a t . o r g / p d f /WilkieBushmeatPrices.pdf

Wilkie, D.S. and Carpenter, J. 1998. The im-pact of bushmeat hunting on forest faunaand local economies in the Congo basin.Unpublished Report, Wildlife ConservationSociety, Bronx, New York.

Wilkie, D.S. and R.A. Godoy. 1996. Trade,

indigenous rain forest economies and bio-logical diversity: model predictions anddirections for research. Pp. 83-102 in M.R.Perez and J.E.M. Arnold, eds. Current Is-sues in Non-timber Forest Products Re-search. Center for International ForestryResearch. Bogor, Indonesia.

World Wildlife Fund. 2000. A New Future forCentral Africa's Forests. Press Release,December 4, 2000. http://www.panda.org/forestsummit/summit_pr.cfm

World Bank. 2002. CEOs Forum: Forest In-dustry and Conservation Working Group:Tropical Africa. http://lnweb18.w o r l d b a n k . o r g / e s s d / e s s d . n s f /6d0ba59b041433b185256a4000709170/e6a3568af774699a85256a5c0065a6be?OpenDocument

Galapagos tortoise ( Geochelone elephantopus ) by Richard L. Wallace.


IntroductionThe Brazilian Atlantic Forest is oneof the most critically endangered eco-systems in the world (Downie 2001).When Portuguese explorers arrivedon the shores of modern-day SãoPaulo, Brazil, the Atlantic Forest cov-ered 125 million hectares along muchof the Brazilian coast and into Para-guay and Argentina. Today, only 7%of the forest remains in small forestfragments (Anonymous 2000). Thismassive destruction is the conse-quence of intensive conversion toagricultural land during Brazil'spopulation expansion of the mid-twentieth century.

The remaining fragments of theAtlantic Forest continue to face hu-man pressures. Conservation Inter-national designated the Atlantic For-est as a biodiversity hotspot due toits high levels of diversity and en-demic plants and animals. Of greatinterest are the primate species of theforest, including the several speciesof lion tamarin (Leontopithecus sp.),

Projeto Abraço Verde: A Practice-Based Approach toBrazilian Atlantic Forest ConservationScott C. FenimoreYale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 205 Prospect Street, New Haven, [email protected]

Laury Cullen Jr.Caixa Postal 91, Teodoro Sampaio, SP, 19280-000, [email protected]

AbstractThe Brazilian Atlantic Forest of the Interior is experiencing dramatic human pressure as newlylanded communities increase farming along the edge of the remaining fragments of this importantecosystem. This paper describes and analyzes a project developed to reduce these pressures andrestore the forest fragments. This practice-based approach addresses the lack of practical farmingeducation in government land redistribution policies through a cooperative agroforestry projectaimed at local "landless" farmers and large landowners. The program provides skills and technicalassistance to farmers, contingent on participants including a majority of their trees in buffers toforest fragments. In order to transplant this cooperative program to regions facing similar pressures, itis necessary to establish trust among participants prior to commencing with the program; understandparticipant needs and expectations; and keep the program simple. Incorporating these three elementsinto a cooperative project results in a more successful and rewarding conservation program.

muriqui (Brachyteles arachnoids),and howler monkeys (Alouattapalliata), many of which are criticallyendangered (Downie 2001). SãoPaulo is the most developed state inBrazil, and its few remaining interiorAtlantic Forest fragments in thePontal do Paranapanema region serveas the remaining habitat for the en-dangered black lion tamarin (L.chrysopygus) (Valladares-Pádua et al.2002). Morro do Diablo State Park,a 35,000-hectare forest, is the largestfragment in the region.

In addition to wildlife in the re-gion, there are significant humansettlements. In recent years, the com-munity around Morro do Diablo StatePark has grown with the arrival of"landless" people, represented by theLandless Workers Movement(Movimento dos TrabalhadoresRurias Sem Terra, MST). In additionto the "landless" community, the othermajor group in the region is largelandowners. Brazil has a strong his-tory of aristocracy, with 40 to 60%

of the land owned by 3% of the popu-lation (Mark 2001). This discrepancyin land ownership has led to increas-ing conflict between "landless"people and large landowners. TheSão Paulo state government, workingwith landowners, developed a nego-tiation process in which landownersdonate 30 to 70% of cleared land to"landless" people of the Pontal doParanapanema region in exchange forofficial title to the remaining property(Cullen et al. 2001). According toCullen et al. (2001), much of the landdonated to "landless" families is mar-ginal and borders on sensitive forestfragments. The land redistributionprocess lacked a comprehensive pro-gram to provide these newly landedfamilies with the skills and techno-logical assistance needed to makeproductive use of their small farms.

This paper examines a programdeveloped to address the problemarising from land redistribution with-out a program to assist new landown-ers in minimizing their impacts to the


Brazilian Atlantic Forest of the Inte-rior. This paper describes and evalu-ates the Green Hug Project (ProjetoAbraço Verde, PAV) in terms of itssocial context, decision-making pro-cess, and ability to meet conservationgoals. Further, it appraises the projectin terms of its applicability to otherforest fragments and regions facingsimilar pressures. Finally, recom-mendations are made to ensure effec-tive application of the PAV in otherforest fragments.

Information for this paper wascollected from various sources. Mostimportant were personal communica-tions with Institute for EcologicalResearch (Instituto de PesquisasÉcológicas, IPÊ) staff and our per-sonal experiences in Brazil. Staff in-terviews included Claudio Pádua,Director of Conservation Science forIP,Ê and Suzana Pádua, President ofIPÊ. Online resources such as the IPÊwebsite and websites dedicated to the"landless" movement in Brazil werealso used. Finally, newspaper andmagazine articles proved useful inunderstanding the complexity of theBrazilian government and the "land-less" issues. We employed the policysciences framework to wade throughthis complex conservation problemand prototype.

The Pontal do ParanapanemasituationThe problem facing the Pontal doParanapanema region is how to ac-complish conservation goals whileimproving the quality of life for thehuman community. IPÊ set out toaddress this problem using an adap-tive and multi-faceted project as aprototype, or small-scale, innovativeprogram coupled with a guiding goal(Brunner and Clark 1997). Whileprototypes are similar to pilot pro-grams and controlled experiments,they are adaptive in nature, permit-ting changes as problems and diffi-culties develop in order to strengthen

the project and achieve conservationobjectives. Prototyping has been usedin other ecosystem management situ-ations (Clark 2002, including bandi-coot (Perameles gunnii) conservationin Australia; Clark et al. 1995). Theguiding goal of this effort was to pro-vide small "landless" farmers andlarge landowners with the resourcesand skills to improve agricultural pro-ductivity while protecting and restor-ing forest fragments. A secondary goalof the project was to apply successfulelements at a broader scale to similarproblems in other regions, with thepossibility of including such a programin national land redistribution policies.

The social context of this prob-lem is complex, particularly at thenational scale. Land redistribution isone of the most contentious issues inBrazil, and while few organizationsparticipate, the membership of par-ticipating organizations is large. Atthe heart of the conflict are the Bra-zilian national government, the SãoPaulo state government, MST, inter-national human rights non-govern-mental organizations (NGOs), Brazil-ian and international environmentalNGOs, and the landed aristocracy ofBrazil. Currently there is little effec-tive communication among partici-pants, with the Brazilian governmentactually criminalizing the MST as aterrorist organization (Veronese2001). Faced with the complexity ofthe land redistribution issue, the PAVreduces the scale of the problem tomore manageable terms by addressinga single portion of the issue. Addition-ally, PAV builds trust and opens linesof communication among the threemain stakeholder groups; environmen-tal NGOs (e.g., IPÊ), "landless" farm-ers, and large landowners (Table 1).

Instituto de PesquisasÉcológicas (IPÉ)The organization responsible forbuilding and implementing PAV —IPÉ — was formed in 1992 as a re-

search organization dedicated to theconservation of wildlife in the Atlan-tic Forest. During the organization'sinfancy, its founders, Claudio andSuzana Padua, realized the need tocombine conservation science withcommunity participation. Environ-mental education programs within thecommunities in the Pontal doParanapanema region became an im-portant component of IPÉ. As IPÉgrew, its position in the communitywas strengthened through coopera-tion with local landowners in conser-vation projects and environmentaleducation. These cooperative conser-vation projects were mainly agreementsbetween landowners and IPÉ for per-mission to conduct scientific researchin forest fragments on private land.Relationships were also formed withthe local "landless" community in theregion, mostly through interviews re-garding hunting and poaching in theforests. These relationships generateda strong level of affection between IPÉand its community (Valladares-Padua,personal communication).

As the "landless" issue becamemore contentious in the late 1990's,IPÉ sought a way to assist the "land-less" in managing their new farms andprotecting the forest fragments. Dueto the relationships already in place,IPÉ was able to design PAV to ad-dress these needs.

"Landless" farmersThe "landless" farmers of the Pontaldo Paranapanema region are a well-organized group supported by MST.Prior to 1998, the "landless" in thePontal do Paranapanema region werewithout legal property title. Theywere squatters on large privateranches and had no legal right to farm,nor were they provided assistancefrom the state or national govern-ments (Valladares-Padua, personalcommunication). During this period,the "landless" families viewed landredistribution as the solution to their


problems, believing that subsistencecrops and small-scale dairy opera-tions would sustain the community(Cullen et al. 2001).

In 1998, the "landless" wereawarded land tenure to the once pri-vate ranches. Land was removedfrom its original owners and redistrib-uted in 35-acre farms among the fami-lies (Cullen et al. 2001). The "land-less" now had control of the land theydesperately wanted, but soon found thattraditional agriculture could not providefor the needs of their families and com-munity. Many of these new farms bor-dered the forest fragments that providedthe farmers with resources such asfuelwood, fodder, and wildlife tosupplement the subsistence crops.

For the "landless" farmers, PAV

provided an alternative to traditionalsubsistence farming and an opportu-nity to address their needs, particu-larly well-being. In addition, the PAVprovided skills to the "landless" farm-ers that would in turn increase wealthin the community.

Large landownersThe aristocratic landowners in theregion play an interesting role in PAV.Prior to the 1998 land redistribution,the large landowners enjoyed manyof the benefits of owning large tractsin Brazil. The government providedtax incentives to maintain productiv-ity on the land, and this was easilyaccomplished through cattle grazingand other activities with limited la-bor costs. The majority of landown-

ers in the Pontal do Paranapanemawere not dependent on these lands fortheir livelihood, but rather saw theranches as symbols of their wealthand power (Valladares-Padua, personalcommunication). The presence ofsquatters ("landless" families) on theirlands angered the large landowners, butthey did not aggressively enforce theirownership rights (Valladares-Padua,personal communication)

In the mid 1990s, tensions in-creased between the large landown-ers and the "landless" community,leading to a negative image of thelanded aristocracy to the public at large.During this period, IPÉ approachedseveral landowners with significantforest fragments regarding accessibil-ity for scientific research. Several land-

Table 1. Social Context of the Green Hugs Project (Projeto Abraço Verde – PAV).

PARTICIPANTS

Instituto de PesquisasVARIABLE "Landless" farmers Large landowners Écológicas (IPÊ)

Participant TraitIdentification *Formerly “landless” *Own majority of land in *Environmental NGO

*Granted land by state govt. Brazil and area in question *Took primary responsibility to resolve*Well organized community *Land redistributed by govt land use problem and protect Atlantic

to small farmers Forest fragments

Expectations Practice traditional farming Maintain control over land Restore Atlantic Forest and corridorstechniques with little responsibility with farmer's assistance

Beliefs With land ownership comes the Ownership and control of Cooperation and support of communi-ability to support families land should remain with the ties leads to ecosystem conservation

historical landowner of wildlife

Base Values (1,2) Rectitude: ethical right to make a Wealth: among the richest Affection: support and cooperation ofliving citizens farmers and landowners

Skill: understand basic farming Power: their property, their Enlightenment: knowledge and under-techniques control standing of Atlantic Forest and local

communitiesPower: strong political force Well-being: possess access

to healthcare and food Rectitude: ethical responsibility toconserve nature

Strategies *Farm to best of abilities *Engage in "land for legal *Environmental education program in*Utilize forest to increase productivity title" deals with government community

*Participate in PAV *Ecological research*Establish PAV prototype

Values promoted by Wealth, well-being, skill Wealth, affection Enlightenment, affection, rectitudeStrategies

1. Assets or resources used by participants to achieve their goals (Clark and Wallace 1998).2. Eight value categories include affection, enlightenment, power, rectitude, respect, skill, wealth, and well-being. For acomplete description of the eight values see Laswell (1971).


owners agreed with the hope of improv-ing relations with the community.

The large landowners in thePontal do Paranapanema regionsought to maintain the status quo. Inthe face of the land redistribution pro-gram, many of these landowners soughtto cooperate with PAV in order to main-tain a level of control over their remain-ing resources and improve their imagewithin the community.

Designing the Projecto AbraçoVerdeDesign of the PAV effort began in1995 when IPÊ realized the need toprotect Atlantic Forest fragments onprivate land. Morro do Diablo StatePark was the only protected area inthe region and, while large at 86,000acres, it could not sustain viable popu-lations of most wildlife species(Cullen et al. 2001). Given the press-ing need to ensure preservation ofother forest fragments and the con-struction of corridors linking frag-ments, IPÊ recognized the necessityof community cooperation (Pádua2001). During this early initiationstage, staff from IPÊ worked closelywith large landowners and "landless"families to encourage conservation ofthe forest fragments.

Between 1995 and early 1998,IPÊ staff worked closely with largelandowners and the "landless" com-munity to determine the needs of par-ticipants. In addition, scientific datafrom forest fragments were collectedto determine which fragments likelyserved as corridors or sinks for wild-life from Morro do Diablo (Cullen etal. 2001). IPÊ also conducted sur-veys of "landless" individuals regard-ing hunting and poaching within theforest fragments. Based on this in-formation, IPÊ sought to increase co-operation with large landowners on arestoration prototype, while maintain-ing ties with the "landless" communitythrough environmental education.

In late 1998, IPÊ was forced to

reinitiate the decision-making processin response to a government land re-distribution policy that awarded 15hectares to each of the "landless"families in the Pontal doParanapanema region. This action bythe large landowners and state gov-ernment forced IPÊ to reconsidertheir earlier project and begin effortsto develop a new prototype. This timea new, more pressing issue developed.Forest fragments once surrounded byland owned by a single family werenow encircled by up to 50 families.

Reinitiating the prototyping pro-cess, IPÊ altered the focus of datacollection to better match the needsof the "landless" community. Basedon information gathered during thenew and original estimation phases,"landless" participants identified theirgreatest needs as uncomplicated agri-culture techniques that could increaseproductivity, a fuelwood source for thecommunity, and the possibility of mov-ing from subsistence to cash crop agri-culture (Cullen et al. 2001).

PAV was established based on acommunity dialogue among IPÊ staff,"landless" farmers, and large land-owners. The driving force of PAV isan agroforestry program in which IPÊstaff provides instruction and a nurs-ery with appropriate species forfuelwood, non-timber forest products,and increasing nutrient levels in soils(Cullen et al. 2001). Farmers agreedto plant 60% of their seedlings alongforest edges, with the remainderplanted elsewhere on the farms orsold in local markets. In addition tothe nursery and training courses, PAVhired representatives from the "land-less" community to serve as commu-nity advocates, to ensure healthycommunication among participants.Community members were also em-ployed to build and manage the nurs-ery under IPÊ guidance.

As with most trial interventions, itis best to start small (Clark et al. 1995).In the case of PAV, 15 "landless" fami-

lies with farms bordering a 400-hect-are forest fragment participated in1998. As issues concerning plantingtechniques and nursery managementwere resolved, 20 more families wereincluded by the middle of 1999.

With the assistance of the com-munity advocates, IPÊ staff membershave continually monitored the pro-totype since its inception. The pro-totype is dynamic and flexible, allow-ing for incorporation of suggestionsfrom participants. The prototype con-tinues to expand and include more"landless" families and large land-owners during implementation. Thehope of IPÊ staff and other partici-pants is that the prototype will be-come a powerful force in the region,shifting perceptions of the forestaway from that of it being an obstacletoward one in which forest fragmentsare viewed as a useful resource thatmust be maintained. No terminationis planned. Instead, participants hopethat it becomes an independent pro-gram with continued input from all.

Why does PAV work?To ascertain the utility of PAV as aprototype for other regions it is nec-essary to examine trends and factorsinfluencing those trends. Four majortrends in the Pontal do Paranapanemaregion permitted the PAV prototype:deforestation by "landless" farmersand large landowners; limited produc-tivity of the farmland; hunting andpoaching in forest fragments; and aland redistribution program that per-mits ownership of land along forestfragments (Table 2).

The historical trend towards de-forestation in the region stems froma culturally based dominion view ofland and resources. For much ofBrazil's history, forests have beenviewed as an obstacle for progressand development. In addition to theconversion of forest to pasture andagricultural land, the collection offuelwood from within forest frag-


ments also contributes to deforesta-tion in the region (Cullen et al. 2001).With limited income, many "landless"families depend on the forest to pro-vide a heat source as well as fodderfor livestock. As these activities con-tinue, the Atlantic Forest ecosystemwill eventually either be entirely con-verted to agricultural land or endemicplant species will be decimated, im-pacting the biodiversity for which theregion is known.

The majority of farmland in theregion was converted from forestedland through slash and burn agricul-ture (Tabarelli et al. 1999). While thisprovided substantial nutrients duringthe infancy of these ranches 50 yearsago, it has left a land with low nutri-ent levels (Cullen et al. 2001). Addi-tionally, "landless" farmers wereawarded thirty-five-acre farms dur-ing land redistribution. In order toprovide some level of subsistencecrops, farmers must utilize all thirty-five acres, with little crop rotation andother techniques that might provideincreased nutrient levels in the soil.Many of the farmers are also un-skilled or unfamiliar with methods toincrease productivity of the land(Cullen et al. 2001). As "landless"and other small farmers continue us-

ing improper agriculture techniques,degradation of the landscape will in-crease leading to an increase in pov-erty in the region.

The third trend making the Pontaldo Paranapanema region viable foran agroforestry prototype is huntingand poaching in the forest fragments.The "landless" community mainlyconducts this activity, but somelarge landowners condone it ontheir land. The need for supplemen-tal income and food sources are thegreatest conditions contributing tothis trend. As many small farmersare unable to provide for their fami-lies, they must rely on the wildlifefor additional nutrition. As the farmscontinue to decline in productivity,poaching will increase leading to lo-cal extinction of many of the largemammal species endemic to the At-lantic Forest. Since many of thesespecies are already critically endan-gered, these local extinctions may infact be global extinctions.

Land redistribution and owner-ship of small farms is the final trendproviding for the possibility of a PAVprogram. The Brazilian governmentis facing increasing pressure bothnationally and internationally to in-crease land redistribution programs.

Over the years, many areas like thePontal do Paranapanema region ofSão Paulo will benefit from these pro-grams. While these programs are amajor step forward in human andworker rights, they fail to address thepotential for environmental impact.The redistribution of land increaseshuman proximity to and encroach-ment into forest fragments.

Each of these trends will con-tinue to degrade the Atlantic Forestecosystem under current policies. Inmany Atlantic Forest regions, a pro-totype such as PAV does not exist toaddress these trends and the futureimpact they will cause. The mostrealistic alternative to the inadequateland redistribution program is a pro-totype similar to that used in thePontal do Paranapanema region. Byincluding the local community inecosystem conservation, many of theabove projections can be avoided oreven reversed. PAV encourages pro-tection and restoration of the forestrather than deforestation. By plant-ing important nutrient cycling specieson farms, productivity will increaseand subsistence agriculture may infact be able to sustain many families,while other families may make a liv-ing from cash crops. As productiv-

Table 2. Characteristics of a situation that lends itself to the use of a conservation project similar to Green Hug Project(Projeto Abraço Verde – PAV). Items in italics represent alternative outcomes associated with a community agroforestrysystem such as PAV.

What's Happening Why is it occurring? Likely future?

Deforestation Culturally–based, improper use of land; Destruction of the Atlantic Forest Ecosystem;Forest viewed as an obstacle; Protection and Restoration of Atlantic ForestTimber necessary for fuel fragments

Limited Productivity Overuse of 35 acre farms; Degradation of the landscape;of Soils Improper farming techniques Increase in poverty among "landless" farmers;

Increased soil nutrient levels

Hunting/Poaching Wildlife necessary to supplement Decline of wildlife populations;Pressure income and nutrition; Decline in hunting as a means to provide sufficient

Dependency on subsistence farming nutrition

Land Redistribution Strong pressure from "landless" Human encroachment into forest fragments;or Ownership movement; Protection and respect for forest fragments

Small farms with inexperienced farmers


ity increases, "landless" farmers willnot be forced to resort to poachingwildlife from the forest fragments.And finally, protection of the AtlanticForest will be a part of land ownership.

Given the controversial nature ofland redistribution programs, themost proactive approach to resolvingthe policy problem is not at the na-tional level, but rather the local level(Valladares-Padua, personal commu-nication). The more technical assis-tance and training organizations likeIPÉ can provide to newly landed com-munities, the greater the possibility fora reduction in harmful activities.

RecommendationsSeveral key concepts must be fol-lowed to successfully apply the PAVas a prototype in other regions fac-ing similar challenges: (1) Establishtrust before initiating the prototypingprocess to ensure positive communi-cation among all participants. (2)Understand the needs of participants— be contextual. (3) Keep it simple.Prototypes are meant to be dynamic(Clark et al. 1995), and a large, com-plex program cannot adapt to changesin participant needs or goals.

First, the issue of trust is an im-portant element to many policy prob-lems. Without trust, participants of-ten will be suspicious of other's ac-tions and may be apprehensive aboutcompletely participating in the deci-sion process. Prior environmentaleducation programs in the commu-nity and collaboration with largelandowners in ecological studies in-creased IP's visibility in the commu-nity and helped establish a high levelof trust. Involving potential partici-pants in less controversial activitiescan build trust and respect among allparties, especially when participants'well-being and wealth are affected(Brunner and Clark 1997).

Once trust has been established,the next step requires understandingparticipants' needs. Community

members will only continue to par-ticipate if a prototype meets theirgoals and addresses issues they believeare important. Once agroforestry wasselected as the backbone of the proto-type, further discussion was re-quired to understand which tech-niques would work best for thefarmers (Cullen et al. 2001). By lis-tening to the needs of the farmers, IPÊwas able to introduce agroforestry tech-niques that were straightforward,simple, and provided quick returns.Working with participants and address-ing their needs increases the likelihoodof their participation.

Third, keep the prototype simple.The success of the PAV prototype isin its simplicity and flexibility. Farm-ers' suggestions can be easily incor-porated into the system and new tech-niques are disseminated quicklythrough a Community Advocate pro-gram. By starting small, a prototypecan address problems as they de-velop. The PAV prototype startedwith 15 families and has grown toover 50. IPÊ incorporated all "land-less" families and large landownersinto the decision process, but selecteda single forest fragment for the ini-tial module. The project continuesto grow and more nurseries are be-ing built to accommodate more farmsand forest fragments.

ConclusionA land donation and redistribution pro-gram in the Pontal do Paranapanemaregion of Brazil provides formerly"landless" families with agriculturalplots and an opportunity to achieve self-sufficiency. What the program does notprovide, however, are the skills and as-sistance "landless" farmers need to beproductive and conserve remainingfragments of the biodiversity-rich At-lantic Forest of the Interior. Rather thanapproach the conservation problem ona national scale, IPÊ sought to developa localized "prototype," one that real-istically addresses community concerns

and protects these valuable forest frag-ments. The Projeto Abraço Verde hasbeen a dramatic success both sociallyand ecologically. "Landless" familiesnow have access to training and re-sources that increase productivity ontheir farms, but are also committed tousing the training and resources toprotect adjacent forest fragments(Cullen et al. 2001).

IPÊ was contextual when devel-oping the PAV. Understanding par-ticipant needs and addressing thoseneeds proved to be the most impor-tant element for the success. WhileIPÊ staff members were not familiarwith the "prototyping strategy", theynonetheless used it in their program,successfully constructing a problem-oriented "prototype" to address acomplex conservation problem.

AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank Claudio andSuzana Pádua for their assistance inputting together this analysis. Theirgenerosity and friendship have beena valuable resource. In addition, wewould also like to thank Mary Pearland Wildlife Trust for their generoussupport of IPÊ and PAV. The help ofYale colleagues Aspasia AlexandraDimiza and Quint Newcomer wasinvaluable. Additional thanks mustbe extended to Timothy Clark forexposing us to the Policy Sciencesand assisting in the evaluation of thePAV and the editing of this paper.Additional thanks must be extendedto Lindsey Adams for her editorialassistance and support.

Literature citedAnonymous. 2000. "Still chopping." The

Economist 355(8168):36 April 27, 2000.Brunner, R.D. and T.W. Clark. 1997. A prac-

tice-based approach to ecosystem manage-ment. Conservation Biology 11(1):48-58.

Clark, T.W. 2001. Interdisciplinary problemsolving in species and ecosystem conser-vation. Pp. 35-54 in T.W. Clark, M.Stevenson, K. Ziegelmayer, and M. Ruth-erford, eds. Species and Ecosystem Con-


California condor ( Gymnogyps californianus ) by David Clendenen, USFWS.

servation: An Interdisciplinary Approach,Bulletin #105. Yale University, School ofForestry and Environmental Studies. Bul-letin Series, New Haven, Connecticut.

Clark, T.W. 2002. The policy process: A prac-tical guide for natural resource profession-als. Yale University Press, New Haven,Connecticut.

Clark, T.W. and R.L. Wallace. 1998. Under-standing the human factor in endangeredspecies recovery: An introduction to humansocial process. Endangered Species UP-DATE 15:2-9.

Clark, T.W., G.N. Backhouse, and R.P. Read-ing. 1995. Prototyping in endangered spe-cies recovery programmes: The EasternBarred Bandicoot experience. Pp. 50-62 inA. Bennett, G. Backhouse, and T. Clark,eds. People and Nature Conservation: Per-

spectives on Private Land Use and Endan-gered Species Recovery. Transactions ofthe Royal Zoological Society of New SouthWales.

Cullen Jr., L., M. Schmink, C. Valladares-Pádua, and M.I.R. Morato. 2001.Agroforestry benefit zones: A tool for theconservation and management of Atlanticforest fragments, São Paulo, Brazil. Natu-ral Areas Journal 21(4):346-356.

Downie, A. 2001. Atlantic forest in more perilthan Amazon. Christian Science Monitor92(103):7 April 19, 2000.

Laswell, H.D. 1971. A pre-view to policy sci-ences. American Elsevier, New York.

Mark, J. 2001. Brazil's MST: Taking backthe land. Multinational Monitor 22(1/2):10.

Pádua, S. 2001. People of animals? On theEdge, Prospect Park, Pennsylvania. Au-

tumn, 2001:4-7.Tabarelli, M., W. Mantovani, and C. Peres.

1999. Effects of habitat fragmentation onplant guild structure in the montane Atlan-tic Forest of southeastern Brazil.

Biological Conservation. 91(2-3):119-127.Valladares-Padua, C. Personal communica-

tion. June 10, 2002Valladares-Padua, C., J.D. Ballou, C. Saddy

Martins, and L. Cullen Jr. 2002.Metapopulation management for the con-servation of black lion tamarins. In D.G.Kleiman and A.B Rylands, eds. The LionTamarins of Brazil. Smithsonian InstitutionPress, Washington, DC.

Veronese, A. 2001. Reconciliation between allBrazilians. http://www.mstbrazil.org/083101Veronese.html. August 31, 2001.


IntroductionIn the face of ecosystem degradationand poverty, communities in the cen-tral-southern Pacific coastal region ofCosta Rica have demonstrated theirability to organize and self-governthrough local committees, commis-sions, and associations (Rodríguez2000; Stroud pers. comm.; Fernándezet al. 2000). Nonetheless, many fac-tors contribute to a lack of coordi-nated, effective effort to address re-gional problems. Specifically, com-munities lack common principles andpractices for identifying problems,amassing knowledge, and translatingknowledge into action.

Corredor Biológico Paso de laDanta (CBPD), or Path of the Tapir,is a locally-run effort to establish for-est corridors along the Tinamastesand Costeña mountain ranges thatparallel the central Pacific coast ofCosta Rica. CBPD seeks to integrateconservation and socioeconomic de-velopment to capture social and eco-nomic benefits from the sustainablemanagement of the region's re-

Path of the Tapir:Integrating Biological Corridors, Ecosystem Management,and Socioeconomic Development in Costa RicaQuint NewcomerYale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 210 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT [email protected]

AbstractTo address crises of ecosystem degradation and poverty in the central-southern Pacific coastalregion of Costa Rica, communities must cooperatively define problems, goals, and strategies. ThePath of the Tapir Program is not only about sustainable development for this region, but also servesas a model for the regional Mesoamerican Biological Corridor Initiative. This paper explores thecase from a policy sciences perspective to reveal strengths and gaps in processes that might hinderprogram success. This case provides lessons that are useful in many settings within Mesoamericaby identifying shortcomings in decision making and methods to address them and illustrating howlocal leadership and involvement can help program managers identify diverse perspectives, values,and strategies of those who participate in or are directly affected by a selected program. In thisway, managers can learn to avert social conflict and, in some instances, leverage conflict for con-structive progress toward program goals.

sources. This paper analyzes the Pathof the Tapir Program. The followingsections present a contextual analy-sis of the program, analyze the his-tory of the central problems, and pro-vide alternatives for strengthening thelocal institutional and organizationalfoundations of the program.

What is the problem?The geographic area of CBPD isrich in cultural, biological, andhabitat diversity. However, allthree are threatened due to impedi-ments to decision making and poorcommunication and cooperationbetween key program participants.

Path of the Tapir spans roughly50 km in length, connecting LosSantos National Forest Reserve,Chirripó National Park, and LaAmistad Biosphere Reserve with amangrove estuarine system and a net-work of protected areas on the OsaPeninsula, including Corcovado Na-tional Park (see Figure 1). The el-evation ranges from sea level to 1100meters, with the 300- to 800-meter

zone identified as the priority area forforest conservation and establishingcorridors (Rodríguez 2000). The pro-gram area is principally located in thedry forest on the western slope of thecoastal range, with distinct wet (May–November) and dry (December–May) seasons, and annual rainfall ofabout 4000 millimeters. Twenty-ninerivers run through this landscape,some reaching up to 30 meters wide(Rodríguez 2000).

While some endangered species,including large mammals such as ta-pir (Tapirus bairdii) and anteater(Myrmecophaga tridactyla) no longerinhabit the region, other endangeredspecies such as margay (Leoparduswiedii), ocelot (Leopardus pardalis),jaguar (Panthera onca) and the treesquira (Caryodaphnopsis burgeri) —endemic to this region, alazán(Tachigali versicolor), ajo (Caryocarcostaricensis), carey (Elaeolumaglabrescens), mimillo (Minquartiaguianensis), and ojoche (Brosimumalicastrum) are still found in a fewforested areas within this region


Figure 1. The proposed Mesoamerican Biological Corridor, right (Miller et al. 2001), and the Path of the Tapir BiologicalCorridor in Costa Rica, left (Rodríguez 2000).

(Rodríguez 2000; Stroud pers.comm.). The program area hostsmany small mammal species, includ-ing 58 identified species of bats whichserve as important pollinators(Rodríguez 2000). More than 320bird species have been identified atHacienda Barú, a 336 hectare reservewithin CBPD boundaries (Stroudpers. comm.). Forty-one reptile spe-cies and 24 amphibian species wereidentified during a rapid assessmentconducted in early 2000 (Rodríguez2000). All of these species are directlyaffected by CBPD, although there arefew formal mechanisms to give themvoice in decision-making.

In addition to the terrestrial system,nearshore coral reefs, humpback whale(Megaptera novaeangliae) migrations,and Olive Ridley sea turtle(Lepidochelys olivacea) nesting

grounds are some of the area's mostprominent marine and coastal features.

Over the past century, naturalhabitat has been converted to agri-cultural uses throughout the region.This process has been stimulated bylocal and national settlement and de-velopment policies (Castro andMurillo 1997). Between 1960 and1990, an expanding cattle industrywas a major contributing factor to de-forestation (Rodríguez 2000). Cur-rently, industrial logging and the needfor fuelwood reduce forested areas,resulting in ecological degradation(Stroud pers. comm.). As a result ofthese trends many species have nowdisappeared from the region or arefound only in small, isolated pock-ets (Rodríguez 2000).

As a basis for economic devel-opment, The Nature Conservancy

(TNC) identified at least 40 tree spe-cies of commercial timber interest,along with 43 species of orchids, 31species of palms, 13 species ofheliconias, eight species of begonias,seven species of costaceas, and 20species of bromeliads (Rodríguez2000). The presence of diverse mam-mals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians,as well as large forested areas andsecure water sources, are importantfor ecologically-based tourism.

Path of the Tapir encompasses 28communities, focusing on conservingprivately-owned lands (Rodríguez2000). Because all properties withinthe proposed corridor area are pri-vately owned, outreach to and partici-pation from all the communities —including hundreds of individual land-owners and two dozen organizations —are necessary for the program to suc-


cessfully achieve its goals. The pro-gram must reconcile opposing percep-tions of resource management, devel-opment, and wildlife conservation.

Clark and Wallace (1998) out-lined methods for evaluating socialprocesses in wildlife conservationand related programs. For CBPD, the'social map' identifies (a) the majorand minor participants; (b) their ex-pectations and demands with respectto land management, economic de-velopment, and conservation; (c) thevalues that motivate their desires andactions; and (d) the situation in whichthe participants interact.

Path of the Tapir participants canbe grouped into three main in-coun-try clusters: community organiza-tions; government; and landowners.Community organizations are clus-tered into seven sub-groups: coopera-tives (local membership institutionsorganized around the production, col-lection, and distribution of agricul-tural products); foundations; women'sgroups; environmental groups; agri-cultural groups; community develop-ment associations; and the CBPD Co-ordinating Committee (Stroud pers.comm.; Rodríguez 2000). The gov-

ernment is represented by an ap-pointed local liaison between the pro-gram and the Ministry of Environ-ment and Energy (MINAE). Nationalministries and municipal governmentagencies have direct interests in andinfluence on the program. Finally,landowners fall into two subgroups:those landowners who participate inconservation management practicesand those who do not. A fourth gen-eral category, participant observers,includes the author and other outsideanalysts and scientists who study orevaluate the program.

Participants' perspectives oftendiffer, and thus their expectations anddemands on the program differ aswell. Tracking CBPD participants'perspectives is especially importantbecause the region's demographicsare currently undergoing rapid change(Stroud pers. comm.). Families whohave farmed in the region for genera-tions are selling their farms to for-eigners and migrating from the ruralcommunities to the more populatedtowns both within and outside theprogram area. These shifts in demo-graphics and land ownership will af-fect the program, as land-use patterns,

economic power, and views towardthe natural environment changewithin the region.

Also notable is the recent coor-dination between diverse communitygroups throughout the region to ad-dress the problem of declining fresh-water resources. This effort resultedin a broad-based, regionally sup-ported petition to MINAE and themunicipality to protect watersheds bysuspending new logging permits(Stroud pers. comm.). While at timesthe diverse groups within the commu-nities have cooperated well, this istypically only accomplished in re-sponse to crisis. More commonly,participants compete for power andcontrol of limited funds, yielding aprocess marked by little coordinationbetween organizations to identifycommon ground in perspectives, toplan cooperatively, or to negotiate andresolve conflicts in ways that furthercommon goals.

Social maps may be used to helpparticipants understand the broadersocial context within which they ex-ist so they can better consider alter-native positions to their own. "Bymaking use of the different values thatexist among people and societies, wecan protect a wider swath of nature— and more fully appreciatebiodiversity and the needs of humangenerations to come" (Perlman andWilson 2000:3). A successful projectwill be adaptable, considering the di-verse institutional cultures of partici-pant organizations as well as the di-verse social cultures of the region'sinhabitants. CBPD has the opportu-nity to draw participants in throughopen, participatory processes. Suc-cess depends on the participants'abilities to collectively identify andaddress problems.

Path of the Tapir's 13-year historycan be analyzed through the six-phasedecision process (Brewer and deLeon1983). This framework helps to iden-tify positive aspects and gaps in deci-Marine iguana ( Amblyrhynchus cristatus ) by Richard L. Wallace.


sion making which call for interven-tions. "Human decisions…determinewhether species and ecosystems willthrive or vanish. Focusing on improv-ing the human decision-making pro-cess is therefore key to achievingsustainability" (Clark et al. 2001:11).

In 1987, a small group of peoplewithin one community initiated a pro-cess to integrate economic develop-ment and ecosystem management byinvesting in social and natural capi-tal with a long-term outlook for theregion as a whole (Ewing 2000).Committee meetings and consulta-tions began between the San José-based Center for Environmental andNatural Resource Law(CEDARENA) and other key indi-viduals in the largest local town,Dominical. In these meetings, par-ticipants began to envision how toconnect agriculture, tourism, andhabitat protection and provide eco-nomic incentives for landowners toparticipate in CBPD (Stroud pers.comm.). In 1994, the Path of the Ta-pir program was created to coordinatethese efforts and to consider theregion's economic and conservationneeds (Rodríguez 2000). Since thattime, workshops, community meet-ings, and meetings with individuallandowners have been held in col-laboration with CEDARENA and theAssociation of Friends of Nature ofthe Central and South Pacific(ASANA) with the objective to shareinformation with landowners and dis-cuss how best to approach their eco-nomic and environmental concerns(Chacón pers. comm.).

Path of the Tapir is a local pro-gram being managed by local actors,although the program has receivedfinancial and technical support fromnational and international organiza-tions. The Costa Rican office of TheNature Conservancy was hired spe-cifically to conduct a rapid assess-ment for the program, and otherwisehas not been involved in CBPD. The

program has received funding supportfrom the United Nations' Global En-vironment Facility. "At times theimplementation has been very orga-nized and coordinated, though rarelyas an amalgam of all the groups"(Stroud pers. comm.). ASANA ad-ministers environmental educationprograms across the region. Land-owners act individually and in smallgroups, and there is little ongoingcoordination between communities inthe region. As a whole, efforts toimplement CBPD have been locally-administered, small-scale projects,which, with improved cooperationand communication, can serve as amodel of regional collaboration.

The Nature Conservancy assess-ment contributed critical informationfor both evaluation and clarificationof program strategy. In addition toidentifying the biological, hydrologi-cal, and geological characteristics ofthe zone, the assessment identifiedlocal organizations and their focus ofactivities, and assessed local percep-tions of conservation efforts withinthe zone (Rodríguez 2000). TNCsurveys assessed the willingness oflandowners to participate and reasonsfor participation and non-participa-tion in conservation and sustainableland management practices(Rodríguez 2000). The overridingfactor determining landowners' deci-sions to participate in CBPD is per-ceived economic benefit, while finan-cial restrictions (e.g., liens on prop-erties), titling discrepancies, and jointownership prohibited involvement insome cases.

It is not clear how individual pro-grams are being evaluated with re-spect to the overall Path of the Tapirprogram. Evaluation is critical formeasuring progress toward estab-lished goals and objectives. The or-ganizations or individuals that as-sume the responsibility for evaluationmust have the trust and respect of pro-gram participants for their evaluations

to bear legitimacy and not be viewedas politically motivated (Patton1997). Although the program is justbeginning, it is not clear how successwill be measured, who will be respon-sible for measuring it, and what willhappen once a corridor network is inplace. Termination does not signalan end, but rather the closure of onechapter and the opening of another.It is essential that this transition fromimplementing corridors to monitor-ing and maintaining them be plannedin a way that does not derail preced-ing initiatives. The lack of a transi-tion plan for this natural progressionin management objectives could ul-timately prohibit CBPD from reach-ing long-term goals of sustainability.

The strategy selected for CBPDis similar to the landscape-levelecoregion strategy of TNC. The ap-proach is decided first — in this casea network of forest corridors formedto connect two other protected areanetworks — followed by a survey ofthe biophysical and ecological char-acteristics of the region. Human in-fluences on the landscape are consid-ered in terms of impacts (e.g., roads,fence lines, field/forest boundaries)that isolate habitat fragments. It isonly in the final stages, once specificregions have been targeted for con-servation, when regional managersmeet with local landowners to assessstrategies for incorporating them intothe process (Toomey pers. comm.).Given the authoritative nature of thisstyle of decision process, CBPD man-agers must decide whether or not thisis an appropriate strategy in terms ofbuilding local trust and confidence inthe program. Without legitimate au-thority to do so, the imposition of aregional conservation plan on an areacharacterized by private land holdingsat the least will garner distrust withsome individual landowners, and atmost could stimulate regional back-lash against the program. Given thelow individual awareness of CBPD as


revealed in the rapid assessment, it isnot clear that CBPD has a clearly des-ignated authority (Rodríguez 2000).

Working land easements — legalland use restriction contracts that al-low for specified resource manage-ment prescriptions such as timberextraction — and land trusts are ex-amples of creative strategies for lo-cal consideration. One potentiallysuccessful program has been initiatedbetween ASANA and the WorldBank. In this scheme, landowners canreceive payments for environmentalservices (e.g., watershed mainte-nance) in exchange for developingand implementing a clearly specified,formal land management plan fortheir property. These agreements aresupported by legally-binding con-tracts. This model program is an ex-ample of how markets can be createdto bring direct economic benefits toindividual landowners in exchangefor the local, national, and global eco-system services they provide throughconservation stewardship of theirproperty. While initial results seempositive in terms of short-run partici-pation and increased land values as aresult of forest protection, the long-term benefits and stability of this pro-gram are uncertain.

Historical trends, conditioningfactors, and projected futureoutcomesOne way CBPD managers mightmeasure program success is to assesswhether or not it meets the followingbroad tests (Clark 2002): Is the pro-gram ecologically sound? Is it so-cially and politically feasible? And,is the program morally just? If not,interventions will be met with resis-tance, thus inhibiting the decisionprocess. Program leaders must worktogether with key participants to for-mulate legitimate decision-makingstrategies. Attention should be givento establishing criteria for evaluation,and should include mechanisms that

assign and enforce accountability.Feedback mechanisms built intoimplementation and evaluation plansfacilitate rapid and effective responseto bottlenecks. Few of these pro-cesses are evident in the overallCBPD program. While there aremany devoted and talented peopleworking on this program, there do notappear to be any well-conceived, com-prehensive, and coordinated strategiesamong participants to address the com-plex environmental and socio-eco-nomic problems of the region.

Instead, should current biophysi-cal, socioeconomic, and organiza-tional trends continue, there is poten-tial for increased social tensions dueto conflicting demands and expecta-tions among participants. It is likelythat continued independent actions,especially those that focus solely oneconomic growth (e.g., re-routing theInter-American Highway through thiszone, and the boom in commercialand residential development) or en-vironmental restoration and conser-vation (e.g., private reserves), willsoon lead to conflict between partici-pant groups. Projects driven by sec-tor-specific goals compete for fund-ing and force participants to take sidesin determining which projects arecarried out at the expense of otherinterests. At this juncture, the leadingorganizations in CBPD need to helpparticipants establish common goalsand develop cohesive, interdisciplinarystrategies to evaluate progress towardachieving those goals.

RecommendationsBased on its current status, there area number of possible directions theprogram can take. Maintaining in-sufficient cooperation and coordina-tion among participant groups willlead to weak institutional support forregional land management. A varia-tion on this approach targets solutionsthat focus on imported financial andtechnical resources (e.g., tourism de-

velopment and niche-market monoc-ulture plantations) such that indi-vidual projects and participants re-main isolated. A third alternative tar-gets investment in communicationskills and building organizational ca-pacity of key participants. With fo-rums for public participation and theskills to promote constructive dialog,local institutions will be better pre-pared to address the complexity ofthis program and to adapt, based onwhat is learned along the way. Thethird option offers the greatest ben-efit to the most people over the long-est period of time, and will contrib-ute the most in terms of building areplicable prototype for the region.

Unlike laboratory or highly con-trolled field experimentation,prototyping involves the systematicobservation of institutional practicesrather than a list of specific, measur-able variables, as a strategy to pre-test multiple policy options (Lasswell1971). Indicators that demonstratetrends and magnitudes are subordi-nated to qualitative and context-spe-cific observations, such as the partici-pants' perspectives and expectations,and do not readily support aggre-gated, normalized data analysis(Lasswell 1971). Prototypes are dif-ferent from pilot studies — they relyon creativity, strategic self-observa-tion, and adaptation based on insightsgained through the learning process(Clark et al. 1995).

One strategy to draw attention topolicy problems is to exploit crisissituations. The gap in institutional ca-pacity in the Path of the Tapir case iswidened by crisis situations involv-ing local infrastructure and poverty.Using crises as case studies, it is pos-sible to illustrate the local relation-ship between economics and environ-mental quality, and to develop new,creative solutions through measuresthat promote institutional coopera-tion. The process of sustainable de-velopment is stimulated by building


capacity within local organizations.For example, with support fromASANA, a local school runs a man-agement project for threatened seaturtles that addresses both conserva-tion and economic objectives. Stu-dents learn social and technical skillsthey can take to other projects.

There is an immediate need tobuild social capital (e.g., skill, knowl-edge, culture, and organization) in theregion. Training in social skills, suchas decision process analysis and con-flict resolution, is essential for creat-ing the context for making sound de-cisions. The National BiodiversityInstitute–INBio has successfullytrained local "parataxonomists" whoassist taxonomists in field collectionand identification of Costa Rica'sflora and fauna species (Allen 2001).Similarly, Global Environment Facil-ity and other institutional investorsshould train "parasociologists" to sup-port the management of local organi-zations and facilitate the decision-making process within CBPD. In-vestment in building the skills to ex-plore and document previously unad-dressed social structures reflects aprocess-oriented approach toward ad-dressing complex, dynamic prob-lems. Participants could design per-formance indicators to measure howthis approach enhances skill, wealth,power, respect, well-being, and en-lightenment in the overall system(Dobyns et al. 1971).

There is also urgent need for im-proving the regional infrastructure.This would bring development asso-ciations and municipal public worksdepartments into the process to de-sign bridges, roads, electrificationprojects, and new transportation net-works in a way that meets the statedprogram goal of creating humansettlements in harmony with nature(Ewing 2000). Interdisciplinary plan-ning and an in-depth prior understand-ing of the perspectives of all partici-pant groups will make significant con-

tributionstoward thisg o a l .E v a l u a -tions com-prised of acollectionof disci-p l i n a r yana lysestypical lyfail to inte-grate theknowledgethey gener-ate into acontextu-ally appro-priate ap-proach toidentifyingroot problems and strategies to addressthese issues. "By addressing the bio-logical and social science aspects of therecovery challenge separately (i.e. amulti-disciplinary approach), practitio-ners risk devising fragmented, possi-bly contradictory solutions" (Clark etal. 1999:101).

Professionally-led decision semi-nars and workshops that address com-munication and negotiation skills arepossible forums to bring together re-gional planners and program leaders.Decision seminars build a corenucleus of people that work togetherover a number of years to explore thetheoretical and practical processes ofdecision making (Lasswell 1971).Working groups can emerge from theseminar to focus on specific problems(Lasswell 1971). Traditionally, de-cision seminars are a formal academicprocess carried out in higher univer-sity, corporate, or government set-tings (Lasswell 1971), yet this con-cept could be strategically adapted toconform to the socio-cultural contextof this region. Gathering leaders fromthe multiple institutions throughoutthe program area, this exercise wouldimprove communication and decision

making among local organizations,build trust and community, and isconsistent with the spirit of educationthat Costa Ricans embrace in theirculture. As Dobyns et al. (1971) dem-onstrated, prototyping includes measur-ing how an interdisciplinary planningapproach enhances skill, wealth, power,respect, well-being, rectitude, and en-lightenment in the overall system.

"Policy-oriented learning occursas participants in the policy processpay attention to feedback from theirown actions so that they will eventu-ally be successful in reaching theirgoals" (Primm and Clark 1996:1042).This requires effective evaluationprocedures, willingness for self-re-flection, and management styles thatencourage creativity and flexibility.Success in regional efforts to manageprivate lands for both biological con-servation and socioeconomic pur-poses will depend on building lead-ership capacity, mutual respect andtrust among participants, and a com-monly accepted problem definition.

Investing in organizational ca-pacity and improving the relation-ships and coordination between par-ticipants in CBPD has several ben-

Hood mockingbird ( Nesomimus macdonaldi ) by Richard L.Wallace.


efits. First, this approach seeks to in-corporate all points of view and facili-tate constructive dialog, building trustand respect among participants. Sec-ond, this is a logical first step in theprocess of building local decision-mak-ing and management skills needed todevelop and maintain long-term re-gional coordination. And third, im-proving communication skills helpsparticipants identify creative opportu-nities where partnership is the most ef-fective way to meet their own interests.

ConclusionsThe goal of this analysis is to assistCBPD participants in understandingthe processes of problem orientation,social context mapping, and decisionmaking. The case study has revealedthat the major barriers to successfulimplementation of the program haveto do with policy problems and thedecision-making process.

Ecological rehabilitation of de-graded lands and the sustainable man-agement of the region's natural re-sources are key components of theeconomic and social well-being ofthis region. However, implementinga successful project in this complexsocial setting requires more than sim-ply providing a multi-disciplinarymanagement plan.

Path of the Tapir has the poten-tial to demonstrate what early invest-ment in building social capital —negotiation and communication skillsand organizational capacity — canachieve in terms of developing a suc-cessful prototype. In documentinghow these investments improve de-cision making and ultimately affectprogram success, the prototype be-comes a useful mechanism to trans-fer lessons across contexts (Dobynset al. 1971). Investment that enhanceslocal social capital rests at the heartof an integrated approach to conser-vation — this approach gives rise tothe legitimacy needed to develop andimplement a management plan. By

focusing on alternatives that are eco-logically sound, socially and politi-cally feasible, and morally just, inves-tors and program leaders have a muchgreater likelihood for successfullyattaining both development and con-servation goals (Brechin et al. 2002).

We desire a system in which or-ganizations are working together to-ward common goals and addressingcommonly perceived problems. Inthis system, individual organizationshave the capacity to look clearly atproblems and evaluate their actionsin a larger context. Feedback mecha-nisms and well-defined performanceindicators provide constructive infor-mation and are designed into the man-agement system. An integrated, adap-tive strategy will help CBPD succeedin securing habitat for endangeredspecies and protecting water re-sources within the context of a sus-tainable socioeconomic system.

To serve as a prototype for theMesoamerican Biological CorridorInitiative, the social context and de-cision-making processes withinCBPD must be examined and de-scribed in a way that provides gen-eral lessons for other regions (Clark1999). For example, lessons learnedabout how to implement and evalu-ate the program can be applied notonly to other corridor projects involv-ing private landowners, but also tocases involving national parks ormarine sanctuaries. The comprehen-siveness and interdisciplinary natureof the policy sciences framework al-lows us to move across scales andcontext in a holistic approach to natu-ral resource management.

AcknowledgementsSteve Stroud, in San José–Dominical,introduced me to CBPD, and has pro-vided rapid and insightful responsesto my questions, facilitation of con-tacts with CBPD, and multiple re-views of this manuscript. MarioFernández generously shared his field

research and survey database from theTNC rapid assessment. ProfessorsTim Clark and Garry Brewer havementored me in understanding andapplying the policy sciences frame-work, and provided critical reviewsof manuscript drafts. My advisor,Professor Bill Burch, has given metireless encouragement to pursue thiswork. Finally, I am grateful to Rich-ard Reading and Richard Wallace fortheir editing skill and patience in thedevelopment of this manuscript.

Literature citedAllen, W. 2001. Green Phoenix: Restoring the

tropical forests of Guanacaste, Costa Rica.Oxford University Press, Inc., New York,New York.

Brechin, S.R., P.R. Wilshusen C.L.Fortwangler, and P.C. West. 2002. Beyondthe square wheel: Toward a more compre-hensive understanding of biodiversity con-servation as social and political process.Society and Natural Resources 15:41-65.

Brewer, G.D. and P. deLeon. 1983. Founda-tions of policy analysis. Dorsey Press,Homewood, Illinois.

Castro Salazar, R. and G. Arias Murillo. 1997.Costa Rica: Hacia la sostenibilidad de susrecursos naturales. Ministerio de Ambientey Energía, San José, Costa Rica.

Chacón, C.M. Personal interviews. New Ha-ven, Connecticut. 18-19 April 2002.

Clark, T.W., G.N. Backhouse, and R.P. Read-ing. 1995. Prototyping in endangered spe-cies recovery programmes: the EasternBarred Bandicoot experience. Pp. 50-62 inA. Bennett, G. Backhouse, and T. Clark,eds. People and nature conservation: Per-spectives on private land use and endan-gered species recovery. Transactions of theRoyal Zoological Society of New SouthWales, Australia.


Clark, T.W. 1999. Interdisciplinaryproblemsolving: Next steps in the GreaterYellowstone Gcosystem. Policy Sciences32:393-414.

Clark, T.W., R.P. Reading, and R.L. Wallace.1999. Research in endangered species con-servation: An introduction to multiplemethods. Endangered Species UPDATE16(5):96-102.

Clark, T.W., N. Mazur, S.J. Cork, S. Dovers,and R. Harding. 2000. Koala conservation


policy process: Appraisal and recommen-dations. Conservation Biology 14(3):681-690.

Clark, T.W., M. Stevenson, K. Ziegelmayer,M. Rutherford. 2001. Introduction: Lead-ership in species and ecosystem conserva-tion. Pp. 9-15 in T.W. Clark, M. Stevenson,K. Ziegelmayer and M. Rutherford, eds.Species and ecosystem conservation: Aninterdisciplinary approach. Bulletin series#105. Yale University Press, New Haven,Connecticut.

Clark, T.W. 2002. The policy process. YaleUniversity Press, New Haven, Connecticut.

Dobyns, H.F., P.L. Doughty, and H.D.Lasswell, eds. 1971. Peasants, power, andapplied social change: Vicos as a model.Sage Publications, Inc., Beverly Hills, Cali-fornia.

Ewing, J. May 2000. Speech to ASANA mem-bership. Dominical, Costa Rica. InRodríguez, ed., Corredor Biológico Pasode la Danta. The Nature Conservancy, SanJosé, Costa Rica.

Fernández Arias, M.E. and H.M. BonillaQuesada. 2000. Estudio para laconformación y consolidación del corredorbiológico "el Paso de la Danta" PacíficoCentral y Sur, Costa Rica: Aspectossocioeconómicos. In Rodríguez, ed.,Corredor Biológico Paso de la Danta. TheNature Conservancy, San José, Costa Rica.

Lasswell, H.D. 1971. A pre-view of policysciences. American Elsevier Press, NewYork, New York.

Miller, K., E. Chang, and N. Johnson. 2001.Defining common ground for theMesoamerican Biological Corridor. WorldResources Institute, Washington, DC.

Perlman, D. and E.O. Wilson. 2000. Conserv-ing earth's biodiversity: An interactivelearning experience for studying conserva-tion biology and environmental science.Values in Conservation section. Interac-tive compact disc published by Island Press,Washington, DC.

Primm, S.A. and T.W. Clark. 1996. Makingsense of the policy process for carnivore

conservation. Conservation Biology10(4):1036-1045.

Patton, M.Q. 1997. Utilization-focused evalu-ation. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks,California.

Rodríguez, K., ed. 2000. Corredor BiológicoPaso de la Danta. Rapid ecological assess-ment prepared for la Asociación de Amigosde la Naturaleza del Pacífico Central ySur—ASANA by The Nature Conservancy,San José, Costa Rica.

Stroud, S. "edits" [e-mail to Q. Newcomer].28 February 2002. <[email protected]>.

Stroud, S. "Re: appreciate your edits" [e-mailto Q. Newcomer]. 18 December 2001.<[email protected]>.

Stroud, S. "Re: saludos" [e-mail to Q. Newcomer].30 July 2001. <[email protected]>.

Toomey, B. 2002. "Conservation by design."Presentation to Strategies for Land Conser-vation seminar course, Yale School of For-estry and Environmental Studies, NewHaven, Connecticut. 23 January 2002.

California sea otter ( Enhydra lutris ) by Mike Boylan, USFWS.


IntroductionSome people believe that the Tas-manian t iger, or thylacine(Thylacinus cynocephalus), stillexists in the wilds of Tasmania(Figure 1). Finding surviving thy-lacines would focus internationalattention on this magnificent ani-mal. It would be viewed as our lastchance to restore a unique memberof Australia's and the world's natu-ral heritage. Resources likelywould be unlimited. Unfortunately,evidence suggests that the speciesis extinct both on mainland Austra-lia and in Tasmania. Conservationdid not come to the aid of this fas-cinating animal when it was mostneeded, decades ago.

If the thylacine did exist andwas discovered, what should hap-

If the Tasmanian Tiger Were Found, What Should We Do?An Interdisciplinary Guide to Endangered Species RecoveryTim W. ClarkYale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 301 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511 and NorthernRockies Conservation Cooperative, Box 2705, Jackson, WY [email protected]



Barbara A. WilsonDeakin University, Geelong, Australia, V1C [email protected]

AbstractThe Tasmanian tiger, or thylacine (Thylacinus cynocephalus), is a wolf-like carnivorous marsupiallast reported in the 1930s in Tasmania, an island state of Australia. Although the species is likelyextinct, sightings are reported annually. A fictional scenario is described in which a female thyla-cine with four pouched young is captured. This scenario is explored and an interdisciplinary ap-proach to endangered species recovery is introduced. This approach is applicable to all endan-gered species recovery efforts and focuses on the principal dimensions of recovery: (1) orienting tothe problem at hand and meeting it successfully; (2) understanding the recovery effort itself, its fullcontext, and the required management (decision) process; (3) using a broad range of methods; and(4) integrating research results into a comprehensive recovery process (picture of the whole). Byusing this interdisciplinary approach, recovery can be systematically understood, best managed,and restoration prospects enhanced.

pen? Are we equipped to deal withsuch an important conservationchallenge? What actions will weneed to undertake to recover it? Weknow that endangered species re-covery is always complex, risky,and a difficult task. The thylacineconservation scenario we presentbelow clearly demonstrates this.The problem of recovering an en-dangered species can be guided us-ing biological science, but morethan biological science is requiredin species recovery. Informationfrom other disciplines is necessary.People must be organized, knowl-edge and skill need to be mobilizedand integrated, and an adequatedecision process is required. Thechallenge becomes one of integrat-ing diverse perspectives, knowl-

edge, skills, and actions all focusedon the species' recovery in a timely,reliable way. Clearly an interdis-ciplinary approach is needed (seeClark 1997, 2002). Exploring thethylacine scenario illustrates howan interdisciplinary approach couldaid all recovery efforts.

This paper describes a fictionalscenario wherein a live thylacine iscaptured. We explore an interdis-ciplinary approach to endangeredspecies recovery applicable to thiscase and others. This approach isgeneralized and draws on systemsthinking and the policy sciences.We provide a brief overview of theapproach, identify relevant litera-ture, and examine part of the ap-proach (i.e. the "intelligence" func-tion) in the limited space available.


Rediscovery of the thylacineA scenarioJack O'Halloran, a Tasmanian farmerfrom Black Creek, calls the localDepartment of Parks, Lands & Wild-life in Launceston. "Charlie I've gota problem 'ere, sumthins turned upyouse might be interested in. She'sin the back shed — chook featherseverywhere." Charlie asks Jack todescribe the animal, as well as itscondition and behavior. "Size of alarge dog, sandy colour, but with themstripes down the back — that waswhat struck me" replied Jack. He alsodescribes the animal resting quietlyin the shed, under a table. The chick-ens were still excited. "Reckon it mayhave chased a chook in from the yardlast night, was probably after sometucker, it's been pretty damn cold outhere this summer. The shed door wasclosed, but I locked it after I peakedin. Pretty shook up I was — had acuppa though, before I went tocheck again through the shed win-dow and rang you," Jack said."That certainly does sound worthinvestigating, hold tight I'll be theresoon," Charlie tells Jack.

Charlie calls his assistant wild-life officer, Bob, down the hallway.He begins to relate the story, at thesame time phoning his boss, the Di-rector of Wildlife in Hobart, to alerthim to the possibility of finding a livethylacine. Charlie says that they willcall back, after a site visit to Jack's.Charlie and Bob then drive along thewindy open forest road to BlackCreek. Black Creek is 20 km west ofDeloraine and 65 km west-southwestof Launceston. The area is knownmainly for its wool production, andthe landscape is dotted with flocks ofsheep and lambs. Densely forestedmountainous tracts surround Jack'sproperty. A national park, BlackMountain, and an escarpment, theGreat Western, lie south and south-west of the farming area. Jack meetsthe two officers at the gate and di-

rects them toward the back of thehouse. They quietly approach theshed and observe the animal sleep-ing under the table. It is a thylacine!

They immediately call the Direc-tor, to inform him of events. He thencalls the Minister as well as the Fed-eral Endangered Species Unit andFederal Minister for Environment. Ateleconference is arranged for thatevening to decide what to do. Deci-sions must be made. Should the ani-mal be turned loose immediately orshould it be held in captivity? Manymore questions need to be posed andanswers rendered. All decisions mustbe based on reliable information andgood judgment.

ThylacinesBefore we consider recovery efforts,what do we know about the thyla-cine? The thylacine, also known asthe Tasmanian wolf or tiger, is possi-bly one of the most widely known ofthe Australian mammals although ithas not been captured for over 70years (Dixon 1989). It is a large car-nivorous marsupial and single mem-ber of the family Thylacinidae. It issandy colored and has 15 to 20 dis-tinct dark stripes that transverse itsback, the number of bands varyingbetween individuals. The color pat-

tern may assist in camouflage. Thethylacine has a large head that appearslike that of a dog with long and pow-erful jaws. The tail of the thylacineis long and stiff, but unlike that of adog it cannot be wagged laterally.The legs of the thylacine are relativelyshort. Because it is a marsupial, thefemale gives birth to small, undevel-oped young that continue their devel-opment in her pouch.

The thylacine has a sad history,which is intimately linked with theway Australia was settled (Guiler1985). This history reveals muchabout settlers' attitudes towards theland and its flora and fauna. TheDutch explorer Abel Tasman reportedin 1642 that one of his crew had foundfootprints similar to the claws of a ti-ger on the shores of Van Diemen'sLand (Tasmania). The first accountof the animal from Tasmania was inthe 1805 Sydney Gazette and NewSouth Wales Advertiser and reportedevidence of "an animal of a truly sin-gular and novel description" and "cer-tainly the only powerful and terrificof the carnivorous and voracious tribeyet discovered on any part of NewHolland (Australia) or its adjacentislands." (see Dixon 1989).

The first scientific description ofthe thylacine was to the Linnean So-

Figure 1. Thylacine (South Australian Museum, Adelaide).


ciety of London (Harris 1808). In1803, sheep were introduced to thefertile midlands of Tasmania by set-tlers. The area also provided habitatfor thylacines, and most sheep losseswere attributed to the thylacine, al-though wild dogs may also havecaused losses (Guiler 1985). In 1830the Van Dieman's Land Company in-troduced a bounty on the thylacine.Government bounties in place be-tween 1888 and 1909 resulted in2,184 payments (Guiler 1985; Dixon1989). The last thylacine killed in thewild was in 1930, and the last knownanimal died in the London Zoo in1931 (Dixon 1989). By 1936, thespecies was added to the Tasmanianlist of protected animals. Over 70years later no further specimens havebeen collected, but scores of sightingshave been reported.

Thylacine recoveryThe thylacine recovery effort facesmany challenges. A number of criti-cal decisions need to be made, somequickly. Because so many thingsneed to be considered and addressed,the challenge is truly an interdiscipli-nary one. Because of this, all partiesinvolved need to ensure that the de-cision process they set up to addressthylacine recovery is of the highestquality — timely, reliable, compre-hensive, trustworthy, and effective,among other things. In all likelihood,the thylacine will only be restoredthrough a decision process that bringsmany people together and integratestheir knowledge and skills. How thedecision process is organized andmanaged will mean the differencebetween saving the thylacine or itsloss forever!

Interdisciplinary approachWhat is an interdisciplinary approachand how does one set up an appropri-ate decision process directed at solv-ing the problem posed by the thyla-cine discovery? Both the decision

process and the problem itself arehuman constructs — that is, they areboth a concern and product of peopleinteracting. Thus, recovering the thy-lacine is really about people as muchif not more than it is about thylacines.As a result, the human social processor context of the thylacine conserva-tion problem must be understood andaddressed simultaneously with ad-dressing the core conservation biol-ogy problem and setting up an effec-tive decision process.

Fortunately, for our thylacineconservationists all these concernshave been dealt with many times byother conservationists in many otherendangered species cases (e.g., Clark1996a, 1997; Reading and Miller2000). In fact, we now have so muchexperience in trying to save speciesthat practical interdisciplinary guide-lines about how to set up and carryout a successful recovery programhave been developed and are begin-ning to be used. The principal dimen-sions of this interdisciplinary ap-proach with respect to species con-servation have been described in ar-ticles published in the EndangeredSpecies UPDATE (Figure 2). Thesearticles cover introductions to (1) thebenefits of an interdisciplinary ap-proach (Clark et al. 1992); (2) set-ting up decision processes (Clark andBrunner 1996); (3) understanding thesocial process or context of a case(Clark and Wallace 1998); (4) meth-ods of focusing on core problems(Wallace and Clark 1999); (5) mul-tiple methods (Clark et al. 1999); (6)understanding people's standpoints(Clark and Wallace 1999); and (7)learning about how to learn to bemore successful (Clark 1996b). Sev-eral of these papers offer checklistsand sets of questions for the thyla-cine conservationists to use. Thesepapers, all reprinted in this specialissue of Endangered Species UP-DATE, can be consulted to develop amore complete understanding of this

approach and thus we will not repeatthem here in detail.

The interdisciplinary approachdraws on systems thinking and thepolicy sciences (Lasswell 1971). In-terdisciplinary approaches differ fun-damentally from multi-disciplinaryapproaches, although many peopleuse the terms interchangeably. Inter-disciplinary approaches systemati-cally integrate information from dif-ferent disciplines into a unified ap-proach, ideally that integration occursbefore and during data collection(Clark et al. 1999). Alternatively,multi-disciplinary approaches rely oninformation from several disciplines,but that information is usually col-lected, evaluated, and used indepen-dently to make recommendations.The lack of integration can lead torecommendations from different dis-ciplines that are incompatible or con-tradictory. For example, when a bi-ologist and a social scientist madeindependent recommendations forcore area delineations within a newlycreated national park that includedindigenous people in Mongolia, therewas almost no overlap between theirrecommendations (R. Reading,unpubl. data).

An interdisciplinary approachsees recovery as a type of problemwith systems-like features (i.e. prob-lem orientation, social process, anddecision process) that must be suc-cessfully addressed (Figure 2). First,at the heart of endangered speciesconservation is a perceived problemthat must be solved — in our case,recovering thylacines. The problemcan be best appreciated by carryingout five interrelated tasks that makeup rational problem solving (Wallaceand Clark 1999). Second, because theproblem is a concern for people whointeract in a social process, this pro-cess represents the context of the con-servation problem to be solved (Clarkand Wallace 1998). Third, the peoplefocusing on the thylacine conserva-


tion problem must work through adecision process that hopefully willend with species recovery (Clark andBrunner 1996). These three dimen-sions of saving the thylacine corre-spond to problem orientation, socialprocess, and decision process (Figure2). These dimensions describe thebasic features associated with the in-terdisciplinary approach we recom-mend. Proponents of this approach,who are often systems builders, havedeveloped a comprehensive frame-work for inquiry that embraces acomplex set of terms, concepts, maps,values, institutions, function, process,and intellectual skills that are part andparcel of the whole system (Chen1989). This system is imminently prac-tical, but rarely employed in species andecosystem conservation to date.

The interdisciplinary approachwe present here is a different way tothink about species recovery for mostpractitioners. There are many waysto conceive of species recovery. Themost common approach is a conven-tional one that draws on biology, andits paradigms, models, and methods(experimental, predictive science).This approach typically assumes thatthe conservation challenge is largelyor solely a biological problem, thusbiologists are brought in to addressit. The biological disciplines obvi-ously have much to contribute, butrecovery faces far more than simplybiological challenges. For example,biologists may not be skilled in set-ting up or participating in a decisionprocess (e.g., organizational or lead-ership skills — see Clark andWallace's paper on values, this vol-ume). Nor will they necessarily beable to systematically map and com-prehend the full context of the con-servation challenge. They may belimited in the kinds of methods theyknow and have little experience withintegrative, interdisciplinary meth-ods. This situation typically existsamong the government bureaucracies

that dominate species recovery pro-grams. As such, most recovery pro-grams employ conventional ap-proaches based on the biological sci-ences, despite their many limitationsand difficulties. These conventionalapproaches often exacerbate the inad-equacies of trying to solve complex,multi-faceted problems with narrow orlimited knowledge and skills.

The thylacine scenarioAn examination of the thylacine sce-nario using the interdisciplinary ap-proach permits us to begin seeingspecies recovery as involving taskssuch as problem orientation and so-cial and decision processes (Figure 2).In species recovery, these dimensionsare intertwined in complex ways andthey must be understood and man-aged successfully. Because the intel-ligence function — the gathering,processing, and dissemination of in-formation — is such a vital activityin the thylacine decision process, ourdiscussion focuses on it.

Social processBecause thylacine recovery is a hu-man undertaking, knowledge of thesocial process is vital. Initially, somepeople, groups, and institutions willbe involved in a rapidly organizingdecision process. Other participantswill become involved later. Partici-pants in and people and groups af-fected by the process are often re-ferred to as stakeholders, or keystakeholders. Participants are in-volved for different reasons; somewill be included because of their au-thority and control responsibilities(e.g., state and federal governments).The Tasmanian Government wouldhave a major role in organizing thesocial and decision processes. Per-haps an analogy can best illustratewhat is involved. The thylacine is likea critically ill patient in a hospital, theTasmanian Government is the hospi-tal administrator looking after the

patient. The administrator will needto coordinate specialist doctors whocan contribute to the patient's medi-cal well-being and eventual recovery.As time goes on, other specialists andgeneralists would become involvedbecause of their knowledge, skills,and other resources (e.g., national andinternational scientific and conserva-tion communities). NGOs such asWorld Wide Fund For Nature, Aus-tralian Conservation Society, the In-ternational Union for Conservation ofNature may offer resources, financial,technical, and educational aid. Theseparticipants will have different per-spectives, values, strategies, and seekdifferent outcomes. This must beunderstood, "mapped" (i.e. informa-tion and interrelationships organizedand outlined), and managed openlyand fairly if the decision process is towork well.

The public would also play a partin the conservation effort. Assistancefrom the public would be needed tofind more thylacines. Outreach andpublicity in the local area and beyondwould be important for the public tounderstand the thylacine, its habits,what the recovery effort is aiming toachieve and how, and the significanceof the effort. As time goes on, the so-cial and decision processes becomemore complex. A wider network ofpeople and organizations come to playimportant roles in the recovery process.

Decision processA key initial step in the overall deci-sion process is a well-organized in-telligence activity that helps clarifythe problem and its context (Figure2). Intelligence is the first phase inthe decision process, but it shouldremain ongoing over the life of therecovery effort. Much informationmust be gathered and organized fromexisting sources and new intelligencemust be obtained. All of this infor-mation must be integrated and dis-seminated as a basis for debate (pro-


motion), decisions (prescriptions),and subsequent activities (invocation,application, appraisal, termination).These seven functions comprise a com-plete decision process. All decisionfunctions will need to be carried outwell if the thylacine is to be recovered.

The participants in thylacine re-covery should make decisions basedon available intelligence and a shortbut thorough debate about the prob-lem and options for addressing it.They should make every effort to re-main problem oriented.

In this case, let's assume theydecide (prescription) to hold the thy-lacine temporarily in captivity at theHobart Zoo. Plans are made to cap-ture the animal that evening andhouse it in a quiet, off-exhibit accom-modation. Keepers and vets from thezoo assist in the capture and transferof the animal (invocation and appli-cation activities). The animal is ex-amined (intelligence) and much toeveryone's surprise is found to be fe-male with four small pouch-young!It is likely that there are a few otherthylacines in the wild, and a search

plan must be developed. The possi-bility of setting up a captive breed-ing program is now a real option.Tasmanian biologists, familiar withthe Black Creek area, based onknowledge of ecological systems inthe region, predict that the wild popu-lation would consist of only a fewanimals, at best (intelligence). Toensure a well-functioning program,the rapidly forming recovery teamalso attends to social science consid-erations. For example, they evaluatelikely attitudes of the local public to-ward thylacines and begin collectingadditional data (intelligence). Theyalso assess the ability of the growingnumber of participants to work welltogether (intelligence). Based on theavailable information, they decide todevelop a public relations programand a special working group for thy-lacine recovery (prescription). Theworking group is formed that includesparticipants with diverse skills and theability to work together in a team (in-vocation), and they rapidly beginworking on the recovery problem (ap-plication). Participants take stock of

how well they are orienting to the re-covery problem and the rapidlyemerging social and decision pro-cesses and conclude they are doingwell (appraisal).

Many aspects of a growing andself-organizing decision process re-quire attention, especially intelligenceactivities. As the social and decisionprocesses become more active andcomplex, and as technical, social, anddecision issues become more press-ing, it is vital to attend to each of thesediverse matters. There will be manybiological, technical issues needingattention, but there will also be manysocial and decision process issues thatare equally or even more important.The tendency of many officials andadministrators is to simply rely upontheir own bureaucracy to address theseissues. Hard won experience in spe-cies recovery shows that this traditionalbureaucratic approach can be disastrous(see Clark et al. 1994; Miller et al. 1996;Reading and Miller 2000).

Problem orientationOrienting to the thylacine problem

Figure 2. Illustration of the interdisciplinary problem solving approach introduced in this paper.


requires that conservationists focuson all of the tasks associated withproblem solving (Wallace and Clark1999). To carry out sound integratedresearch, management, and policyand to avoid a "solution oriented"approach (wherein practitioners rap-idly jump to solutions before fullyunderstanding a problem), HaroldLasswell (1971) proposed a strategyfor problem solving that consists offive tasks: (1) clarifying goals; (2)describing trends; (3) analyzing con-ditions; (4) projecting developments;and (5) inventing, evaluating, and se-lecting alternatives (Figure 2). We rec-ommend using this approach in endan-gered species conservation, although itis applicable to any kind of problemsolving, conservation or otherwise.

Much information already existsabout thylacines, but more is needed,and quickly. From a biological per-spective, a number of questions needanswering quickly. The followingquestions, although not comprehen-sive, help thylacine conservationistsorient to the biological aspects of theproblem. These questions are abouttrends, conditions, and projections,and also a tentative look at alterna-tives. First, what do we know of thy-lacines: their life span, age of repro-duction, number of offspring, matingpattern, care of offspring? Second,how would one go about caring forthese unique animals in captivity?Third, what do we know of their be-havior? Fourth, even though life his-tory information is essential to suc-cessfully managing a species, it pro-vides only a partial understanding ofchanges in a population's numbersand density. Fifth, because there areso few thylacine individuals in ourscenario, we would need to know thegenetic relationship of individuals toguide genetic management of captiveand wild populations. Sixth, howwould one find other thylacines in thewild? Seventh, if more animals weredetected, should they be captured or

left in the wild? The objective of acaptive breeding program would beto restore populations to self-sustain-ing viable levels in the wild. Howwould we go about reintroducing cap-tive-bred animals into the wild?

To this point, we have empha-sized biological intelligence activi-ties; however, information in manyother areas is also necessary. A num-ber of non-biological factors also af-fect thylacine recovery efforts. Intel-ligence on the social and decisionprocesses can help focus problem ori-entation, for example. Such intelli-gence consists of information on thevalues and attitudes of the variousstakeholders, method of organizingfor recovery, power and authority re-lationships, economic considerations,pertinent legislation, and more. Inaddition, recovery programs are sub-jected to uncertainty, because, as wehave seen for the thylacine, often verylittle is known about the biology ofendangered species, so researchersmay make errors of estimation andjudgment. Such programs are com-plex because of the many individualsand organizations involved, all witha sense of urgency to succeed beforeextinction of the species. These con-siderations argue for adaptive man-agement approaches to recovery thatare experimental and permit rapidchanges in approaches based on newinformation and frequent evaluation(Holling 1995). To enhance chancesfor success, the recovery processshould remain interdisciplinary, withall aspects of the challenge, includ-ing social and decision processes, in-vestigated and incorporated in adap-tive approaches to decision-makingand action.

Most of the considerations andwork we have outlined in each ofthese areas (i.e. social process, deci-sion process, and problem orienta-tion) fall well outside of the biologi-cal disciplines in which most practi-tioners are trained. To improve our

chances for successful thylacine re-covery we therefore should be enlist-ing the support of social scientists andothers with practical expertise in theseareas. We should also be training fu-ture practitioners in endangered spe-cies recovery in these areas.

ConclusionsOur scenario of discovering a livingthylacine has illustrated the complex-ity that typifies endangered speciesrecovery efforts. We have only justtouched upon some of the aspects in-volved. The scenario has introducedus to the contributions that moderninterdisciplinary approaches, wellfounded in the policy sciences, canmake to solve endangered speciesproblems. Other papers in this vol-ume explore these theories and con-cepts we briefly introduce here inmore detail. All conservation prob-lems involve social and decision pro-cesses, as well as problem definition;even though most practitioners prob-ably do not recognize them as such.A significantly improved understand-ing each of these aspects of a prob-lem therefore offers the promise ofincreased success rates in the future.

We based our scenario on an ex-traordinary animal, the thylacine.Because of its unusual and uniquestatus in the animal world, people caneasily identify with its plight andwould likely mobilize rapidly for itsrecovery. Unfortunately, it is unlikelythat the thylacine will be found. Onewonders what the outcome wouldhave been if, in the 1930s, the con-servation biology perspective we en-dorse here had pervaded, and mod-ern techniques had been available.Similar situations, however, are likelyto develop in the future. Will our re-sponse be adequate to meet the chal-lenge? How would the situation dif-fer for a less glamorous species, suchas an insect or "weed," or for a spe-cies surrounded by greater conflict,such as a large, dangerous carnivore


or an agricultural "pest?" Each ofthese scenarios exists today, but onlythe future will tell if recovery effortswill succeed.

AcknowledgmentsThis work was supported by the Den-ver Zoological Society, YaleUniversity's School of Forestry andEnvironmental Studies, Eckerd Col-lege, and grants to the NorthernRockies Conservation Cooperative.

Literature citedChen, L. 1989. An introduction to contempo-

rary international law: A policy-orientedperspective. Yale University Press, NewHaven, Connecticut.

Clark, T.W. 1996a. Appraising threatened spe-cies recovery efforts: Practical recommen-dations. Pp. 1-22 in Back from the brink:Refining the threatened species recoveryprocess. Australian Nature ConservationAgency in Transactions of the Royal Zoo-logical Society of New South Wales, Aus-tralia.

Clark, T.W. 1996b. Learning as a strategy forimproving endangered species conserva-tion. Endangered Species UPDATE13(1&2): 22-24.

Clark, T.W. 1997. Averting extinction: Recon-

structing endangered species recovery. YaleUniversity Press, New Haven, Connecticut.

Clark, T.W. 2002. The policy process A prac-tical guide for natural resource profession-als Yale University Press, New Haven,Connecticut.

Clark, T.W. and R.D. Brunner. 1996. Makingpartnerships work: Introduction to decisionprocess. Endangered Species UPDATE13(9): 1-5.

Clark, T.W. and R.L. Wallace. 1998. Under-standing the human factor in endangeredspecies recovery: An introduction to humansocial process. Endangered Species UP-DATE 15(1): 2-9.

Clark, T.W. and R.L. Wallace. 1999. The pro-fessional in endangered species conserva-tion: An introduction to standpoint clarifi-cation. Endangered Species UPDATE16(1): 9-13.

Clark, T.W., R.P. Reading, and A.L. Clarke,eds. 1994. Endangered species recovery:Finding the lessons, improving the process.Island Press, Washington.

Clark, T.W., R.P. Reading, and R.L. Wallace.1999. Research in endangered species con-servation: An introduction to multi-meth-ods. Endangered Species UPDATE16(5):90-97

Dixon, J.M. 1989. Thylacinidae. Pp. 549-59in D.W. Walton and B.J. Richardson, eds.Fauna of Australia: Mammalia. AustralianGovernment Publ. Vol. 1b, Canberra.

Guiler, E.R. 1985. Thylacine: The tragedy of

the Tasmanian Tiger. Oxford UniversityPress, Melbourne.

Harris, G.P. 1808. Descriptions of two newspecies of Didelphis from Van Dieman'sLand. Transactions of the Linnean Societyof London 9:174.

Holling, C.S. 1995. What barriers? Whatbridges? Pages 3-36 in L.H. Gunderson,C.S. Holling, and S.S. Light, eds. Barriersand bridges to the renewal of ecosystemsand institutions. Columbia UniversityPress, New York.

Lasswell, H.D. 1971. A pre-view of policysciences. American Elsevier PublishingCompany, New York.


Miller, B J., R.P. Reading, and S.C. Forrest.1996. Prairie night: Black-footed ferretsand recovery of endangered species.Smithsonian Press, Washington, DC.

Reading, R.P. and B.J. Miller, eds. 2000. En-dangered animals: A reference guide toconflicting issues. Greenwood Press,Westport, Connecticut.

Wallace, R.L. and T.W. Clark. 1999. Solvingproblems in endangered species conserva-tion: An introduction to problem orienta-tion. Endangered Species UPDATE 16:28-34.

Yellow-headed blackbird ( Xanthocephalusxanthocephalus ) by Richard P. Reading.


To increase our effectiveness at re-covering endangered species we mustapply the lessons we learn from ourwork, our colleagues, and the litera-ture. Learning is best achieved bybuilding on our successes, what wecall a "practice-based" approach.Learning depends directly onpeople's willingness and ability toaccept and try new approaches. Thisspecial issue of Endangered SpeciesUPDATE provides concepts, tools,and examples of how we might learnmore systematically and explicitly,thereby moving toward a new levelof effectiveness.

In looking at interdisciplinaryendangered species recovery in thisvolume, we have considered, amongother things, the complexities of part-nerships and teamwork, challenges ofcooperatively and cogently identifyingproblems, the influence of peoples' val-ues on decision making, the role of self-awareness in professional productivity,use of multiple methods, organizationalimprovements, prototyping, and theconcept of interdisciplinary practice.We have taken these tools from thepolicy sciences and seen how to applythem in practice to address actual en-dangered species and ecosystem con-servation programs and challenges on

ConclusionBecoming a More Effective Professional:The Next Steps in Learning and Applying an InterdisciplinaryApproach to the Conservation of Biological DiversityRichard L. WallaceEnvironmental Studies Program, Ursinus College, P.O. Box 1000, Collegeville, PA [email protected]



four continents.So what should you do with the

information in this special issue? Wesuggest using it as a launching padfor promoting interdisciplinary pro-fessionalism in your own work. Youmight start by asking questions ofyourself and others in endangeredspecies programs. These questionsflow from this publication, and re-quire you to place yourself in a com-prehensive context by starting withthe question: Where do you and yourprogram fall with regard to the vari-ables discussed above? Then con-tinue with the following:

l How does your program usepartnerships and teamwork? Are theyeffective? Is there a better way toemploy these tools?

l How clearly do you and oth-ers in your program identify prob-lems and develop alternatives to ad-dress them? Do you systematicallyattend to the five tasks required ofproblem solving (i.e. goal clarifica-tion, trend description, conditionanalysis, trend projection, and alter-native creation)? If not, why not andwhat can you do about it? How canyour program be more effective atidentifying and addressing problems?

l How directly have you con-

sidered how your own values affectthe decisions you make? How are theeight values (i.e. power, wealth, en-lightenment, skill, well-being, affec-tion, respect, and rectitude) shapedand shared through your recoveryprogram? Do you assess the valuesof other participants in the decisionmaking process, especially when theirdecisions affect you? How can theybe employed more effectively?

l Does your program use acombination of ecological and socialmethods and integrate them practi-cally and in a timely fashion? If not,how can improvements be made? Doyou strive to accommodate profession-als from fields outside of your ownwhen the policy process calls for theirinvolvement? Do you try to educateyourself about tools and methods indisciplines other than your own as theyrelate to your job or program?

l How can organizational im-provements be made? What is yourrole in the formal or informal groupsin which you participate?

l Is prototyping something thatwould help improve your program?

These questions all underlie a morefundamental set of questions, in part:

l In what ways are you an in-terdisciplinary professional?


l What have you done thatcontributes to practical problem solv-ing or critical evaluation in your pro-gram to improve its performance?

l Do you engage in internaland external evaluations of your workin formal and informal settings?

l How have you increased theknowledge and skill you need to man-age and operate within your program?

l Have you helped others to bemore effective? How and with whomhave you shared your experiences?

l Do you discuss with col-leagues the benefits of the concepts,tools, or methods you use to be a moreeffective practitioner?

l Do you write them down to re-flect on and be reminded of them later?

The answers to these and otherquestions provide the stepping stonesto interdisciplinary professionalism.They are the rational next step beyondreading about and (we hope) benefit-ing from the information in this spe-cial issue. By answering these andrelated questions you are taking thenext steps!

Finally, we ask you to share withus your experiences in professionalpractice that can contribute to ourcollective understanding of what itmeans to be an interdisciplinary pro-fessional (that is, one who asks and

can answer the questions given aboveand use this information in success-ful recovery programs.). If you havean experience to share, please writeit down and send it (via e-mail [email protected]). We will re-spond and, with permission, incorpo-rate them into future papers on en-dangered species and ecosystem con-servation. By encouraging this feed-back, we hope to improve both thequality of discussions about profes-sional practice and the process andoutcomes of the vital work we allundertake — conserving the earth'sbiological diversity.

Florida panther ( Puma concolor coryi ) courtesy of the USFWS.


News from ZoosCondors to Be Released in Mexico

Biologists from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, in cooperation with the Zoological Society of San Diego, the LosAngeles Zoo, the California Department of Fish and Game, and numerous Mexican partners, began ferrying six Califor-nia condors from the Los Angeles Zoo to Mexico on August 12, 2002, flying the endangered birds by plane on the first legof a journey to a remote mountain site where five will be released this fall.

Three of the birds were flown by private plane from Burbank, California to Tijuana, Mexico, said Mike Maxcy,principal animal keeper at the Los Angeles Zoo. The plane was to turn around and pick up the other three birds later. FromTijuana, the birds were to continue on by plane and truck to a remote and rugged site in the Sierra de San Pedro Martir,where they will remain in a mountaintop pen for several weeks.

Once acclimated, five of the condors, all juveniles, will be released to fly over what was once the southernmostextension of a range that stretched from Mexico to Canada. Condors have been absent from Mexico for at least 50 years.

"This is another piece of just fabulous habitat where we expect the birds to thrive," said Bruce Palmer, Californiacondor recovery coordinator for the US Fish and Wildlife Service. "To have a place that is reasonably isolated andprotected from people, this is important for the birds to develop."

The sixth bird, an older female, will remain penned at the site to act as a mentor for the other birds, who were all raisedat the Los Angeles Zoo. She will eventually return to the zoo.

In the 1980s, biologists began an aggressive program to capture the last of the free-flying condors and breed them in captivity.Up from an all-time low of 22 birds in the early 1980s, there were 208 condors in the wild and captivity as of August 1, 2002.

As the captive population grew, biologists began returning the birds to the wild in 1992, releasing them in Californiaand Arizona. The Mexico releases mark the international expansion of the recovery program.

The goal of the $40 million recovery effort is to establish two wild populations and one captive population of condors,each with 150 birds, including a minimum of 15 breeding pairs apiece. Since condors range so far, biologists will considerthe Mexican colony part of the California population, with which it is expected to mix. [Source: Associated Press]

Fossil Rim Establishes Cheetah ConservancyThe Robert B. Haas Cheetah Conservancy will open at Fossil Rim Wildlife Center in the fall of 2002. The new conser-vancy includes seven pens, five of which will be used for public display and two for expectant females, in addition to amodern food preparation facility. The American Zoo and Aquarium Association's (AZA) Cheetah Species Survival Plan®(SSP) deemed the immediate construction of the conservancy vital to the long-term success of the captive cheetah population.

Funded by a generous challenge grant from the Robert Hass Family Philanthropic Fund of $2 for every $1 raised byFossil Rim, the $300,000 conservancy will provide Fossil Rim the opportunity to significantly increase the North Ameri-can captive cheetah population by instituting propagation techniques proven to be successful. Allowing the public a viewof the conservancy provides Fossil Rim the opportunity to exhibit cheetahs in spacious, natural environments in an effortto raise awareness for the need to support conservation efforts in captivity and in the wild. [Source: AZA Communiqué]

Vancouver Aquarium Marine Science Centre Plants Salt MarshOn April 16, 2002, staff members and volunteers of the Vancouver Aquarium Marine Science Centre planted a new saltmarsh at the mouth of the BC Hydro Salmon Stream Project in Stanley Park. Salt marshes and wetlands found at themouths of rivers and streams where fresh and salt water mix serve as a vital feeding and transition ground for salmonabout to make their migration to the open ocean.

Volunteers from the Aquarium's RiverWorks program set up four rough plots at the mouth of the Stanley Park streamwith layers of gravel, filter cloth, sand, and peat moss in which plants could take root. The plots were built with a barrierof large rocks to prevent erosion. RiverWorks, an Aquarium initiative, is an estuary clean-up program supported bycommunity groups and volunteers. The BC Hydro Salmon Stream Project highlights the life cycle and importance ofsalmon and is free to the four million people who visit Stanley Park each year. Salmon return to the stream each fall andcan be seen at the park's Alcan Salmon Pool Display. [Source: AZA Communiqué]

Information for News from Zoos is provided by the American Zoo and Aquarium Association.


E-mail your announcements for the BulletinBoard to [email protected]. Some items areprovided by the Smithsonian Institution's Bio-logical Conservation Newsletter.

News & EventsBiogeography Society MeetingThe International Biogeography So-ciety (IBS) is holding their inauguralmeeting on January 4-8, 2003, inMesquite, Nevada. Biogeographersfrom around the world will deliverfive symposia, and meeting partici-pants are invited to submit titles andabstracts for poster sessions. Formore information, see the IBS website: http://www.biogeography.org.

Nonindigenous Aquatic SpeciesThe U.S. Geological Survey has cre-ated the Nonindigenous Aquatic Spe-cies (NAS) web site (http://nas.er.usgs.gov), which was estab-lished as a central repository for ac-curate and spatially referenced biogeo-graphic accounts of nonindigenousaquatic species. The NAS providesscientific reports, online/realtime

queries, spatial data sets, regionalcontact lists, and general information.The data is available for use by bi-ologists, interagency groups, andthe general public. The geographi-cal coverage is the United States.

Algae on the InternetAlgaeBase is a new on-line databasethat provides information on algae ofthe world, including terrestrial, ma-rine, and freshwater forms. Cur-rently, the data is most complete forseaweeds, however information isconstantly accumulated and updated.AlgaeBase is part of theSeaweedAfrica project funded by theEuropean Union. For more informa-tion: http://www.alagebase.org.

IUCN Cat Specialist GroupAs part of the IUCN's Species Sur-

vival Commission, the Cat Special-ist Group consists of the world's lead-ing scientists and wildlife managersinvolved with 36 species of wild catsin more than 50 countries. The Groupprovides data on the development andimplementation of conservation pro-grams and projects, serving as hon-orary advisors to the IUCN. The CatSpecialist Group web site providesinformation about the biology of wildcat species, cat publications, andlinks to other relevant organizations.For more information: http://lynx.uio.no/catfolk.

An Interdisciplinary Approach to Endangered Species Recovery

Documents

Transcript of An Interdisciplinary Approach to Endangered Species Recovery