An integrated approach for maximising local and scientific knowledge for land management decision-making in the New Zealand high country

O.J.H. Bosch 1* obosch@uqg.uq.edu.au , W.J. Allen 1 , J.M. Williams 2 , and A.H. Ensor 3

1 Landcare Research, PO Box 282, Alexandra, New Zealand
2 Agriculture New Zealand, PO Box 8640, Riccarton, Christchurch, New Zealand
3 Glenariffe Station, Methven, New Zealand
( * now at University of Queensland)

[Reference: The Rangeland Journal 18(1) 1996, 23-32]

Abstract: This paper describes the development of a process to facilitate the identification and introduction of sustainable land management practices in the high country of New Zealand. The process was designed to gather and structure community knowledge (both local and scientific) into a single, accessible decision support system (DSS). The development and provision of appropriate, and user-friendly monitoring tools is supported. An outline is given of how this integrated system can be used to integrate monitoring with adaptive management. Special reference is made to how this process is used as a large-scale ecological "experiment", to enhance continually the knowledge base available for land use decision-making in the South Island high country of New Zealand.


Introduction

Despite the importance of rangelands, their degradation can now be seen on every continent. Past approaches to manage the rangelands have generally failed to view the environment as a set of dynamic and inter-dependent systems. However, the problems facing the management of these agro-ecosystems are complex, inevitably involve multiple social perspectives, and should be viewed as moving targets. Ignoring this propensity to change, has frequently led to the implementation of programmes which focus on the immediate situation, and treat only the symptom of a perceived problem.

Resolving the problems facing the world's rangelands requires both land managers and policy-makers to make correct management decisions. In turn, wise decision-making is dependent on the quality and availability of relevant knowledge. Therefore, an important role for range scientists, now and in the future, is to provide communities with the best knowledge available to help them manage their rangelands. As Provenza (1991) emphasises, range scientists must endeavour not only to understand the significant biological processes underlying rangeland production, but also to engage in research to apply that understanding to the development of new technologies and management applications.

This paper is set in the context of the grasslands of the South Island high country of New Zealand. The area encompasses the major issues facing grazed ecosystems worldwide. It is characterised by diversity, ranging from fertile pastures to fragile river valley flats, and from intermontane basins to mountain tops that reach above the treeline. For the last 150 years, the main human influence on the landscape has been pastoral farming. In recent times, however, other uses such as conservation, tourism and recreation, forestry and hydro-power developments have become prominent influences on land management decisions. This diversification, as Holmes (1994) notes, can be interpreted as a shift away from dominantly commodity values towards a mix of commodity and amenity values. The implication of this to farmers, is that they are now being required to share the use of the rangelands with a variety of other users. It is clear that change is needed, but it is an unfortunate feature of human behaviour that it often takes a crisis to trigger substantive action.

One such "crisis" centred around the rapid spread of an introduced forb (Hieracium spp.), which is increasing at the expense of both native biota and introduced forage species (Scott, 1985). This forb is most common on pastoral lands, and has a detrimental impact on farming enterprises through an associated decrease in productive capacity (Martin et al., 1994). Another "crisis" was the loss of the ability to manage the European rabbit (Oryctalagus cunnicilus) effectively. This loss was the product of a complex of ecological, institutional policy and financial factors, ultimately catalysed by New Zealand's major economic reforms (Williams, 1993). These factors, coupled with a series of years with low wool prices, caused the financial viability of many high country properties to become questionable (Martin et al., 1994).

The stresses on both landscape and people demonstrate that past institutional arrangements and research outputs did not lead to sustainable land uses. There were major shortcomings in the translation of research information into farmer knowledge applicable to management needs. In addition, there was a lack of integration between the sciences, and between scientific research and the social and economic context in which it must be applied. Most significant, there was little recognition within the research community of the extent and value of land users' knowledge, potentially available to combine with more traditional scientific knowledge (De Walt, 1994).

Given the complexity of the systems under stress, it was evident to the community that a new approach was required to deal with the challenges of land-use sustainability. As outlined above, such an approach required a greater emphasis on linking research with management and policy, and on maximising the use of current knowledge in the community. This implied a participatory research initiative whereby land managers become directly involved as "researchers" (Bosch et al., 1995), through the process of monitoring and active adaptive management (Walters & Holling, 1990). This is learning by doing. Finding out about complex and dynamic situations, followed by taking action to improve them, forms the basis for this learning process. Sustainability, accordingly becomes a measure of the relationship between the community as learners and their environments, rather than an externally designed goal to be achieved (Sriskandarajah et al., 1991).

This paper outlines the development of a community-based research initiative, which addresses these issues in the South Island high country. It emphasises the maximisation of knowledge (both scientific and local), and its usefulness in land management decision-making. A major component of such a participatory research approach involves the development of a comprehensive knowledge-based decision support system (DSS). This DSS provides a focal point through which land users can access both local and scientific knowledge systems to evaluate the implications of different management options and strategies. Two-way communication flows, which recognise that knowledge must be understood in context by all those involved, are supported as an integral part of the process. This acts to reduce conflict, encourage participation and provide a co-learning environment. It also provides a forum through which relevant research initiatives can be prioritised and designed. Collectively, these research processes help the identification and introduction of efficient and sustainable land management practices.

Capturing Existing Knowledge

Initial considerations

Years of experimentation with different management strategies to achieve different goals, have provided land managers with much knowledge about their local land use systems. Unfortunately, this knowledge is not available to the community on a collective basis. Similarly, much of the valuable knowledge that scientists have accumulated is fragmented, held in different databases and, consequently, not always readily available, even to other scientists or land managers.

The challenge is to bring local and scientific knowledge systems together into a single accessible and structured database. This would provide both land managers and scientists with more opportunities to inform and stimulate each other. If ready access could also be provided to appropriate monitoring tools, the lessons gained from the outcomes of management actions could be more accurately captured. At the same time, land managers and the wider community would gain direct access to a comprehensive decision support system (DSS) to help land-use decision making, without having to rely only on fragmented bases of knowledge and experience. Any framework to achieve these must be capable of:

The development of such a comprehensive decision support system raises additional considerations. The traditional linear approach to DSS development requires that the complete specifications of the system are known before design and construction (Thierauf, 1988). However, given that our knowledge of natural systems is, and will always be, incomplete, a more flexible prototyping approach is needed. This is especially useful when the technical improvement of DSS development is seen as a process that can be enhanced by continued feedback and learning.

Prototyping also encourages interaction between DSS developers and users. They continuously discover new requirements and refinements, which are then incorporated in succeeding versions of the DSS. In this way, the development process allows the user to gain experience with the system at an early stage, so increasing user confidence in subsequent working versions (Brittan, 1980). Prototyping further lends itself to a modular approach. It produces a system which can be used at a much earlier stage than in the case of DSSs that are developed through more traditional linear approaches.

Sharing existing community knowledge

It is important to begin with local knowledge of management goals, problems and solutions. As already mentioned, land managers have collectively accumulated a vast amount of experience in local environments. They are also one of the largest potential end-user groups. Involving them from the outset ensures better access to their knowledge. In turn, sharing understanding and knowledge between scientists and land managers allows scientists to gain a better appreciation of the opportunities and problems facing land managers in the real world. This is more likely to lead to the development of a structured and comprehensive knowledge-base relevant to community needs (Blokker, 1986). There is also likely to be greater commitment on the part of users to DSSs which they have had a hand in designing (Dearnley & Mayhew, 1983).

An essential prerequisite to accessing existing knowledge, was the formation of a Steering Committee to ensure that land managers had equal participation in the research process. This committee comprised three farmers and three scientists. A farmer chaired the group, while the research activities were managed by one of the scientists. Many of the committee's initial activities focussed on developing a common understanding with the community of the participatory research initiative. A newsletter was produced and widely distributed, media coverage gained, seminars held, and field-day displays set up. These, and other processes that occurred during the development of the first working version of the comprehensive management-DSS, are outlined in figure 1.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Combining existing local and scientific knowledge into a single decision support system

The knowledge base held by local land managers was accessed through in-depth interviews and comprehensive mail surveys, which offered all high country farmers the opportunity to share their thoughts and observations. The results from this work, as well as from subsequent farmer workshops, were processed using LEVEL5 OBJECT software (Information Builders, 1993). This resulted in the development of a first DSS prototype (Bosch et al., 1995) which provides information as it relates to different system levels. Decisions impacting on sustainability often need to be made simultaneously at different decision-making hierarchies. These range from block/field goals (e.g. to improve vegetation condition for pastoral production, to protect and enhance an ecologically significant habitat, etc.), to enterprise/farm goals (e.g. to increase wool production, to improve lambing percentages, etc.), through to catchment/community goals (e.g. to reduce downstream siltation). The various strategies for achieving these goals are displayed in the DSS.

The science contribution

The strategies outlined by land managers in the first prototype were in many cases acknowledged to be inferential. In some cases strategies may successfully achieve individual farm goals, but may fail to take wider social and environmental impacts into account. Accordingly, existing scientific and expert knowledge was used to evaluate manager-defined strategies, both to assess their potential for use in different situations, and to determine their possible impacts on the wider environment. Scientific knowledge systems can also be used to understand the biological processes underpinning rangeland dynamics better, and to provide a much greater array of options to land managers (De Walt, 1994). The subsequent second prototype, accordingly, includes further scientifically-derived options, strategies and risks.

Placing knowledge in context

Given the complexity and different social perceptions of many agricultural and environmental situations, an essential component of the process focused on placing contributed information in context. As Ison (1993) points out, sharing understanding of how different groups of people see the world and what they do in it, involves participation by all those who might be affected by the outcome (the stakeholders).

Ongoing community dialogue reduces conflict and clarifies issues by more clearly defining the context within which any piece of information is provided (Allen et al., 1995). Accordingly, contradictory management strategies are not displaced without the approval of those who practised them. This process encourages a learning environment which helps constructive and voluntary behavioural change. In a similar manner to the sharing of local knowledge, scientific knowledge is not used to displace that of land managers, but to complement local knowledge.

This ongoing community dialogue is best viewed as a mosaic of social interactions, operating at different points within a hierarchy of decision-making levels. Discussions of how best to achieve pastoral goals will primarily involve groups comprising farmers and scientists. Issues such as the management of different landscapes will involve a wider range of interest groups. In turn, as communication flows between different sectors of the community are expanded and improved, this should also reduce the level of conflict surrounding a number of high country land management issues.

Including a monitoring tool

If land managers are to be encouraged to become formally involved in the monitoring and adaptive management process, they also require access to user-friendly tools for monitoring. The DSS framework provides for the inclusion of software to support land managers in assessing and interpreting the condition of their land.

As an example, the condition assessment module of the Integrated System for Plant Dynamics (Bosch et al., 1992) has been modified for direct inclusion in the DSS framework. Vegetation and soil change models have been developed for the different ecological regions of the high country (Bosch & Gauch, 1991). These models are used as a basis for assessing and interpreting the condition of a particular site or area. Information is also provided on the existence of possible thresholds that are important for management decision-making (Bosch, 1989; Friedel, 1991). Only a few species that are defined as good indicators of condition, are used for the assessments (Hurt et al., 1993). This is of particular importance in community-based monitoring programmes, where land managers themselves are involved in the assessments.

Ongoing Knowledge Maximisation

With the combination of existing knowledge, scientific and local, and currently available monitoring tools, the resultant prototype can be regarded as the first working version of the comprehensive DSS. For such an information-based system to facilitate sustainable land management in the long term, however, it needs to evolve in line with social and the environmental change. The strength of the process lies in the fact that it is ongoing, as illustrated in figure 2.

Figure 2. The ongoing process of knowledge maximisation
to facilitate sustainable land management decision-making

An ongoing role for land managers

In normal practice, land managers manipulate ecosystems, primarily to achieve a management objective, rather than to find out how the system works. However, as MacNab (1983) observes, a management scheme is always an experiment. As land managers measure the outcomes of their actions, they continually gain new "experimental results". These provide new information whereby the knowledge base held in the DSS is re-evaluated and expanded in collaboration with scientists and other stakeholders (Fig. 2). In turn, the enhanced DSS provides a broader foundation to help individual land managers with future decision making.

To take one example, the development of sustainable grazing strategies requires an emphasis on experimental rather than descriptive ecology. Given the climatic and ecological variability of the South Island high country, it is logistically impractical for scientists to undertake a rigorous experimental approach to assess the effects of different management strategies (effect of spelling periods, rotational grazing, set-stocking, etc.) under different environmental conditions. The linked concepts of monitoring and adaptive management, however, make it possible for land managers to become involved in such a large-scale experimental approach (Walters & Holling, 1990). Although the scale of such an "experiment" would preclude a standard controlled experimental design, large numbers of participants would ensure some degree of replication.

Involvement in the participatory processes of monitoring and adaptive management in this way, means that individual land managers acquire greater technical expertise, using both local and scientific knowledge. At the same time, they also develop greater confidence in the scientific methods and the participatory approach, which ensures their continued and successful role in the process.

An ongoing role for science

At any given time the information base can play an important role in helping land managers and scientists jointly to determine new research priorities (Fig. 2). Because it acts as a framework to display existing knowledge, the information base helps identify knowledge gaps, and prioritize new research initiatives. This is a continuing process, as evolving knowledge, technologies and value systems inevitably change our perceptions and provide new areas and issues for research (Stuth et al., 1991).

At the same time, new local knowledge will add to the range of strategies to be evaluated. Strategies and options will also continually change in response to social, economic and ecological pressures. This creates a role for ongoing research to determine the wider applicability and environmental implications of management options and strategies. This process is currently underway, and focuses on three main areas:

Evaluating the financial implications when the management strategies outlined in the DSS, are applied to the wide range of land use enterprises across the high country;

determining the role of ecological factors and their interaction with management regimes, to evaluate the effects of different management options and strategies on patterns of vegetation and soil change;

evaluating the social and environmental implications of different land uses. This includes adding information to the DSS on resource suitability, and the possible impacts of different land uses, from the paddock level to the wider region.

Continual enhancement of knowledge-base

The above processes leads to a continuous flow of new data and information from research (scientists) and monitoring (land managers) in the form of publications, research reports, monitoring data, and theses. This data and information is held in various different localities (universities, research centres, landcare groups, etc) and there is a need to make it accessible to all interest groups. This is being achieved by bringing summaries and data descriptions together into a centralised data and information pool (Fig. 2).

The next important process is to transform this new data and information into useful knowledge at different levels, from the farm/paddock, to catchments, regions and policy makers in local and central government. This is done through ongoing community dialogue and co-learning processes (Fig. 2). Relevant people and institutions are involved in a series of workshops, in which data and information are transformed into useful knowledge. This is then used to refine the DSS into a later version. Farmers and other users receive updated versions on computer disk, as well as through traditional dissemination mediums such as brochures and leaflets. The most up-to-date access is also available through a web site on the Internet.

Integrating an ongoing process into the community

As this paper has illustrated, technical support for the process is provided by scientists through the development of a comprehensive management DSS, which enables monitoring and management data to be catalogued and made accessible for management decision making. Involving land managers in the design and construction of the DSS was a necessary step, not only to assist our understanding of the system to be designed, but also to mobilise public awareness of the participatory research process, and the role it could play within the local community.

However, for the process to be adopted, and embedded in the community as an ongoing process, requires a number of other functions be undertaken simultaneously. Technical support and mobilisation (public awareness) are only two of the five elements that Roling (1988) regards as essential for programme success; functions of organisation, training and system management are equally important. To these we can add the function of supporting community dialogue, which involves bringing together a number of different viewpoints within the community. Together, these functions are elements of a 'mix', which work in a synergic fashion (Roling, 1988).

One of the difficulties of undertaking such a comprehensive programme, is that it involves such a large section of the community. The boundaries of the project cut across a range of different disciplines and political interests. There is a need to develop links, and to mediate between conflicting interests. This is essentially an issue of systems management, and ensures the success of the other four functions. In the example presented in this paper, the Steering Committee successfully undertook this role. To build the trust required, it was important that members of the committee be viewed as politically neutral.

The training of local people forms the basis of any participatory research programme. However, this should not be seen as solely the responsibility of extension workers and other employees of technical agencies. In many instances, it is best carried out by community-based organisations (Roling, 1988). A system in which land managers train land managers, gives them ownership of the research approach, and thus increased involvement and research uptake. In the South Island high country much of the training in DSS use at farm-level has been organised and carried out by farmer-initiated community bodies (Ensor & Aubrey, 1994).

Further refinement of the DSS by land managers takes place through focussed demand-driven projects, such as the "large-scale grazing experiment" described above. These projects start from the need to meet a specific community objective, which may be financial, ecological, social, or some combination of these. In reality, to achieve this community objective requires members of the community to receive direct personal benefit in some way. This, in turn, ensures ongoing involvement, as the user sees the benefits of inputting into the knowledge pool.

Concluding Remarks

Involving the community in participatory research is essential if we are to resolve sustainable land management issues in a constantly changing environment. In turn, involving the community enhances our ability to learn from the experiences gained within enterprise and catchment-level systems. Adaptive management approaches, such as those undertaken in the South Island high country, allow the use of local knowledge, and the adoption of a continuous enhancement process. At the same time, involvement in the participatory processes of monitoring and adaptive management allows individual land managers to acquire greater technical expertise, building on both collective local knowledge and an associated scientific awareness of their particular physical environment. By achieving specific objectives for the improvement of their resource position through a collective effort, land managers develop greater confidence, and that, in turn, ensures the successful continuation of the whole process.

Community-based research is likely to become increasingly used as a means to make better use of land manager knowledge. It is critical, in land management, that there is increased recognition that the land user has valuable knowledge, gained through experience from managing complex systems. As we move to the knowledge-intensive land user models, this is a major paradigm shift, and does not rest easily with many in the science community.

The effectiveness of co-research approaches and the continuous monitoring, feedback, improvement cycle that this process makes possible, are dependent on maintaining good science/community links. The location of research teams within communities, rather than remote city campuses, is important. Access to community groups is also a key. In New Zealand, it has been relatively easy to co-operate with the community because of the visibility of problems such as rabbits and Hieracium spp.. These problems, in turn, have encouraged the emergence of rural groups which represent an important ingredient in land user adoption of these approaches. Given the deteriorating state of the world's rangelands, however, we believe that other countries have similar problems, although not necessarily single factor ones, that could act as catalysts to introduce similar community-based and systems-oriented approaches.

Participatory research offers an educational experience, which serves to determine community needs, as well as motivate the community to develop a commitment to the solution of their own problems (Anyanwu, 1988). Providing greater understanding of the system helps the community adapt to change, and can also help to determine what components are most affected by change, in order to target research priorities better (Stuth et al., 1991). In turn, this understanding allows the scientist to shift from a reactive to a proactive position. The approach outlined in this paper represents a process to facilitate the design of a more sustainable future, rather than to accept that our future will be determined by the status quo. It therefore places new demands on individual land managers, the community and science.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the support and funding that has been provided to this research programme by MAF Policy (NZ) and Manaaki Whenua - Landcare Research NZ. Research such as described here, is not possible without the support of the community, and we would like to record our appreciation for the efforts of all those in the high country farming community who have acted as our co-researchers.

This on-line paper is reproduced on this site with the kind permission of the Rangelands Journal.

References

Allen, W.J.; Bosch, O.J.H.; Gibson, R.G.; Jopp, A.J. 1995: Co-learning our way to sustainability: Integrating local and scientific knowledge through an evolutionary research approach to support land management decision making. (In press) Proceedings 1st International Conference of MODSS for Agriculture and Environment, Honolulu, July 23-29

Anyanwu, C.N. 1988: The technique of participatory research in community development Community Development Journal

  • 23: 11-15

    Blokker, K.J. 1986: A view of information technology as an aid to decision-making by farmers Research and Development in Agriculture

  • 3: 79-81

    Bosch, O.J.H. 1989: Degradation of the semi-arid grasslands of southern Africa. Journal of Arid Environments 16: 143-147

    Bosch, O.J.H.; Gauch, H.R. 1991: The use of degradation gradients for the assessment and ecological interpretation of range condition. Journal of the Grassland Society of Southern Africa 8: 138-146

    Bosch, O.J.H.; Allen, W.J.; Gibson, R.S.; Gibson R.; Wardle, K. 1995: Cataloguing existing knowledge and monitoring data as a basis for the development of a management decision support system for the New Zealand high country. (In press) Proceedings Vth International Rangeland Congress, 23 -28 July, Salt Lake City

    Bosch, O.J.H.; Gauch, H.R.; Booysen, J.; Stols S.H.E.; Gouws, G.A; Nel M.W.; Van Zyl, E. 1992: ISPD - An Integrated System for Plant Dynamics ( Computer Software Package and Users Guide). Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Potchefstroom University for CHE, Potchefstroom, South Africa

    Brittan, J.N.G. 1980: Design for a changing environment. The Computer Journal

  • 23: 36-42

    Dearnley, P.A.; Mayhew, P.J. 1983: In favour of system prototypes and their integration into the systems development cycle. The Computer Journal 26: 36-41

    De Walt, B.R. 1994: Using indigenous knowledge to improve agriculture and natural resource management. Human Organization

  • 53: 123-131

    Ensor, A.; Aubrey, B. 1994: Project FARMER. Unpublished project description. Rural Futures Trust.

    Friedel, M.H. 1991: Range condition assessment and the concept of thresholds: a viewpoint. Journal of Range Management 44: 422-426

    Holmes, J.H. 1994: Changing values, goals, needs and expectations of rangeland users. The Rangeland Journal

  • 16: 147-154.

    Hurt, C.R.; Hardy, M.B.; Tainton, N.M. 1993: Identification of key grass species under grazing in the Highland Sourveld of Natal. African Journal of Range and Forage Science

  • 10: 96-102.

    Information Builders. 1993: LEVEL5 OBJECT, Information Builders Inc.; New York.

    Ison, R.L. 1993: Changing community attitudes. The Rangeland Journal

  • 15: 154-166

    MacNab, J. 1983: Wildlife management as scientific experimentation. Wildlife Society Bulletin 11: 397-401

    Martin, G;, Garden, P.; Meister. A.; Penno; W.; Sheath. G.; Stephenson. G.; Urquart R.; Mulcock. C.; Lough. R. 1994: South Island High Country Review. Final report of the working party on sustainable land management. South Island High Country Review Working Party, Wellington. 184pp.

    O'Connor, K.F. 1982: The implications of past exploitation and current developments to the conservation of South Island tussock grasslands. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 5: 97-107.

    Provenza, F.D. 1991: Range science and range management are complementary but distinct endeavours. Journal of Range Management 44 : 181-183

    Roling, N. 1988: Extension science: Information systems in agricultural development University Press, Cambridge

    Scott, D. 1985: Hawkweeds in run country. Review: Journal of Tussock Grasslands and Mountain Lands Institute 42: 33-48.

    Sriskandarajah, N.; Bawden, R.J.; Packham, R.G. 1991: Systems agriculture: A paradigm for sustainability. Association of Farming Systems Research/Extension Newsletter 2: 1-5

    Stuth, J.W.; Scifres, C.J.; Hamilton, W.T.; Connor, J.R. 1991: Management systems analysis as guidance for effective interdisciplinary grazingland research. Agricultural Systems 3: 43-63

  • Thierauf, R.J. 1988: User-Oriented Decision Support Systems: Accent on Problem Finding. Prentice Hall, New Jersey

    Walters, C.J. and Holling, C.S. 1990: Large-scale management experiments and learning by doing. Ecology 71: 2060-2068

  • Williams, J.M. 1993: The factors and forces shaping rabbit control policies and practices in New Zealand: What lessons for the future? Proceedings of the Australian Rabbit Control Conference (ed. B.D. Cooke). Anti-Rabbit Research Foundation of Australia, Adelaide. pp. 42-50

    Top
    Page last updated: Friday, September 14, 2001