Ecosystem Management Tools and Techniques:
Proceedings of a CRS Workshop

Wayne A. Morrissey
Senior Research Assistant
Science Policy Research Division

March 27, 1995

94-430 SPR

CONTENTS

SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
DEMONSTRATIONS

Ecosystem Management, Geographic Information Systems, and the Global Positioning System (GPS)
Gap Analysis
Ecosystem Management and Decision-Based Supporting Technologies

PRESENTATION THEMES

Applying Technology to Analyzing Ecosystems
Technology Opportunities and Limitations
Evolving Technologies
Technology and the Social Component of Ecosystem Management
Coordination
Ecosystem Data and Information

ISSUES FOR CONGRESS

Congressional Interest
The Clinton Administration and the Ecosystem Approach
Legislative Issues

APPENDIX I. PRESENTATIONS AT THE WORKSHOP

Introduction to the CRS Workshop on the Tools and Techniques of Ecosystem Management
The Role of Data Management and Information Analysis for Supporting an Ecosystem Approach
Applications of GPS and GIS Techniques in Migratory Bird Management
The Gap Analysis Program (GAP) of the National Biological Survey
TERRA Tools and Techniques for Ecosystem Management

APPENDIX II. PROGRAM OF THE EVENT
APPENDIX III. BIOGRAPHIES OF SPEAKERS AND CRS STAFF

SUMMARY

The House Subcommittee on Technology, Environment, and Aviation of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology (103rd Congress) requested that Congressional Research Service (CRS) hold a workshop on the tools and techniques of ecosystem management. The purposes of this workshop were to demonstrate tools and techniques used in scientific research on ecosystems and to address technological aspects of developing and administering a national policy for ecosystem management.

CRS invited nationally recognized leaders to discuss practical applications such as locating boundaries of natural habitats, demonstrating temporal changes in ecosystems, and improving communication and coordination among many of the stakeholders. The workshop featured technologies used by Federal agencies to support their ecosystem management programs. Participants were also to prepare presentations which addressed five policy questions:

• What are the opportunities and limitations of these tools?

• Where is the development of these tools headed, and how rapidly are they changing

• What are the costs associated with tools, and how do those costs compare with the cost of data acquisition?

• Is there a need for new or different data based upon the capabilities and opportunities of the tools? and,

• What is the potential of these tools for informing the public decision-making process and contributing to other national goals?

The following conclusions were drawn from the workshop:

• Many of the tools and techniques demonstrated appeared effective at analyzing functional relationships within an ecosystem, including the human component; others clearly demonstrated potential for incorporating stakeholders' concerns in assessments of ecosystems;

• New applications and technologies may be needed as project managers gain experience with an ecosystem approach;

• Stakeholders should be able to reduce redundancy in planning and to develop standardized technology-based systems for research and analysis of ecosystems, and for data management;

• Costs of procurement of technology would likely decline if collaborative approaches to ecosystem management were adopted; and

• Ecosystem data and analyses are similar to many other types of information which describe spatial changes over time; moreover, these could contribute to and benefit from other national efforts aimed at understanding the Earth and its physical systems.

This report summarizes the workshop; the five presentations are reproduced in an appendix.

INTRODUCTION

The purposes of the workshop were to demonstrate various tools and techniques of ecosystem research and to address technology-related aspects of the administration of ecosystem management programs. This workshop also explored ways technology could be helpful for developing and implementing a coordinated Federal policy on ecosystem management, one which the Clinton Administration and others have expressed hope would encompass social, economic, and cultural values in addition to environmental concerns.

The workshop focused on how technology might: 1) support better coordination of Federal agencies and their programs; 2) monitor changing conditions under an ecosystem approach; 3) be used to validate successes or failures in natural resources management which are allegedly attributable to ecosystem approaches; and 4) be used to monitor compliance with relevant environmental requirements.

Other themes of the workshop included how data derived from such ecosystem management activities could be made more readily accessible to the research community and interpreted for policymakers; and how the nature of and needs for data change over time.

Congress hopes to learn whether a Federal ecosystem management framework might help to resolve some of these conflicts; and how technology such as geographic information systems, and techniques such as spatial analysis, might be adapted to an ecosystem approach. Many Members of Congress are particularly interested in addressing conflicts in natural resources management because various Federal, State, and local laws have mandated conflicting missions. For example, some agencies have been traditionally charged with promoting natural resources development, while others protect the environment or individual species in adjacent or common sites.

The U.S. Congress also has been interested in learning how technology can enhance the science which supports the ecosystem approach and other national scientific efforts such as the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the National Biological Service, and the development of a National Spatial Data Infrastructure. Moreover, it would like to know how information can be effectively analyzed and interpreted for administrative decision makers.

Representative Tim Valentine, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Technology, Environment and Aviation in the 103rd Congress requested that CRS hold this workshop for congressional staff. Wayne Morrissey of the Science Policy Research Division organized and moderated this workshop, and Jeffrey Zinn of the Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division co-coordinated the workshop. The workshop took place on June 22, 1994. It was the first in a possible series of follow up workshops to the two-day CRS Symposium on Ecosystem Management which took place on March 24 and 25, 1994.(1)

BACKGROUND

The workshop was primarily focused on the tools used to describe and analyze ecosystems as part of ongoing management efforts. Demonstrations and presentations by experts explored how these might serve public decision makers. Some participants were requested to discuss practical applications of these tools, including their potential for locating natural boundaries and identifying temporal changes in ecosystems. Others participants demonstrated the potential of some of these tools to organize, analyze, and present information to support the management of ecosystems. All participants were also asked to address five questions with policy implications:

• What are the opportunities and limitations of these tools?

• Where is the development of these tools headed, and how rapidly are they changing?

• What are the costs associated with the tools, and how do those costs compare with the cost of data acquisition?

• Is there a need for new or different data based upon the capabilities and opportunities of the tools? and

• What is the potential use of these tools for informing the public decision making process and how might they contribute to other national goals?

Concurrent demonstrations for Members and staff of the practical applications of tools used in the ecosystem approach were conducted by: 1) Terrestrial Ecosystems Regional Research and Analysis Laboratory of Ft. Collins, Colorado, a U.S. Federal interagency consortium of universities and the private sector; 2) U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), demonstrating the use of the Global Positioning System (GPS) for tracking non-game species on Conservation Reserve Program lands; and 3) the National Biological Survey (NBS) of the U.S. Department of the Interior -- now the National Biological Service -- in conjunction with the USGS-EROS Data Center demonstrating techniques of Gap Analysis.

After introductory remarks of Wayne Morrissey of CRS, Nancy Tosta, Chief of the Branch of Geographic Data Coordination at the National Mapping Division of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gave the keynote address. Ms. Tosta spoke on the role of data management and information analysis in ecosystem management. She also discussed the opportunities and limitations of ecosystem management data, and how they might serve other broad national goals. Following a discussion period, representatives of each of the demonstrations of ecosystem management technology made a brief presentation reproduced in Appendix I. TERRA Lab then demonstrated its "Active Response GIS (ARGIS)," followed by a question and answer session. Concurrent demonstrations resumed for the remaining time.

DEMONSTRATIONS

Ecosystem Management, Geographic Information Systems, and the Global Positioning System (GPS)

D. Alan Davenport, Geographic Information System (GIS) Specialist at FWS, demonstrated a GIS used interactively with a hand-held geographic position locator. The locator was in communication with the space-based satellite Global Positioning System (GPS). This suite of tools illustrated how migratory fowl, for example, could be tracked to identify their habitats and ranges.

Mr. Davenport explained how observers on the ground could spot species flying overhead and determine their location using the GPS. At the same time, aerial surveillance with an expert observer on board the aircraft is often performed in conjunction with satellite-remote sensing. Comparison of the two observations is used to validate spatial data and can help to classify broad-scale land uses and bioregions. In addition, aerial surveillance enables a trained, in-flight observer with a two-way transmitter to serve as the eyes of field experts who are unable to gather such extensive data in situ. In such cases, observations are radioed back to the ground and technicians scan bar-coded classifications with a wand into a notebook-PC while tracking the location of the aircraft. They may also manually input supplemental information about the ecosystem and other unique spatial attributes.

None of these technologies eliminate the work of field ecologists. At times, a field observer may have to work at a level of detail that is too great for remote-sensing technologies or aerial surveillance. Moreover, satellites and aerial surveillance cannot "see" important details of the ecosystem under forest canopies, again requiring the field observers to gather the missing information. The field expert is also important for ground-truthing and validating remotely sensed data. However, space- based technology still plays an integral role because the field experts can triangulate precise locations by GPS radio signal.

Gap Analysis

Dr. Michael Scott of the Idaho Cooperative Unit of the National Biological Service (NBS), and a current national leader in Gap Analysis, described the methodology as one which "Provides a quick overview of the distribution and conservation status of several components of biodiversity. It seeks to identify gaps (i.e., vegetation types and species that are not represented in the network of biodiversity management areas) that may be filled through establishment of new reserves or changes in land management practices." (2)

Gap Analysis relies on GIS, satellite remote-sensing, and field measurements. It entails overlaying data such as vegetation types, predicted animal distributions, and protected areas. The resulting maps can be used to identify gaps in protection of biodiversity, where biodiversity conservation might conflict with management practices. Many experts in the field are quick to point out, however, that Gap Analysis is only one technique of an ecosystem management approach and is not a substitute for a comprehensive biological survey.

Using a GIS to display and analyze spatially-referenced digital data in cartographic format, Brian Biggs of the USGS-EROS Data Center, demonstrated how NBS is currently performing Gap Analysis. Dr. Scott pointed out that the importance of this technique for ecosystem management becomes very clear when policy makers are able to visualize graphically how two different government-mandated projects, which are collecting different information or utilizing different management practices based on disparate needs , can ultimately conflict. The demonstration of the database also showed how biodiversity can often be unaccounted for in land management or environmental protection efforts, because it transcends traditional boundaries of institutions responsibilities.

In a similar vein, Gap Analysis based upon validated scientific data can demonstrate intrinsic conflicts when statutes require administrative entities to pursue differing management responsibilities. For example, currently restricted alternative land uses, including resources extraction or agriculture, might be allowed in some areas where evidence suggests that neither the environmental quality nor populations of adjacent communities are in a critical state. That is, where the ecosystem is not environmentally stressed.

Brian Biggs mentioned that only a small number of States at this time have compiled sufficient biodiversity data for inclusion in a database of Gap Analysis created by NBS for public access. Dr. Scott suggested that compilation of the database has only been made possible so far by contributions from viable, comprehensive, and detailed State and community biological surveys. NBS has made some biological survey data accessible via the Internet for a limited number of ecoregions in the United States. Dr. Scott noted that over two hundred public and private institutions are currently engaged in Gap Analysis, so the database will expand significantly in the near future.

NBS is also working with the United Nations Environmental Programme's Global Resource Information Database (UNEP-GRID) Program, which has developed an extensive database of global land-use and vegetation classifications. UNEP intends to expand the biological survey concept of NBS internationally through the GRID program. Brian Biggs suggested that leveraging resources between the two institutions has helped to keep down the costs of both. Moreover, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has helped NBS to enhance its Gap Analysis program with the inclusion of UNEP-GRID data on North America .

Ecosystem Management and Decision-Based Supporting Technologies

Virginia Ferreira led a group from Terrestrial Ecosystems Regional Research and Analysis Laboratory (TERRA Lab) of Ft. Collins, Colorado, in demonstrating electronic systems, some which were designed to analyze relationships of entities in the physical and geographic environment, and others which would foster a consensus-building process for stakeholders by enhancing communications. At the workshop, these technologies were adapted specifically for an ecosystem-based approach for land management.

Technologies included a hypertext-based software used interactively with a GIS, which proved to be a powerful tool for compiling spatially-referenced attributes of an ecosystem and demonstrating their functional relationships. The results of various queries could be viewed either in cartographic (map-based), encyclopedic (textual), or sophisticated graphics (computer visualization) format, and at a hierarchy of spatial resolutions. Queries could be initiated just by pointing and clicking on specific text or objects represented on a map, such as place names, water bodies, or public facilities.

TERRA Lab also demonstrated its "Modular Modeling Complex," a system which is capable of integrating independent models, and objectively giving equal weight to each model's sub-components. In this manner, the interrelationships between two (or more) physical systems, such as the local hydrological cycle and incident vegetation species, could be analyzed. Furthermore, these data were displayed in 4 dimensions, exhibiting physical changes over time (from hours to years) and space.

TERRA Lab's "Active Response GIS (ARGIS)", unlike many of the other tools demonstrated at the workshop, was primarily developed to support administrative decisions. ARGIS functions as an electronic conference tool and polling system which utilizes Structured Analysis Methodology (SAM). ARGIS has the capability of combining responses made by users who have different interests, needs, and priorities; and projecting the results as a geographically-based data display. ARGIS was touted as a non- biased means of consensus building for decision makers. At its core is a GIS, which creates possible scenarios that weigh the interests of all affected parties. TERRA Lab conducted a mock land-use planning exercise at the workshop, and final results illustrated the collective attitudes of those in attendance about sustainable economic development within a hypothetical geographic region.

PRESENTATION THEMES

The workshop revolved around six major themes: the application of technology to ecosystem management; the opportunities and limitations of technology; evolution of the technologies; characterization of the social components of ecosystem management; the potential benefits to programs from improved coordination among stakeholders; and ecosystem data management and analysis.

Applying Technology to Analyzing Ecosystems

Many presenters portrayed their demonstrations as representative of a wide array of technological approaches for addressing some of the challenges of ecosystem management. The various presentations identified the components of an ecosystem approach, including research, data management and analysis, planning for natural resources, and development of an integrated assessment of ecosystems with appropriate weights given to decisions affecting stakeholders interests. Others made a point that technology also can be used to enhance communication among the stakeholders.

TERRA Lab noted that many of their tools have already been employed successfully for such diverse purposes as environmental modeling and monitoring, meeting and conducting business electronically, and polling public opinion. Other presentations touted the benefits of integrating different technologies in an ecosystem approach. An example is FWS efforts at tracking wildlife, which draw upon the capabilities of a suite of technologies which help to identify geographic coordinates, and facilitate spatial analysis.

Technology Opportunities and Limitations

Most assessments were optimistic that technology could assist in ecosystem approaches. In the context of streamlining excessive regulations, promoting efficiency in government, and shifting toward risk-based regulatory policy, for example, one presentation discussed how GIS can show how regulations are manifested in the physical and geographic environment. Dr. Scott of NBS concentrated especially on how management practices might affect biodiversity. He suggested that GIS output can clearly demarcate where some statutes are effective, and others are conflicting, redundant, or superfluous, as measured by the apparent health of ecosystems, based on the presence of important indicator species. Many presenters described ways in which decision-makers and stakeholders could begin to build political consensus, for example, by adapting technologies such as TERRA Lab's "ARGIS" in an ecosystem-based approach which encompasses integrated assessment.

The presentations also illustrated how the purposes of the tools and techniques of ecosystem management can be as diverse as their users. D. Alan Davenport of FWS cited how some technologies help to support assessments of ecosystem function and efforts at restoring them and improving their resiliency. Others pointed out benefits from technologies which can integrate and assess the social, economic, and cultural activities of humans within the ecosystem. Such activities might help to identify human activities which foster environmental stewardship, sustainable natural resources development and planning, and long-term support of ecosystem-based management practices; or, on the other hand, identify the possible detrimental effects of humans and their institutions upon ecosystems.

One speaker suggested that although many technologies enhance scientific knowledge about ecosystems or facilitate an ecosystem approach, these tools are only one component of an ecosystem approach which requires human interface and expertise. Other limitations include the potential for data collection to outpace analytical capabilities; the high costs of developing and transferring technology to the private sector; and, the analysts' confidence in the validity of the data collected, and the quality of the metadata (auxiliary data which describe the methodologies and parameters under which data were collected).

Evolving Technologies

A recurring theme was that the technologies of ecosystem management would continue to evolve. An analogy was made in one presentation to the evolution of personal computers over the past 15 years. The tradeoff of the initially high costs of continual evolving technology is that its users are typically compensated by declining costs as the market for new technologies expands, and as the efficiency and utility of the technologies increase.

Ms. Tosta pointed out that the purpose for developing GIS systems is not only to model natural systems on a spatial basis, but also to use those models to understand how site and social interactions give value to a "place" comprised of natural systems and human, social, economic and cultural activities. She suggested that by conceptualizing ecosystems as a place containing objects with attached human values, this new approach moves spatial analysis from having to consider spatially defined areas as a series of layers which may or may not schematically relate with one another to an object-oriented GIS which defines relationships of objects in space. Using this new approach may simply require a new set of algorithms and new versions of existing GIS software programs.

Virginia Ferreira emphasized that the technological groundwork has already been laid for a consensus-building process which identifies interests and concerns of all stakeholders, and which is targeted to planning at the local community level. The essence of such a process, she suggested, is embodied in such technologies as TERRA Lab's "ARGIS", which uses structural analysis methodology.

Technology and the Social Component of Ecosystem Management

Many involved in ecosystem management, especially social scientists, have asserted that, under the evolving paradigm of an ecosystem approach, humans and their institutions should be considered an integral component of the ecosystem, rather than one operating independently and unaffected by, or dominant over the ecosystem. In her presentation, Ms. Tosta identified ecosystems as places, and as entities which encompass social, economic, and cultural functions of their human inhabitants. This concept is now generally referred to as the "human dimensions of ecosystem management." The human component of the landscape has also gained attention of those concerned with global climate change.(3) The Clinton Administration has also supported the concept of including a social and economic component in both ecosystem approaches and integrated assessments of ecosystems.

Coordination

All presentations addressed coordination among participating public and private institutions; and some of the historical impediments to inter-institutional and interdisciplinary approaches which have been encountered. An example is when social and physical scientists do not "speak the same language" or share the same terminology or research methodologies. Presenters emphasized the need for interagency and intra-governmental coordination, as well as collaboration with the academic community and the private sector to ensure that all stakeholders have an opportunity to participate in planning activities and decision making.

Nancy Tosta, in particular, explained how lack of coordination can impede the development of common tools and practices, and how it may result in institutions independently developing practices to manage and distribute data. There seemed to be a consensus that such impediments also affect private efforts. Furthermore, coordination appears to flounder when Federal laws and regulations mandate actions, or when actions are requested by the Federal government, but these are expected to be financed and managed at the sub-national level; a concern now debated under the label of "unfunded mandates".

Discussants pointed out that lack of coordination may also reflect different priorities of Federal agencies within a given ecosystem; whether it be to increase harvest of timber, to preserve the health of indigenous wildlife, or provide more scenic recreation and boating opportunities. Ms. Tosta suggested that while it might be expected that research methodologies and resultant data would differ from project to project, the intrinsic data management and other practices which administratively support research and policy decision-making should be standardized.

Other presenters commented on some of the successes of interagency and interdisciplinary coordination overcoming institutional impediments. The experiences of the NBS Gap Analysis Program and the TERRA Lab mission were offered as examples. Both activities were founded on public/private partnerships, and in the latter example, through a federally supported Cooperative Research and Develop Agreement (CRADA).

Ecosystem Data and Information

Discussion of the importance of data management and information analysis centered on how an ecosystem approach's spatial data needs are similar to others that require relationships within a place to be modeled; and how interpretation of these data currently depend on techniques of geospatial analysis. Issues surrounding the pricing, user-ascribed values, and criteria for data collection were also discussed.

Nancy Tosta discussed the role of the White House Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) in data management, which is to promote standardization among all Federal agencies in how they archive, store, transfer, and distribute spatially related digital data. Addressing the concern that the FGDC was trying to impose a research agenda on its members, she contrasted the more philosophical and visionary aspects of how ecosystem data and information management might be carried out, and the more narrowly defined mandate of FGDC.

Pricing of data, and their value-added products, was also addressed by Ms. Tosta who summarized how costs often reflect values ascribed to certain data, data sets, or analyses. Moreover, the value of most raw or unenhanced data (data as collected by the primary investigator, for example) is limited to a select group that can understand and manipulate them. Some data may be useful only in real time; other data may be more important from a historical perspective to demonstrate changes in ecosystems. Furthermore, 1) the reliability of the source, 2) the validity of the data, 3) any personal values attached to them, and 4) how they are ultimately used or interpreted by others, are other factors which may affect the pricing of data or resultant analyses. Many in the Federal data community have supported a minimal cost-of-reproduction-only policy for those who work with minimally-enhanced digital data.

Another salient issue concerns whether Federal agencies are currently collecting and preserving the "right" data, and how data collection priorities, will most likely change over time. Virginia Ferreira raised this issue in the context of detecting indicators for major global climatic change. She suggested that recent changes in water availability, which she has observed in an ecosystem she has been studying, may be one indicator of climate change. Awareness of climatic change was made possible through data collections derived from an ecosystem-based approach whose proponents are currently looking at changes in hydrologic systems over time, as one of the ecosystem's components. In this context, she suggested, both ecosystem managers and the global change community often benefit from the same data and research.

ISSUES FOR CONGRESS

Congressional Interest

Congress has shown interest in many issues relating to a Federal ecosystem management policy. In the fall of 1993, six congressional committees requested CRS organize a symposium on ecosystem management. That symposium was held on March 24-25, 1994, and was attended by many congressional staff members and over 150 experts representing science, natural resources management, public administration, environmental advocacy, and industry, as well as private land owners, such as ranchers and farmers.

Many lawmakers have raised important questions about ecosystem management. Among these were how they might support the development of a consensus-building process to serve the interests of many stakeholders, and whether technology might help to facilitate an ecosystem approach. These concerns were addressed in this workshop.

For a broader discussion of issues relating to the ecosystem approach, see Ecosystem Management: Status and Potential; Summary of a Workshop Convened by the Congressional Research Service, March 24 and 25, 1994. Prepared by the Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division of the Congressional Research Service for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works [S.Prt. 103-98]. Washington, GPO, December 1994. 331 p.

The Clinton Administration and the Ecosystem Approach

The goals of ecosystem management have been strongly supported by the Clinton Administration and are articulated in the President's FY 1995 budget submission to Congress and in Reinventing American Government. The Administration intends to protect biodiversity, to gain a better understanding of ecosystem dynamics, and to reduce Government costs through sharing resources. On this subject, participants discussed the need for national legislation governing domestic policy on ecosystem management in the near future.

Part of the rationale behind such legislation is the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy's (OSTP) initiative to prioritize Federal research activities in ecosystem management and environmental research and development, in general, as embodied in the President's FY 1996 budget submission. The White House Office of Environmental Policy (OEP) has been promoting a series of regional case studies to determine what is currently working in ecosystem management. The OEP has sponsored a Federal task force report on ecosystem management which will include an extensive survey of study areas.

Legislative Issues

Comments about the value of this workshop to congressional staff were offered. Generally, the value was in raising important issues that might become part of future legislative deliberations.

Some of these comments addressed how a comprehensive Federal ecosystem management approach might require a reevaluation of supporting Federal scientific research priorities and technological requirements. Participants aware of technology research, development, and transfer issues, for example, cited how impediments may arise in the development, procurement, and implementation of new technologies intended to enhance Federal efforts; and suggested that these impediments could be institutional, economic, or legal.

Many legislative staff concurred with presenters that ecosystem management programs could be better coordinated across Federal agencies and with other intergovernmental, academic, and private institutions. They said the workshop helped to make them aware of the important role for coordination in the development and utilization of these tools, processes, and data management systems.

Participants involved in ecosystem management, including Federal natural resources managers in attendance, proposed new management approaches. They concurrently requested the direction of Congress through legislation to encompass social, economic, and cultural concerns along with the promotion of healthy ecosystems in their respective programs. In addition, some attending Federal field managers urged that a national ecosystem management policy be driven from the bottom-up, and be case-sensitive. They asserted that any national policies should be flexible enough to allow for an "adaptive management" approach that can be adjusted as ecosystems change.

How the tools and techniques of ecosystem management will be used remains to be seen. However, many of these technologies demonstrated potential for contributing to an integrated assessment of ecosystems, as called for by the White House OEP and OSTP, among others. Such an assessment would require data and mathematical models, qualitative input, and conceptual models accounting for social, economic and cultural interests of stakeholders.

Most of the technologies demonstrated at the workshop and discussed in presentations appeared to be effective for relating biodiversity and physical environments within ecosystems. A demonstration of technology-assisted Gap Analysis, for example, illustrated how required management practices may be engendering conflicts within defined ecoregions; and "ARGIS", developed by TERRA Lab, demonstrated its capability for assisting with consensus building.

Remote sensing technology has accelerated the rate and increased the amount of data collected at broad spatial resolutions. This technology has facilitated spatial analysis because these data are acquired in digital format and are often compatible with GIS. With the capture of more validated spatial data, the costs of acquisition are likely to decline. Some scientists even fear that before too long there will be an inundation of data, and more will be available than they are capable of analyzing. If so, costs for value-added data and resultant analysis may begin to increase as the supply of data begins to outstrip analyses; while the costs for raw or unenhanced data are likely to decline.

It has been argued that the costs of technology and managing data for ecosystem management activities could be leveraged among a host of stakeholders, once standardized procedures and shared practices are adopted. In this context, many speakers asserted that Federal agencies, or the Federal Government, must develop partnerships with other public and private institutions to support these efforts.

Many discussants recognized that technology alone will not resolve all the institutional barriers which currently constrain a national ecosystem effort. Obstacles are as basic as devising standard definitions for key concepts among many involved disciplines in the social and physical sciences, including a "healthy ecosystem", "adaptive management", "productive capacity", and "ecosystem restoration". Developing standards for engineering and calibrating the tools that would measure and monitor progress, and indices to validate successes or failures of the ecosystem approach, is also a formidable challenge.

Moreover, there is not total agreement among the ranks of the U.S. Federal Government and private citizens as to whether adopting an ecosystem approach--which might imply further government intervention, additional regulations and requirements for private land owners, and new responsibilities for enforcement--is the right way to proceed for future national land management policies.

However, at the conclusion of the workshop, many participants agreed that the progress of adapting technology for an ecosystem approach is at a pivotal point. They emphasized that to perpetuate such successful (albeit in some cases experimental) efforts and to implement new technology in ecosystem approaches, Congress and the public need to be aware that concepts of ecosystem management and its data and information management components will change over time and with practical experience. The technology used to acquire and analyze those data will change as well. Furthermore, the needs for data will change as knowledge about what is required for effective ecosystem management evolves. Supporters of the development of applicable technologies for Federal ecosystem approaches, therefore, must be flexible and sensitive to the evolving qualities and longevity of such programs.

Endnotes

1. Ecosystem Management: Status and Potential; Summary of a Workshop Convened by the Congressional Research Service, March 24 and 26, 1994. Prepared by the Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division of the Congressional Research Service for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works [S.Prt. 103-98]. Washington, GPO, December 1994. 331 p.

2. Gap Analysis: A Geographic Approach to Protection of Biological Diversity," by J Michael Scott, et al. Wildlife Monographs, no. 123, January 1993: 1-41 1993, Blacksburg, VA., Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and University.

3. See, for example, Global Environmental Change: Understanding the Human Dimensions. Paul C. Stern, Oran Young, and Daniel Druckman, editors. Committee on Human Dimensions of Global Change, Commission on the Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. Washington, 1992. National Academy of Sciences Press. 308 pp.