An Annotated Bibliography on Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management

1973-1996

A Report of the Northwest Collaboratory for Sustainability
Prepared by Tsegaye Nega
for the Institute for Social, Economic, and Ecological Sustainability
January, 1998

Note: Copies of this bibliography, including figures (which are not included here), can be requested from the ISEES office.

Forest Case Studies

Fish Case Studies

Everglades Case Studies

PREFACE

    Over the past three decades there have been significant advances in the literature on Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management (AEAM). It has been embraced by scientists and resource managers as a science-based approach to resource management. However, the absence of a compilation of published materials on the subject has made it difficult for scholars and practitioners who are engaged and/or interested in resource management issues to be up-to-date with the progress made in adaptive management. This annotated bibliography is thus designed for those who are interested integrating adaptive management into their professional endeavors.
    The concepts and methods used in AEAM are drawn from various fields including physics, evolutionary biology, computer science, social science and satellite imagery. A comprehensive bibliography thus would require touching upon all relevant areas. But this would make the bibliography immense and redundant. Instead, this bibliography is intended to be a useful and indicative selection of thoughtful publications in each of the areas covered.
    This annotated bibliography summarizes published and unpublished materials related to the conceptual underpinnings and applications of AEAM. In the following sections we will address the scope of this work, the process of material selection, the organization of the bibliographic entries, the annotation of each citation, and how a reader can find specific references efficiently.

Scope of the Annotated Bibliography

This work covers the literature published between 1973 and 1996 related to Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. The majority of the citations are from professional journals, listed in the appendix. Several bibliographic entries include chapters from the few books that have been published, and cover a whole range of issues, from concepts to case studies, in adaptive management.

How the Materials Were Selected

We selected the citations by first finding key authors in AEAM and then incorporating work done by second generation authors and researchers who built on these key works. We included only citations that contribute to a better understanding of AEAM.

Organization and Classification of the Bibliographic Entries

We have provided an overview of AEAM in the introductory section of the bibliography to help introduce the first time user to the concepts and methods of AEAM. The first part of the annotated bibliography concentrates on the series of books published in adaptive management and covers a whole range of issues from concepts to case studies. The second part of the annotated bibliography deals with the conceptual underpinnings of AEAM (which is the four phase dynamics of ecosystem functioning). The third part will focus on tools and methods for implementing AEAM (i.e., workshops, modeling). The fourth part will focus on case studies.

How each Bibliographic Citation is Annotated

The annotations emphasize the main ideas expressed in each article. No attempt has been made to critically appraise each citation except to point out the degree to which the article contributes understanding of basic concepts about AEAM and the difficulty, conciseness, and style of writing.

How to Find Specific References

To facilitate the search for a specific topic or topics we have included an author and title index. Those who are interested in a quick look at the type of journals publishing material on AEAM will find at the end, a list of journals from which articles in this bibliography were drawn.

Top

INTRODUCTION

The Pathology of Traditional Resource Management

    Much of the past and present research and management involving renewable natural resources focus on sustaining the productivity of a single species or single component of an ecosystem that is of economic interest (e.g., fisheries, forest, water, wildlife). The focus usually is on very narrow temporal and spatial scales of analysis or management. Economic successes of this approach however have led to more spatially homogenized ecosystems over landscape scales and to shifts in management institutions from social and ecological objectives to improving operational efficiency, for example releasing hatchery fish or fighting fires in forests.
    This evolution of ecosystems and management institutions was reinforced by political pressures as society became increasingly dependent on the sustained flow of goods and services from the ecosystem. In short, the very successes of controlling an ecological variable have led to less resilient ecosystems, more rigid and unresponsive management institutions and more dependent societies (Holling, 1995). Examples of this pathology of traditional resource management systems abound in fisheries, forests, water and other renewable resource systems both locally and around the world.
    Resource managers are thus faced with a new class of resource problems for which traditional approaches to assessment and management are ill equipped. These new problems can be characterized as follows Holling (1995: 33):

The problems are essentially systems problems where aspects of behavior are complex and unpredictable and where causes, although at times simple (when finally understood), are always multiple.
The problems have a fundamentally nonlinear cause. They demonstrate multistable states and discontinuous behavior in both time and space.
The problems are increasingly caused by slow changes, reflecting decadal accumulations of human influences on air and oceans and decadal to centurial transformations of landscapes. These slow changes cause sudden changes in fast environmental variables that directly affect the health of people, productivity of renewable resources, and vitality of societies.
The spatial span of connections is widening, so that the problems are now fundamentally cross-scale in both space and time. National environmental problems can now more and more frequently have their source both at home and half a world away (witness the greenhouse gas accumulations, the hole in the ozone layer, AIDS, and narrowing biodiversity). Natural planetary processes mediating these issues are coupling with human, economic, and trade linkages that have evolved among nations since World War II.
The problems are evolutionary in character.

The Need for Integration

Traditional resource management approaches either ignored this new class of problems or attempted to address them by investing more in basic research. The dilemma of establishing a sustainable relationship between human and ecological systems, however, is not amenable to solutions based upon small-scale knowledge nor on assumptions of a constant relationship between social, ecological, and economic systems (Holling, 1995). Instead, it requires policies and actions that satisfy social objectives while allowing a continuously modified understanding of evolving conditions and provide flexibility for adaptation to surprises (ibid). In other words, addressing sustainability requires integrating science, policy, and management. Since the basis of such an integration resides in seeing the ecosystem as a whole it faces several problems (Lee, 1993: 58):

Data are sparse. It is difficult to observe the state of the ecological system and the human economy interacting with it. Measurements of the natural world, such as the size of migrating populations, are inexact at best, and natural systems often yield only one data point per year (e.g., river flow).
Theory is limited. Reliable observations are few, and theories of natural environments do not permit deductive logic to extrapolate very far from experience. Also, the perturbations caused by humans are frequently both large and unprecedented in natural history, so that it is unclear what theory is applicable.
Surprise becomes unexceptional. With limited theory comes poor knowledge of the limitations of theory. Predictions are often wrong, expectations unfulfilled, and warnings hollow.

The Basis for Integration

Holling (1995: 17) provides a synthesis of the advances made in the last two decades which, he argues, are the basis for integrating science, policy and management.

The detection of the “ozone hole” in the Antarctic came as a complete surprise to existing “gradualist” theories of the atmosphere, and the demonstration of its reality and of the role of industrial emissions of chloroflourocarbons on atmospheric chemistry has been an example of the passionate application of the best kind of cooperative, and at times combative, science in a complex new area. Useful for politicians again, as countries now move to ban CFC’s as an act of international cooperation.

However narrow the mainstream of molecular biology might be, it has yielded techniques that now are transforming the evolutionary, ecological and conservation sciences. Biologists now can certainly unravel affinities in related groups of species and individuals and join the geophysicists in compelling reconstructions of our past that at the least place our present problems within a perspective-- from the role of past extinctions to present declines in biodiversity.

The understanding needed for the changes we now experience or anticipate draws not only on this knowledge from geophysics, atmospheric science and techniques of cellular and molecular biology. The core to understand such changes lies in integrating ecosystem and community ecology with the more physically-based environmental sciences.

But recognize what that means and the challenge it presents. The relevant biophysical processes operate over an enormous range of scales, potentially from soil processes operating with time constants of hours or days in meter square patches, to ecosystem successional processes of decades to centuries covering tens to thousands of square kilometers, to global biotic processes involved in the regulation and isolation of elements like carbon, that have time lags of millennia and are global in their impact. That is why satellite imagery, remote sensing and geographic information systems now routinely available to analyze patterns, are of such major importance. Computer advances, both towards the portable but powerful and the large and parallel, have opened ways to visualize complexity in both space and time. It is a picture of discontinuous behavior, of multiple stable states, of the interaction between slow forces that accumulate environmental capital and fast processes that slowly exploit, suddenly release and renew the capital.

That is as far a cry from public perceptions of fragile, stable and equilibrium nature as could be imagined. And that knowledge too is useful and used. It is the foundation for the regional experiments in adaptive policy design and management that are as much examples of institutional learning as they are of using science for public policy.

Adaptive Management

     A general methodology has been developed to deal with natural resource problems under this condition. This methodology is called Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management (AEAM) (Holling, 1978). The novelty of AEAM is that it has developed, over the last three decades, the theoretical and empirical basis to integrate science, policy and management so that a sustainable relationship could be achieved between human and ecological systems. AEAM has provided the basis to bridge the gap between the body of small-scale knowledge that has accumulated in natural resource management and large scale policy questions that require answers.
     AEAM is based on two simple principles (Lee, 1989). The first principle states that human understanding of nature is imperfect. That is, our knowledge of the system we deal with is always incomplete. Surprise is inevitable. Moreover, because of management impacts and the progression of the scale of human influence the system itself is a moving target. Hence there is an inherent unknowability and unpredictability to social and ecological systems and their sustainable relationship. The second principle is a corollary of the first: if human understanding of nature is imperfect, then human interaction with nature should be experimental. In other words, to understand the behavior of the natural system policies should be designed and implemented so that by learning from experience one can reach and maintain a managed equilibrium efficiently and with resilience to persevere in the face of surprise.
     The philosophy of Adaptive Management has its roots in a radically new perspective of how ecosystems behave (Holling, 1973). Holling reasoned that if ecosystems are profoundly affected by changes external to them, and continually confronted with the unexpected, the constancy of system behavior becomes less important than the persistence of relationships. Holling contrasted two very distinct views of natural systems:

An equilibrium-centered view (stability) based on the ability of systems to return to equilibrium state after a temporary disturbance, and
A boundary-centered view (resiliency) based on the ability of a system to absorb changes in state variables, driving variables and parameters and still persist in the face of extremes of disturbance.

     Stability was used in the narrow sense of elasticity -- the property that resists departure from equilibrium and maximizes the speed of return to equilibrium after small disturbances. Stability deals with negative feedbacks and near steady states while resilience focuses on the role of positive feedbacks, internally generated variability and far-from-equilibrium behavior.
     The implications of this new boundary-centered view on management can scarcely be overestimated. While stability emphasizes constancy and predictability and the prospect of regulation to achieve maximum sustainable yield, a resilience perspective would presume the unexpected in the face of considerable ignorance about the consequences of future events and actions.
     A logical question that follows from the boundary centered view is how could the great complexity within ecosystems be described in a way that facilitates the possibility of formulating policies that enhance sustainable relationship between human and ecological systems? An important theoretical discovery has helped to answer this puzzle: Holling discovered that the great diversity of life in ecosystems is traceable to the function of a small set of variables, each operating at qualitatively different speed from the others. This discovery facilitated the possibility of modeling natural systems using only a few sets of variables.

The Process of Implementing AEAM

Simulation Modeling

    Using computer simulations to promote understanding is a complex and challenging endeavor, with great potential, much of which remains unrealized. Since its inception in the late 1960s, simulation modeling has been a major mode of integrative inquiry into the economic, ecological and social aspects of environmental problems.
     The unique contribution of AEAM has been to develop modeling as a communication method for interdisciplinary learning about complex resource problems. The simulation model provides a mirror that reflects individual and collective mental models of how the world works.
     Walters (1986) and Holling (1978) saw modeling as a cleaver way of combining deductive and inductive approaches for ecological policy analysis. As a communication tool, model development was viewed as a way for scientists, engineers, policy makers and informed citizenry, rich in experience and understanding to piece together ecological and economic puzzles to expose gaps in understanding and interesting hypotheses for testing and screening for use as possible policy probes.
     The first objective of the AEA workshops is to develop a dynamic description of the resource problem that is responsive to management questions (Clark, et al., 1979). The goal of description is useful causal understanding. It is assumed that the model will always suffer from data requirements, debugging problems, nonexistent validation criteria, and general ineffectiveness. Once the model is developed, the workshop participants attempt to invalidate it -- to explore the limits of its credibility.
     Next the AEA process attempts to simplify and compress the model in order to increase understanding and tractability while maintaining the model’s integrity. The model’s ability to reflect a broad spectrum of qualitative behavior establishes its merit and the degree of confidence in its utility for exploring policy options. Finally, the model would be used to generate and explore a strategic range of alternative approaches to problem management, and then assist the workshop participants in assessing impacts of alternatives.
     The complete AEA process including interdisciplinary workshops, data retrieval, simulation modeling development, invalidation and compression, and screening of alternative policies had been developed and tested in over 30 applications in Canada, Europe and the United States. The application of the AEA methodology was evaluated by Environment Canada in 1983. The evaluation found that the AEA process was a least moderately successful in:

Enhancing communication among policy makers, researchers, informed citizens and managers;
Identifying key issues and unknowns;
Synthesizing information;
Setting research priorities;
Analyzing alternative policy scenarios; and
Identifying economic and environmental impacts.

     The most frequently listed shortcomings were bureaucratic inertia, inadequacies in modeling, insufficient or inappropriate data, and misunderstanding of the AEA process itself (Environment Canada, 1983).
     Walters (1986) observed that one of the major contributions of AEA was in uncovering economic and ecological processes that were only visible over large temporal and spatial scales that were not the subject of intensive research investigation. Walters attributed this finding to the inclination of researchers to focus on investigative tools and use of analytical methods that were biased toward small temporal and spatial scales rather than the profound uncertainties that face resource managers.
     In summary, AEAM draws from important discoveries, made in the last twenty years, from a variety of fields both in the physical and biological sciences, and has benefited from new technologies, such as satellite imagery and remote sensing, GIS, and computers. The important point is that no single theory exists behind AEAM. AEAM is a truly transdisciplinary activity drawing knowledge and experience from a variety of fields and stakeholders. It is a social process where learning is acquired by doing.
     The annotated bibliography thus can not be exhaustive nor it is a "cookbook" prescription for implementing AEAM. The intention here is to give a well-organized summary of the literature that provides an overview of AEAM: from the conceptual underpinnings to tools and methods to case studies.

Top

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

COMPREHENSIVE SOURCES

The following four books are an important sequence of works that show the development of thinking on adaptive environmental assessment and management. Jointly they lay out the ecological understanding, the institutional framework, and the quantitative methods necessary for implementing AEAM. By so doing they provide a critique of current constraints in designing an effective ecological policy. The books are the result of more than 30 years of theoretical and empirical research on AEAM. Together they provide an in-depth coverage of concepts, tools and methods, and case studies on AEAM.

1. Gunderson, L. H., C.S. Holling, and S.S. Light. 1995. Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. New York: Columbia University Press.

This is the latest (fourth) book on adaptive management. The book provides a synthesis of social and ecological theory and of empirical practice of the work done on adaptive management over the last three decades. It especially deals with the barriers and bridges to learning in cases where adaptive techniques had been applied. It gives a balanced treatment of the way ecosystems are structured and behave, and how institutions and the people associated with them behave and are organized.

2. Holling, C. S. 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

A classic work and the first of a sequence of books that introduced the concept of adaptive environmental assessment and management. It defines issues and approaches for dealing with the known, uncertain, and known dynamics facing and caused by management. It first elaborates on the conceptual underpinnings of adaptive management and the tools and methods in implementing it. The second part of the book is a series of case studies: forest/insect problem in Canada, Pacific salmon management, development of high mountain region in Austria, regional development in Venezuela, and wildlife impact information system.

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

This is the third of the sequence of key books on adaptive management. A beautifully written book, it brings the disciplines of social science, ecology, education and political science to bear on understanding the human impact on the natural world. It emphasizes the critical nature of the democratic process to ensure citizen participation in resource management issues.

4. Walters, C. J. 1986. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

The second of the sequence books on adaptive management, this work gives an innovative description of quantitative methods for analyzing, designing, and monitoring actively adaptive resource management systems. Although much of the book is mathematical, there are excellent introductory and concluding chapters on adaptive management, policies, and the management/modeling process.

Top

CONCEPTUAL UNDERPINNINGS

1. Borman, B. T. et al. Adaptive Management: Common Ground Where Managers, Scientists, and Citizens Can Try to Learn to Meet Society's needs and Wants While Maintaining Ecological Capacity. (unpublished manuscript, 1996)

This paper reviews the concepts of adaptive management, followed by a discussion of the difference between traditional and adaptive management. According to Borman, adaptive management can increase the connection and "overlap" between societal values and ecological capacity (fig. 1). The paper discusses issues and challenges for implementing adaptive management and gives several case studies on the application of adaptive management in the Northwest.

2. Borman, B.T. et al. 1994. Adaptive Ecosystem Management in the Pacific Northwest. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Experimental Station, Portland, Oregon.

This is a technical report proposing adaptive management for federal lands in Oregon, Washington, and Northern California. It describes the concepts of adaptive management and its effectiveness in comparison to traditional management. The effectiveness of adaptive management is attributed to its system wide perspective, improved public participation, and its ability to help develop a science-based management. Adaptive management is considered as a series of steps structured to promote rapid learning and modify management responsively to meet changing societal objectives and evolving knowledge of ecological systems (fig. 2).

3. Clark, W. C. 1985. Scales of Climate Impacts. Climate Change 7: 5-27.

An extremely insightful analysis of the significance and impact of spatial and temporal scales in analyzing and interpreting societal, ecological, and climatic phenomena and their interaction. Clark first attempts to show that much of the debate about the interaction between climate, ecosystems, and societies, for example, whether famine is attributed to forms of social organization or to climatic fluctuation, stems "from the difficulty of establishing useful perspectives from which to view and order the accumulating range of studies, methods, data, and theories" that originate from various disciplines working at various spatial and temporal scales. He then discusses the need to "develop a synoptic perspective" that helps us to see (1) the relationship between individual investigations, (2) what past research can and can not tell us about the impact of climate on the future, and (3) the ecological, social, and climatic factors that must be considered to realistically assess future prospects. He then presents such a perspective (fig. 3), which is a juxtaposition of historical and geographical styles of analysis. The figure shows how variation in temporal and spatial scale is associated with variation in the causal factors and the specification of the explanatory model.

4. Clark, W.C. 1986. Sustainable Development of the Biosphere: Themes for a Research Program. In: W.C. Clark; R.E. Munn, eds. Sustainable Development of the Biosphere. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

An excellent chapter that deals with long-term, large-scale interactions between environment and development that are needed for the development of a sustainable relationship between society and the biosphere.

5. Clark, W.C. 1989. The Human Ecology of Global Environmental Change. International Social Science Journal 41: 315-345.

This is an excellent article to grasp the complex interactions between social and environmental systems at a global scale. It reviews and summarizes past research on this problem and identifies the principal issues and questions that must be addressed to develop a sustainable relationship between social and environmental systems. It starts out with a broad overview of the principal elements involved in human interaction with the global environment (fig. 4). This is followed by a discussion of major unresolved questions regarding the character, causes, and consequences of these interactions. Finally, it poses three crosscutting research challenges: human causes of global change; land use and industrial metabolism; usable knowledge of global change; and institutions for managing global change.

6. Clark, W. C., D.D. Jones, and C.S. Holling. 1979. Lessons for Ecological Policy Design: A Case Study of Ecosystem Management. Ecological Modeling 7: 1-53.

This article explores the prospect of developing the science of ecological policy by combining elements of ecological and policy sciences. The paper first shows how a number of mathematical tools--simulation models, differential equations, topological representations--can be used in the dynamic description of a specific ecological system. Second it shows how these descriptive methods can be combined with prescriptive techniques--techniques of optimization, utility analysis, and decision theory--from the policy sciences. The central argument of the paper is that different methodologies and tools developed in separate fields can now be combined, amplified, and tested as a rigorous science of ecological policy design. Figure 5 shows the three basic steps and their interactions in formulating ecological policy: system description, policy prescription, and policy evaluation.

7. Gunderson, L. H., C.S. Holling, and S.S. Light. 1995. Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. New York: Columbia University Press.

(see annotation number 1 in the Comprehensive Sources section)

8. Hilborn, R., C. S. Holling, and C. J. Walters. 1980. Managing the Unknowns: Approaches to Ecological Policy Design. American Institute of Biological Science.

This paper discusses how Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is affected by the type of model used to describe the behavior of environmental systems. It addresses a series of "myths," which are based on modeling nature as "infinitely forgiving" (stable), and their alternatives, which are based on modeling nature as a "practical Joker" (multiple regions of stability). This is followed by a discussion of techniques for mobilization of data for EIA, sources of the unexpected, and the mechanisms that lead to unexpected events. Several methods for designing environmental management policies that are resilient to unexpected events are proposed. Finally, specific changes in EIA that will make it more responsive to unexpected events are suggested.

9. Holling, C. S. 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

(see annotation number 2 in the Comprehensive Sources section)

10. Holling, C.S. 1990. Integrating Science for Sustainable development. Journal of Business Administration 19 (1 & 2): 73-83.

A well-argued article that is optimistic about the real possibility of integrating science for sustainable development in the 1990's. Holling argues that advances made in the last two decades -- satellite imagery, remote sensing and the techniques to collect and analyze patterns; the growing experience in understanding the operation of complex, non-linear natural and social systems where discontinuous behavior and structural change is the norm; and the extensive experience accumulated in effective ways to integrate natural science knowledge in multidisciplinary research programs that simultaneously connect policy design and management implementation -- provide the tools to bridge the gap in the ability to deal with interactions across scale in time and space, the chasm between the natural and social sciences, and the gaps between knowledge, policy, and action.

11. Holling, C.S. 1993. Investing in Research for Sustainability. Ecological Applications 3 (4): 552-555.

Mainly a response to Ludwig et al. (1993) who argue that sustainability is neither a realistic goal nor a useful concept, and that investments in scientific research for sustainability are not wise. Holling charges that such an argument is only convincing by assuming there is only one kind of science and one definition of exploitative sustainability. He argues that there is more than one kind of science, and that the definition of sustainable development should focus on the social and economic development of a region with the goals to invest in the maintenance and restoration of critical ecosystem functions, to synthesize and make accessible knowledge and understanding for economics, and to develop and communicate the understanding that provides a foundation of trust for citizens.

12. Holling, C.S. 1978. Myths of Ecological Stability: Resilience and the problem of failure. In Studies in Crisis Management. eds C. F. Smart, and W. T. Stanbury. Montreal: Butterworth and Co.

An excellent and beautifully written article that gives a powerful conceptual framework for analyzing not only ecological theories but the whole debate on sustainability. The paper analyzes the basic myths underlying ecological theories and their policy consequences. The myths are described as (1) Benign nature, (2) Ephemeral nature, (3) Perverse/Tolerant nature, and (4) Resilient nature. The policy implications of these divergent myths range from ignoring threats, to developing fail-safe designs, designs that are safe in failure, and designs that benefit from change.

13. Holling, C.S. 1992. New Science and New Investments for Sustainable Biosphere. In Investing in Natural Capital. eds A. M. Janson, C. F. M. Hammer, and R. Costanza. Washington D. C.: Island Press.

An optimistic, well-written chapter, this piece starts by pointing out the new class of problems challenging sustainable development: changes in the biophysical environment, the non-linearity and cross-scale nature of the problems (both in time and space) and their evolutionary character. It then elaborates how this new class of problems makes evolving managed ecosystems and the societies with which they are linked inherently unknowable and unpredictable. Consequently, there is an inherent unknowability and unpredictability to sustainable development. Evolving systems thus require policies and actions that not only satisfy social objectives but also achieve continually modified understanding of the evolving conditions and provide flexibility for adaptation to surprises. This, in turn, requires the integration of science, management and policy.

14. Holling, C.S. 1982. Predicting the Unpredictable: Is it Possible to Identify the Variables that Trigger Surprise and Change? The UNESCO Courier 60-62.

An excellent article, with well-chosen examples illustrating how the very effectiveness of the pursuit towards increasing efficiency, ensuring constancy, maintaining stability and improving prediction of ecosystems have resulted in increased fragility and vulnerability of these very systems. Holling argues that "ecological and social systems do not evolve toward some climax or persistent equilibrium but are dominated by a pattern in time and space of growth, quiescence, collapse, and renewal," hence, they are inherently unpredictable. The only way to cope with unanticipated shocks from changes and the conflicts they generate is to comprehend the patterns of these changes, their causes and consequences, in order to develop the capability and flexibility to respond adaptively to the unexpected.

15. Holling, C.S. 1973. Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Ecol. and Syst. 4: 1-23.

This is an excellent introduction to the concept of resilience and its implication for ecological theory and the management of ecosystems. Holling uses figure 6 to discuss the various ways that system behavior has been modeled and the degree to which each of these models represents reality. He then carefully lays out why traditional ecological theory, which emphasizes stability and equilibrium, is limited to describing the transient behavior of systems that are not near equilibrium. He further points out, with well-chosen examples, how using an equilibrium-centered view as the exclusive guide to management of resources could produce unexpected results. He therefore proposes that a realistic representation of the behavior of ecosystems can only be achieved by shifting emphasis from the equilibrium state to that of resilience, which determines the condition of persistence (fig. 7). Holling uses figure 7 to explain the concepts of resilience and stability and how the model could be used to measure relative amounts of resilience and stability of any system. The management implication of the resilience perspective is that it does not require a precise capacity to predict the future, but only a qualitative capacity to devise systems that can absorb and accommodate future events in whatever unexpected form they may take.

16. Holling, C.S. 1981. Resilience in the Unforgiving Society. Vancouver, B. C. Canada.

This is an excellent, concise, and well-presented critique of the "growth" and "no growth" paradigms of social and environmental problems. Holling argues that the path leading out of the unforgiving society is neither the extreme of growth, which emphasizes prediction nor the extreme of no growth, which emphasizes regulation. The path requires a balance between prediction and regulation, a balance that is achieved by including adaptation.

17. Holling, C.S. 1986. The Resilience of Terrestrial Ecosystems: Local Surprise and Global Change. In Sustainable development of the Biosphere. eds W. C. Clark and R. E. Munn, 292-317. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

An excellent chapter linking biophysical processes at a global scale to ecosystem function and behavior and to that of society. Holling uses the Gaia concept to connect global biogeochemical cycles to ecosystems. Ecosystems, in turn, are connected to society using the concept of surprise. This is a very important work that not only summarizes previous work done on resilience but also gives a fresh interpretation to the dynamics of social systems and a whole range of issues on ecosystem management.

18. Holling, C.S. 1981. Science for Public Policy: Highlights of Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. Institute of Resource Ecology: University of British Colombia, Vancouver, B. C.

Written as a story, this report traces the origin and development of the various concepts, methods and procedures of Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management (AEAM). It also provides, using four case studies, a detailed analysis of the steps involved in implementing AEAM and the lessons learned in each of the steps.

19. Holling, C.S. 1987. Simplifying the Complex: The Paradigms of Ecological Function and Structure. European Journal of Operational Research 30: 139-146.

An essential article for understanding Holling's resilience/stability concept based on describing the dynamic behavior of ecosystems by sequential interaction of four ecosystem functions: Exploitation, Conservation, Creative Destruction, and Renewal (fig. 8). The article further elaborates how the resilience/stability concept in conjunction with hierarchy theory and the theory of dissipative structures may help deepen our understanding of change and how to manage it.

20. Holling, C.S. 1988. Temperate Forest Insect Outbreaks, Tropical Deforestation and Migratory Birds. Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada 146: 21-32.

An insightful paper that links the outbreak of temperate forest insects at a local level to tropical deforestation by analyzing of the role of migratory birds in the control of forest insects. The paper addresses two questions: first, how does deforestation in the overwintering regions affect the population of migratory birds? Second, at what level of bird populations is control of insect population significantly reduced so that outbreaks in young stands become common? It concludes that concern for deforestation of tropical and subtropical regions of Latin America is not limited to "bleeding heart environmentalists" but also to the selfish interests of industry and government.

21. Holling, C. S., and S. Bocking. 1990. Surprise and Opportunity: In Evolution, In Ecosystems, In Society. In Planet Under Stress. eds C. Mungall, and D. J. McLaren. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

A beautifully written, optimistic chapter that begins with the premise that ecosystems are the appropriate units of life for questions of sustainable development. It then explores the implications of Holling's four phase model of ecosystem behavior: renewal, conservation, creative destruction, and reorganization on sustainable development.

22. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. 1979. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management: Current Progress and Prospects for the Approach. Laxenburg, Austria: IIASA.

The paper includes a short summary report and three case studies; Salmon Enhancement Program, Application of the Environmental Assessment Process to NEPA, and results of a modeling workshop on acid precipitation. The summary report is an excellent paper. It gives a summary for each of the case studies and also analyzes the strengths and limitations of Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. It also raises critical issues about the successful transfer of the methodology from the group developing the approach to potential new users whose problems and organizational constraints might be very different.

23. Kay, J. J. and E. Schneider. 1994. Embracing Complexity: The Challenge of the Ecosystem Approach. Alternatives 20 (3): 33-39.

An article that presents three systems theories: Catastrophic, Chaos and Self-organization as the basis for understanding and managing ecosystems. It explains why traditional scientific method is limited in explaining the behavior of complex systems and concludes that the complex behavior of ecosystems can only be understood by embracing complexity.

24. Lee, B. J., H.A. Reiger, and D.J. Rapport. 1991. Ten Ecosystem Approaches to the Planning and Management of the Great Lakes. Journal of Great lakes research 8 (3): 505-519.

The article compares ten variants of ecosystem approaches to the management of the Great Lakes. Common elements in the approaches are then identified as defining criteria for an ecosystem approach. It is suggested that rather than a thorough going synthesis or standardization, "flexible eclectic pragmatism" is a more productive attitude towards Great Lakes environmental problems.

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

(see annotation number 3 in the Comprehensive Sources section)

26. Ludwig, D., R. Hilborn, and C. Walters. 1993. Uncertainty, Resource Exploitation, and Conservation: Lessons from History. Science 260 (17 & 36).

A powerful critique of sustainability both as a concept and as a goal. The article presents concrete examples of why past and present resource management is not sustainable, and concludes by giving principles for effective management.

27. Ravetz, J. R. 1986. Usable Knowledge, Usable Ignorance: Incomplete Science with Policy Implications. In Sustainable Development of the Biosphere. eds W.C. Clark, and R.E. Munn. Laxenburg, Austria: Cambridge University Press.

This provides an eloquent presentation of the limits of scientific knowledge in the science-for-policy process. Ravetz argues that, in the face of the new class of problems humanity faces today: "where facts are uncertain; values in dispute; stakes high; decisions urgent; and where no single one of these dimensions can be managed in isolation from the rest," the resolution of ignorance in science for policy must rely on the reflexive capacity of scientific and policy making institutions to recognize and employ different types, as well as degrees of knowledge and non-knowledge (ignorance). In other words, since usable knowledge is in constant interaction with a state of human ignorance, a permeable boundary between ignorance and knowledge must be established so that the antecedents and modes of gestation of a scientific fact-not just the atomized commodity that emerges from knowledge-producing process-can be reviewed.

28. Walters, C. J. 1986. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. New York: Macmillian Publishing Company.

(see annotation number 4 in the Comprehensive Sources section)

29. Walters, C. J., and C. S. Holling. 1990. Large Scale Management Experiments and Learning by Doing. Ecology 71 (6): 2060-2068.

An excellent and essential paper that reviews current methods used for managing natural systems, and presents a basis for developing and evaluating AEAM as an alternative approach to managing renewable resources in a process where management becomes partner with science by designing probes that produce ever-changing understanding of the evolving systems.

30. Walters, C.J.; Holling, C.S. 1984. Resilience and Adaptability in Ecological Management Systems: Why Do Policy Models Fail? International Series on Applied Systems Analysis 13: 1-13.

A key paper for understanding why traditional policy models fail for managing natural systems. The paper illustrates, with a fairly simple mathematical example, the assumption of single equilibrium point behind traditional policy models. The paper also gives an alternative policy formulation process based on the concept of resilience and adaptability.

31. Williams, B. k., and F.A. Johnson. 1995. Adaptive Management and the Regulation of Waterfowl Harvests. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23 (3): 430-436.

A very concise discussion of the principle of adaptive management, its usefulness and the constraints in implementing it.

Top

TOOLS AND METHODS

1. Clark, W. C., D.D. Jones, and C.S. Holling. 1979. Lessons for Ecological Policy Design: A Case Study of Ecosystem Management. Ecological Modeling 7: 1-53.

2. Gunderson, L. H., C.S. Holling, and S.S. Light. 1995. Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. New York: Columbia University Press.

(see annotation number 1 in the Comprehensive Sources section)

3. Holling, C. S. 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

(see annotation number 2 in the Comprehensive Sources section)

4. Holling, C.S. 1981. Science for Public Policy: Highlights of Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. Institute of Resource Ecology: University of British Colombia, Vancouver, B. C.

(see annotation number 17 in the Conceptual Underpinnings section)

5. Holling, C. S., and A. D. Chambers. 1973. Resource Science: The Nurture of an Infant. Bioscience 23 (1): 13-20.

A superb article for conducting effective workshops, which represent a critical component of adaptive management. This article presents not only a detailed description of the process involved in carrying out the workshops but also points out their strengths and weaknesses. It also gives specific tactics to make the workshops successful.

6. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. 1979. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management: Current Progress and Prospects for the Approach.

(see annotation number 21 in the Conceptual Underpinnings section)

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

(see annotation number 3 in the Comprehensive Sources section)

8. Walters, C. J. 1986. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. New York: Macmillian Publishing Company.

(see annotation number 4 in the Comprehensive Sources section)

9. Walters, C. J., and R. Hilborn. 1976. Adaptive Control of Fishing Systems. Journal of Fisheries Research Board of Canada 33 (1): 145-159.

A fairly complex article that discusses some formal techniques for deciding how harvesting policies should be modified in the face of uncertainty. Three sources of uncertainties are addressed: random environmental variation, uncertainty about production parameters, and uncertainties about the basic functional form of stock-recruitment relation. General principles that emerged from these analyses and which might be used in more complex and realistic fisheries situations where uncertainty is a key factor is also discussed.

10. Williams, B. K., F.A. Johnson, and Khristi Wilkins. 1996. Uncertainty and the Adaptive Management of Waterfowl harvests. The Journal of Wildlife Management 60 (2): 223-232.

This paper principally discusses the use of a model for adaptive harvest management. Specifically it analyzes how harvesting can be used in reducing the uncertainty about the relationship between harvest and survival.

Top

CASE STUDIES

4.1. FOREST CASE STUDIES

1. Baskerville, G. L. 1995. The Forestry Problem: Adaptive Lurches to Renewal. In Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. eds L. H. Gunderson, C.S. Holling, and S.S. Light, 37-102. New York: Columbia University Press.

This work represents a synthesis of more than 40 years of work. The chapter eloquently recounts the evolution of the forestry problem in Brunswick since 1955. An excellent chapter for understanding how traditional resource management ignores the interdependence of the various factors that affect decision making with respect to budworm/forest management (fig. 9) and how this in turn causes institutional rigidity, ecological brittleness, and societal dependencies and vulnerabilities. The authors also specify the key issues that must be addressed for the appropriate management of the forest resource.

The following journal articles and reports covering the period from 1955-1990 give a detailed account of some specific aspects of the forestry problem in Brunswick. Though they are summarized in Baskerville (1995), they are included here for the convenience of a user who might be interested to explore further this specific issue.

2. Baskerville, G. L. 1995. Effects of the Spruce Budworm Outbreak on Softwood Reproduction, Green River. Forestry Canada Frederiction, New Brunswick.

3. ---. 1978. Experts, Fools, and Why the Budworm Problem Seems So Complex. The Forestry Chronicle 54: 11-13.

4. ---. 1979. Implementation of Adaptive Approaches in Provincial and Federal Agencies. International Institute for Applied System Analysis.

5. ---. 1987. Implementation of the Crown Lands and Forests Act: Observations and Comments on the Process. New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources and Energy, Frederiction.

6. ---. 1988. Management of Publicly Owned Forests. The Forestry Chronicle 64: 193-198.

7. ---. 1978. New Brunswick's Budworm Future: Long-Term Policy of Protection Needed for a Long-Term Problem. Pulp and Paper 79 (3): 59-63.

8. ---. 1988. Redevelopment of a Degrading Forest System. Ambio 17: 314-322.

9. ---. 1975. Spruce Budworm-Super Silviculturist. Forestry Chronicle 51: 1-6.

10. ---. 1975. Spruce Budworm: The Answer is Forest Management: Or Is It? Forestry Chronicle 51: 23-26.

11. ---. 1982. The Spruce/Fir Wood Supply in New Brunswick. New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources and Energy, Frederiction.

12. ---. 1986. Understanding Forest Management. Forestry Chronicle 63: 339-347.

13. Baskerville, G. L., and D.A. MacLean. 1979. Budworm-Caused Mortality and 20-year Recovery in Mature Balsam Fir Stands. Canadian Forestry Service, Canada.

14. Baskerville, G. L., and K.L. Brown. 1985. The Different Worlds of Scientists and Reporters. Journal of Forestry 83: 490-493.

15. Baskerville, G. L., and S. Kleinschmidt. 1981. A Dynamic Model of Growth in Defoliated Fir Stands. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research 11: 206-214.

16. Holling, C.S. 1984. The Budworm/forest Model and Forest Management Policy. Quebec.

This report discusses budworm/forest resource problem in which a range of methods of data analysis, modeling, optimization and decision analysis were tested to provide a variety of policy instruments and a sample of alternative policies which could be implemented, modified, and adapted overtime. The paper gives a very good synthesis of the basic ingredients to consider in developing simulation models, to address resource management problems and the relationship between the type of question being posed and temporal and spatial scales.

17. Holling, C.S. 1981. Forest Insects, Forest Fires, and Resilience. Fire Regimes and Ecosystem Properties. eds H. Mooney, J.M. Bonnicksen, N.L. Christensen, J.E. Lotan, and W.A. Reiners. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report, USA.

This paper reports the conceptual advances made in resilience since its first articulation in 1973 by Holling. It first analyzes the natural dynamics and management consequences of two ecological systems: spruce budworm/forest interactions and fire/forest interactions. It then uses the result of this analysis as a framework to interpret the causes and effects of fire in forest systems. The similarities and differences observed is then used as the basis for adding three additional elements to the development of resilience theory. Finally, the need for analyzing institutional and ecological behavior simultaneously is emphasized.

18. Holling, C.S. 1988. Temperate Forest Insect Outbreaks, Tropical Deforestation and Migratory Birds. Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada 146: 21-32.

(see annotation number 19 in the Comprehensive Sources section)

19. Holling, C. S., G.B. Dantzig, W.C. Clark, D.D. Jones, G. Baskerville, and R.M. Peterman. 1979. Quantitative Evaluation of Pest Management Options: The Spruce Budworm Case Study. US Department of Agriculture: Washington Forest Service, Washington.

An excellent paper that describes the steps involved in developing a resource management simulation model that could be used as a laboratory world to aid in the design and evaluation of alternative policies. It first discusses how to bound a problem in terms of space, time, and variables. This is followed by the description of the model and model testing. The second part of the paper describes how the model can aid in policy design and evaluation by incorporating in it management objectives, optimization techniques, and a framework for evaluation. Finally it discusses the pro and cons of the modeling approach to resource management.

20. Irwin, L. L. and T.B. Wigley. 1992. Toward an Experimental Basis for Protecting Forest Wildlife. Ecological Applications 3 (2): 213-217.

This paper analyzes the social and ecological limitations of current efforts in protecting forest wildlife: Northern Spotted Owls and Red Cockaded Woodpeckers. It then argues for adaptive management that facilitates the development of socially and ecologically sound forest-resource policy, because it allows the simultaneous testing of multiple alternatives in an environment that integrates scientists, government, and the public.

21. Reiger, H. A., and G.L. Baskerville. 1986. Sustainable redevelopment of Regional Ecosystems Degraded by Exploitive Development. In Sustainable Development of the Biosphere. eds W.C. Clark, and R.E. Munn, Laxenburg, Austria: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and IIASA.

An excellent chapter that gives a historical account of how traditional management systems exploited a renewable resource base and seriously degraded the ecosystems. Using the New Brunswick forests and the Great lakes fish as two examples, the authors describe why, despite the talk about sustainability and a limited amount of planning to achieve it, traditional management of renewable resources failed. For sustainability to be useful, the authors argue, its definition must specify the quantity and quality of the products and services that society seeks from an ecosystem, as well as the time and geographical scale involved. The authors point out the measures necessary to redevelop these areas.

4.2. FISH CASE STUDIES

1. Hilborn, R. 1987. Living with Uncertainty in Resource Management. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 7: 1-5.

This article provides an excellent elaboration on the concept of uncertainty and also an analysis of management options in the face of uncertainty. Three classes of uncertainties are first described: uncertainties that are observed frequently ("noise"), uncertainties that are observed rarely (uncertain states of nature), and uncertainties totally beyond the range of prior experience ("surprise"). The article then discusses the strategy and tactics for dealing with each type of uncertainty.

2. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. 1979. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management: Current Progress and Prospects for the Approach.

(see annotation number 21 in the Conceptual Underpinnings section)

3. Reiger, H. A., and G.L. Baskerville. 1986. Sustainable redevelopment of Regional Ecosystems Degraded by Exploitive Development. In Sustainable Development of the Biosphere. eds W.C. Clark, and R.E. Munn, Laxenburg, Austria: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and IIASA.

(see annotation number 21 in the Forest Case Studies section)

4. Smith, A. D. 1979. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources with Uncertain Dynamics. Ph.D. diss., The University of British Colombia, Canada.

A Ph.D. dissertation where a range of adaptive policies--active, passive, and non adaptive-- were applied to the management of simulated fish stocks based on two simple models of stock dynamics: the Ricker and the Schaffer model. Comparison of policy performances shows that the active adaptive policy always performs better than non-adaptive policies.

5. Walters, C. J., and R. Hilborn. 1976. Adaptive Control of Fishing Systems. Journal of Fisheries Research Board of Canada 33 (1): 145-159.

(see annotation number 9 in the Tools and Methods section)

6. Walters, C.J. and R. Hilborn. 1978. Ecological Optimization and adaptive Management. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 9: 157-188.

The paper addresses the pervasiveness of uncertainty in resource management and how this uncertainty has been handled in passive adaptive management systems (fig. 11). According to Walters, passive adaptive management depends on monitoring managed systems to produce "time series of state indicators that are never a complete or accurate reflection of the true system state." Four "counter-adaptive" characteristics of passive adaptive systems are identified: preoccupation with stable equilibrium, adoption of operating policies based on the most optimistic predictions, infrequent review and revision of parameter estimations, and unwillingness to discard initial analyses and parameter estimates. The article also provides a good review of some optimization techniques (e.g., linear and dynamic programming), and explores the consequences of uncertainty using various optimization analyses. The analysis begins with "deterministic optimal control models that presume full knowledge and ends with adaptive control models that presume almost complete ignorance. The central concept of the article is that resource management must be treated as a fundamentally experimental activity and that mistakes are unavoidable. The solution to uncertainty is not to "bury our mistakes" but to learn from them.

4.3. EVERGLADES CASE STUDIES

1. Gunderson, L. H. 1994. Vegetation of the Everglades: Determinants of Community Composition. In The Everglades: The Ecosystem and Its Restoration. eds S. Davis, and J. Ogden, Delray Beach, Fla.: St. Lucie Press.

Excellent background material that describes the vegetation of the Everglades and discusses the interplay between plant associations and environmental determinants.

2. Gunderson, L. H., S.S. Light, and C.S. Holling. 1995. Lessons from the Everglades: Learning in a Turbulent System. BioScience Supplement S66-S73.

The article's main focus is the relation between science and policy. The authors use the Everglades as an example, first tracing the history of water management and then using Holling's four phase heuristic model (exploitation, conservation, creative destruction, and renewal) to describe policy changes (fig. 12). They describe the different roles science and scientists play in each of the four phase heuristic model. The article concludes that a close coupling of science and policy in an adaptive framework is providing solutions to dealing with the uncertainties of water management in the Everglades.

3. Light, S. S. J.R. Wodraska, and S. Joe. 1989. The Southern Everglades: The Evolution of Water Management. National Forum 11-14.

This article gives a concise historical account of water management in the Everglades with special emphasis on problems and issues along the northern and eastern boundaries of the Everglade National Park. It also gives specific lessons learned in the evolution of water management in the Everglades.

4. Light, S. S. and J.W. Dinsen. 1994. Water Control in the Everglades: A Historical Perspective. In The Everglades: The Ecosystem and Its Restoration. eds S. Davis, and J. Ogden. Delray Beach: St. Lucie Press.

This chapter gives a historical description of the chronology of structural installations and modifications in the Everglades. It also describes how these structural installations are influenced by changes in the objectives of the structures: from flood control, to water supply, and to redressing adverse environmental impacts.

5. Walters, C. J., L.H. Gunderson, and C.S. Holling. 1992. Experimental Policies for Water Management in the Everglades. Ecological Applications 2 (2): 189-202.

The article reviews two simulation models developed to examine spatial and temporal changes in surface water depths and flows over the Everglades. It discusses the results of the simulation models in terms of major hypotheses that have been advanced for the decline of wading bird populations. It concludes by suggesting experimental steps for the restoration of the Everglades ecosystem.

6. Walters, C. J., and L.H. Gunderson. Screening Water Policies for Ecological Restoration in the Everglades. In The Everglades: The Ecosystem and its Restoration. eds M. Davis and J.C. Ogden. Delray Beach, Fla.: St. Lucie Press.

The chapter summarizes discussions and debates that involved more than 50 concerned scientists over five Adaptive Environmental Assessment Workshops during 1989-91. It shows how hydrological models can be used to define what it would mean to restore the Everglades' water characteristics. It identifies strategic options for restoring water quantity, quality, and distribution.

Top

CREDITS

Tsegaye Nega is a Ph.D. student and MacArthur Scholar in the interdisciplinary Graduate Program in Conservation Biology and an ISEES Graduate Research Assistant at the University of Minnesota. He has directed agricultural research for development programs in Ethiopia and recently co-led a workshop on adaptive environmental assessment for natural resource managers in the Upper Midwest. His current research interests focus on understanding the relationship between in situconservation of crop biodiversity and food security at the local community scale.

ISEES, the Institute for Social, Economic, and Ecological Sustainability was initiated in July 1996 to strengthen the University of Minnesota's capacity to analyze sustainability issues and recommend options for moving towards sustainability. Our vision is based on the fundamental idea that sustainable relationships between the social, economic, and ecological spheres of the world are possible and desirable. ISEES, a program of the Interdisciplinary Center for the Study of Global Change, is supported by the University of Minnesota Graduate School and the MacArthur Interdisciplinary Program on Peace and International Cooperation. Other sponsors include the University of Minnesota Department of Fisheries and Wildlife and the College of Natural Resources, the Northwest Area Foundation, and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

The Northwest Collaboratory for Sustainability was first assembled in 1997 to foster sustainability in the Upper Midwest through adaptive and ecosystem-based approaches. Its mission is to increase the capacity for renewal of regional ecological and economic resources through collaborative science-based assessment, management, learning, and civic-centered dialogue. Founding members of the Collaboratory include the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources; the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources; Beldon, Hyatt and Ackley; the Resources Study Center of St. Mary's University; and the Institute for Social, Economic, and Ecological Sustainability of the University of Minnesota.

Top

ISEES Home | Staff | Contact Us

Last modified August 17, 2006. For questions and comments related to this web page please contact ISEES@umn.edu.
© 1996-2000 Institute for Social, Economic, and Ecological Sustainability, University of Minnesota.
ISEES is supported by the Graduate School; College of Biological Sciences; College of Food, Agricultural, and Natural Resource Sciences; and the MacArthur Interdisciplinary Program On Global Change, Sustainability, and Justice at the University of Minnesota.
The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer.