Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-15T14:43:05.423Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SCIENTISTS, MODELS, AND RESOURCE MANAGERS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

H. Douglas Walker  and
Wilfred R. Cuff
H. Douglas Walker
Affiliation:
Faculty of Forestry, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, N.B. E3B 6C2
Wilfred R. Cuff
Affiliation:
Canadian Forestry Service – Martimes, PO Box 4000, Fredericton, N.B. E3B 5P7
Get access

Abstract

Concerns are frequently expressed within the resource management community that many of the tools or models being developed to help people manage resources aren't being used. Less clear are the reasons, but a look at the contrasts between resource management and resource science provides some clues. The disciplinary organization of scientific knowledge, compared with the general nature of management problems, contributes to the gap between science and management. Many of the difficulties that resource scientists are experiencing are shared by management scientists attempting to provide problem-solving support to managers. In fact, management scientists who are developing tools for use by managers are sometimes said to be doing research on "toy" problems because of their tendency to oversimplify the "messes" or complex systems with which managers are trying to deal. To derive tools of use in solving real problems, some resource scientists will have to be willing to study and work with resource managers in the context where problems are faced.

Résumé

La littérature scientifique indique que bon nombre des outils et des modèles élaborés pour servir d'appui à la régie des ressources demeurent inutilisés. Les raisons précises demeurent obscures, mais un regard sur les contrastes qui existent entre la régie des ressources et la science des ressources fournit quelques indices. L'organisation disciplinaire des connaissances scientifiques, comparée à la nature générale des problèmes de régie, contribue à créer un fossé entre la science et la pratique de la régie. Plusieurs des problèmes que les scientistes des ressources rencontrent sont partagés par les scientistes de la régie lorsque ceux-ci tentent de solutionner des problèmes qui leur sont soumis par des administrateurs. Les scientistes élaborant des outils destinés aux administrateurs se font parfois signaler que leurs solutions concernent des problèmes "jouets" étant donnée leur tendance à sur-simplifier les systèmes complexes qui font l'objet de l'attention des administrateurs. Afin d'élaborer des outils pouvant solutionner des problèmes réels, les scientistes des ressources devront accepter d'étudier et de travailler de concert avec les administrateurs des ressources, là où les problèmes doivent être envisagés de front.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada , Volume 120 , Supplement S143 , 1988 , pp. 11 - 17
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

Present address: Weldwood of Canada Limited, Hinton Division, Bag Service 8000, Hinton, Alberta, Canada T0E lB0.

2

Present address: Laboratory Centre for Disease Control, Department of National Health and Welfare, LCDC Building, Tunney's Pasture, Holland Avenue, Ottawa, Ontrio, Canada K1A 0L2.

References

Ackoff, R.L. 1978. Beyond problem solving, pp. 35–41 in Green, T.B., Lee, S.M., and Newsom, W.B. (Eds.), The Decision Science Process: Integrating the Quantitative and Behavioral, Petrocelli Books, New York. 396 pp.Google Scholar
Ackoff, R.L. 1981. The art and science of mess management. Interfaces 11(1): 20–26.Google Scholar
Baskerville, G.L. 1983. Research in renewable resource management. Paper prepared for the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Faculty of Forestry, Univ. New Brunswick, Fredericton.Google Scholar
Baskerville, G.L., and Kleinschmidt, S.. 1981. A dynamic model of growth in defoliated fir stands. Can. J. For. Res. 11: 206–214.Google Scholar
Beyer, J., and Sparre, P.. 1983. Modelling exploited marine fish stock, pp. 485–583 in Jorgensen, S.E. (Ed.), Applications of Ecological Modelling in Environmental Management, Part A. Developments in Environmental Modelling, 4A, Elsevier, Amsterdam. 735 pp.Google Scholar
Biswas, A.K. 1975. Mathematical modelling and environmental decision-making. Ecol. Model. 1: 31–48.Google Scholar
Breeze, J.E. 1980. Problem solving, analysis or synthesis: a critical need for scholarship. Inf. 18(4): 367–372.Google Scholar
Brown, R.V., Kahr, A.S., and Peterson, C.. 1974. Decision analysis: an overview. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Toronto, x + 86 pp.Google Scholar
Burch, W.G. 1978. The role of integrated forest companies in western Canada. Univ. Alberta Forest Industry Lecture Series 2.Google Scholar
Carrow, J.R. 1984. Measuring the success of CANUSA. What remains to be done? Paper prepared for CANUSA Spruce Budworms Research Symposium, Bangor, Maine, 16–20 September.Google Scholar
Churchman, C.W. 1979. The systems approach and its enemies. Basic Books, New York. 221 pp.Google Scholar
Clark, W.C., Jones, D.D., and Holling, C.S.. 1979. Lessons for ecological policy design: a case study of ecosystem management. Ecol. Model. 7 1–53.Google Scholar
Cuff, W., and Baskerville, G.L.. 1983. Ecological modelling and management of spruce budworm infested firspruce forests of New Brunswick, Canada, pp. 93–98 in Lauenroth, W.K., Skogerboe, G.V., and Flug, M. (Eds.), Analysis of Ecological Systems: State of the Art in Ecological Modelling. Developments in Environmental Modelling 5, Elsevier, New York. 992 pp.Google Scholar
Dickie, L.M., and Kerr, S.R.. 1982. Alternative approaches to fisheries management, pp. 18–23 in Mercer, M.C. (Ed.), Multispecies Approaches to Fisheries Management Advice, Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 59. 169 pp.Google Scholar
Dror, Y. 1964. Muddling through — “science” or inertia? Public Admin. Rev. 24: 153–157.Google Scholar
Etzioni, A. 1967. Mixed-scanning: a “third” approach to decison making. Public Admin. Rev. 27: 385–392.Google Scholar
Field, R.C. 1984. National forest planning is promoting U.S. Forest Service acceptance of operations research. Interfaces 14(5): 67–76.Google Scholar
Fiksel, J. 1980. Winning is not everything: the midlife crisis of operations research. Interfaces 10(2): 106–107.Google Scholar
Haley, K.B. 1981. Applied operations research in fishing. Plenum Press, New York. 490 pp.Google Scholar
Hall, C.A.S., and Day, J.W. Jr., 1977. Systems and models: terms and basic principles, pp. 5–36 in Hall, C.A.S., and Day, J.W. Jr., (Eds.), Ecosystem Modelling in Theory and Practice, John Wiley and Sons, Toronto. 684 pp.Google Scholar
Hall, T.H. 1978. Toward a framework for forest management decision-making in New Brunswick. New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources Report TR 1–78, Fredericton.Google Scholar
Hammond, J.S. III. 1974. Do's and don'ts of computer models for planning. Harvard Bus. Rev. 52: 110–123.Google Scholar
Hesse, R. 1980. Management science or management/science? Interfaces 10(1): 104–109.Google Scholar
Hilborn, R. 1979. Some failures and successes in applying system analysis to ecological systems. J. Appl. Systems Analysis 6: 25–31.Google Scholar
Holling, C.S. (Ed.) 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. John Wiley and Sons, Wiley IIASA International Series on Applied Systems Analysis, Toronto. 377 pp.Google Scholar
Lindblom, C.E. 1959. The science of “muddling through”. Public Admin. Rev. 19: 79–88.Google Scholar
Lonnstedt, L. 1975. Factors related to the implementation of operations research solutions. Interfraces 5(2): 23–30.Google Scholar
March, J.G., and Olsen, J.P.. 1979. Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Universitetsforlaget, Bergen. 408 pp.Google Scholar
McArthur, D.S. 1980a. Decision scientists, decision makers, and the gap. Interfaces 10(1): 110–113.Google Scholar
McArthur, D.S. 1980b. Fantasies, fundamentals, and a framework in corporate O.R. Interfaces 10(4): 98–103.Google Scholar
Mintzberg, H. 1971. Managerial work: analysis from observation. Manage. Sci. 18(2): B97–B110.Google Scholar
Mintzberg, H. 1980. Beyond implementation: an analysis of the resistance to policy analysis. Inf. 18(2): 100–138.Google Scholar
Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., and Théorêt, A.. 1976. The structure of “unstructured” decision processes. Admin. Sci. Q. 21: 246–275.Google Scholar
Pringle, J.D. 1985. The human factor in fishery resource management. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 42: 389–392.Google Scholar
Ricketts, M.J. 1979. From academe to reality or how I learned that operations research is much more than just the application of quantitative analysis techniques. Inf. 17(4): 394–404.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. 1979. The “hyper-rationality” trap. Inf. 17(1): 73–75.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. 1980a. More on the “hyper-rationality” trap. Inf. 18(1): 80–81.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. 1980b. The hyper-rationality trap explained? Inf. 18(4): 364–366.Google Scholar
Rovinsky, R.B., and Shoemaker, C.. 1981. Operations research: applications in agriculture. Proc. Symp. Appl. Mathematics 25: 151–174.Google Scholar
Sands, P. 1988. Resource modelling: its nature and use. pp. 5–10 in Cuff, W.R. (Ed.), Modelling in Support of Resource Management. Mem. ent. Soc. Can. 143. 59 pp.Google Scholar
Schenk, J.A., Mahoney, R.L., More, J.A., and Adams, D.L.. 1980. A model for hazard rating lodgepole pine stands for mortality by mountain pine beetle. For. Ecol. Manage. 3: 57–68.Google Scholar
Sonntag, B.H., and Klein, K.K.. 1979. A beef-forage-grain production model for farms in Western Canada. Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, Publication 7913.Google Scholar
Sprague, L.G., and Sprague, C.R.. 1976. Management science? Interfaces 7(1): 57–62.Google Scholar
Stuart, T.W. 1982. Direct entry FORPLAN: draft executive summary of the overview document. USDA Forest Service. Fort Collins (unpublished manuscript).Google Scholar
Thomas, L.J. 1984. Technology and business strategy — the r and d link. Res. Manage. 27(3): 15–19.Google Scholar
Walters, C.J. 1982. New trends in complex ecosystem management, pp. 445–150 in Rinaldi, S. (Ed.), Environmental Systems Analysis and Management, Proceedings of the IFIP WG7.1 Working Conference, North Holland, New York.Google Scholar
Watt, K.E.F. 1968. Ecology and resource management. McGraw Hill, New York. 450 pp.Google Scholar
Watt, K.E.F. 1977. Why won't anyone believe us? Simulation 28: 1–3.Google Scholar
Webb, F.E., Cameron, D.G., and Macdonald, D.R.. 1956. Studies of aerial spraying against the spruce budworm in New Brunswick. 5: Techniques for large-scale egg and defoliation ground surveys 1953–55. Canada Dept. of Agric, Forest Biology Lab., Fredericton, Interim Rep. 1955–8.Google Scholar
Webb, F.E., and Irving, H.J.. 1983. My fir lady: the New Brunswick production with its facts and fancies. Forestry Chron. 59(3): 118–122.Google Scholar
Weil, H.B. 1980. The evolution of an approach for achieving implemented results from systems dynamics projects, pp. 271–291 in Randers, J. (Ed.), Elements of the System Dynamics Method, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Wikstrom, J.H., and Alston, R.M.. 1983. Behind the frustration of interdisciplinary planning. Renewable Resour. J. 1(2 and 3): 5–8.Google Scholar
Zeleny, M. 1975. Managers without management science? Interfaces 5(4): 35–42.Google Scholar