Institutional Improvement

Managing ecological risks depends on an integrated approach because risks arise from many sources—hydrologic, forest, rangeland, and aquatic as well as economic and social—and reducing risks from one source may increase risk to another ecological component (Quigley and others 1998). The integration will come through social process. One such approach is illustrated by the fire/fish risk management problem.

Ecologists generally recognize that barriers to improving ecological conditions may be more social or institutional than scientific (Szaro and others 1998). Improving the wildfire problem will be a complex, lengthy, expensive, and risky process, not only because of the ecological legacy on the land, but also the institutional legacy (Busenberg 2004). The framework for implementing the National Fire Plan is dependent on effective collaboration between Federal agencies, other levels of government, and interested parties or stakeholders (WGA 2006). Finding ways to meaningfully incorporate risk analysis—especially cooperative or collaborative risk assessment and risk management—into decision-making processes seems to be the most direct institutional path to on-the-ground improvements in ecosystem conditions.

Risk can be thought of as a game in which the rules must be socially negotiated within the context of a specific problem. This contextual approach highlights the need for interested parties to define and play the game, and emphasizes the importance of institutional, procedural, and societal processes in risk management decisions (Kunreuther and Slovic 1996). Risk assessment methods, assumptions, and conclusions differ dramatically across the Federal government (Cantor 1996). Standardization of policies and procedures among Federal agencies is an ongoing objective in wildland fire management (USDA-FS/USDI and others 2001). Nevertheless, different agencies can be expected to have different perceptions of risk based upon their agency missions and policies. Unless there are appropriate forums for reconciling differences in risk perceptions among all interested parties, information developed in risk assessments is unlikely to change the way land and resource management decisions are made.

Comparative ecological risk assessment can play a role by facilitating communications between risk managers, risk assessors, and interested parties. Two things need to be accomplished with stakeholders: (a) identify the things they care about, i.e., risk assessment endpoints; and (b) communicate what is known and unknown about the cause-effect relationships of factors (“stressors”; i.e., threats or hazards) affecting those endpoints. Slovic’s (1999) advice to wildland fire managers is to forgo attempting to determine what stakeholders think may be an acceptable level of risk, and, instead, focus on demonstrating the benefits from risk management actions.

Participative governance for managing risks requires a shift of mentality, broad changes in professional and institutional practices, and the design and implementation of new instruments and procedures (De Marchi 2003). These are difficult things to change. One opportunity to incorporate societal concerns in the governance of risks is to encourage public participation from the beginning of decision-making processes. The twofold challenge in risk governance is first providing the forums where citizens present and debate their interests and ideas about public matters and then making such deliberations a meaningful part of democratic decision making (De Marchi 2003). The design of the EPA (1998) Guidelines explicitly addresses both challenges.