We are told time and time again how environmental studies as a field is interdisciplinary. This is emphasized in the structure of this class as it is categorized as both an anthropology course and a biology course. This same theme is seen in ecosystem-based management (EBM). EBM focuses on managing how humans and ecosystems interact, while still looking at the science of the ecosystem it looks to conserve. But the divide is not just between natural scientists and policy-makers or social scientists — it expands to include alternative stakeholders as well as subsets of each of the aforementioned divisions.
Just within the scientists, there exist parties of geologists, biologists, and engineers, who all highlight different areas of interest and intend to employ different methods of addressing those interests. Specifically in the studied California estuary, Elkhorn Slough, Wasson et al. noted that there was a division between geologists, who sought to mitigate erosion rates through physical intervention, and biologists, who stated that many key species had thrived in the harsh tidal conditions and were opposed to such controlled management strategies. Water quality scientists, engineers, and social scientists also varied from both these courses of action. The question comes up of which path to take? Or, how do you combine these different approaches to find the best management plan?
Wasson, et al. argue that communication is the key. An excess of discussion between all groups helps to find a balance, or middle ground, between all options and also introduces new ideas or solution that would not be considered if only one discipline was being utilized. Also in doing this, extremes (that consider one discipline’s solution without regard to others) are avoided. Discussion from all interested parties brings in new perspectives and allows for a more holistic approach on the management strategy. However, creating routes for this kind of communication, between the scientists, managers, and stakeholders, is very time consuming and requires many meetings and presentations to fully share all the ideas and perspectives. Wasson et al. suggests that a mediator, or coordinator, is highly important in maintaining order in these meetings and communications between parties. Such a coordinator should be well versed in all fields and capable of fostering productive conversation. This recommendation further drives home the point of how important an interdisciplinary background is.
The process of EBM is interdisciplinary, but it is also extremely useful for the individuals working towards an EBM to have some interdisciplinary background as it makes them more receptive and knowledgeable about other parties’ strategies. Interdisciplinary work is difficult (as it brings in so many different areas and contrasting opinions), and requires a lot of time and resources to be executed properly, but it is necessary in a field with as many complex factors as ecosystem management.
Sources: