This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
A Summary of Socio-Economic Presentations
at the First North American Conference
on Riparian Ecosystems and their Management 1
Philip A. Meyer
UNIFYING TRENDS IN RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT
2
ISSUES OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC ANA:;',YSIS
In considering work on riparian systems prior
to this conference, and the papers presented at
Tucson, two unifying trends are evident.
First, as
Jon Kusler and Philip Metzger point out, considerable work of a legal and organizational nature has
taken place, on behalf of wetlands--primarily in the
eastern United States.
It is suggested that wetlands may not be riparian in nature, but that the
experience gained and precedents obtained in that
area will prove useful in developing organization
and legislative strategies at federal, state, and
local levels to protect riparian habitat.
There
seemed to be a consensus at the conference that such
strategies should be pursued.
Four main analytical issues are raised by the
socio-economic papers presented. First, virtually
every paper reported that the lay public values
riparian resources highly, and is seeking practical
ways to preserve them.
It may not know how to do
this, but it wants to try. This is evident in papers
presented by Sweep, Buckhouse, Foster, Kelly, and
Hightower, and stands in contrast to the sometime
scientific view that the public does not care and
is, in that sense, the enemy of wise management of
riparian systems. Such a result suggests that efforts need to be made to advance technical models
that integrate scientific analysis with public concern, and that communicate more while educating less.
While effective organization and legislation
will assist riparian scientific concern, it will not
replace it. The commitment of riparian scientists
to expanding riparian technical enquiry will need
to continue, regardless of the relative success of
organizational and legislative efforts.
Richard E.
Warner, with others, has established a standard for
persistent commitment and scientific quality that
we will need to emulate in that regard.
Second, it appears that socio-economic analysts
working with riparian systems can benefit from the
analytical rigor displayed by some of their biophysical colleagues. The socio-economic papers presented provide a smorgasbord of approaches and analytical models.
Some were well specified and rigorous
in application, but the majority were rather general
and simply reported that results were "interesting"
or that "some people liked the approach." It is my
impression that many social scientists working with
riparian systems can markedly improve the effectiveness of their work by stating analytical objectives
more clearly, by controlling their experiments and
procedures more rigorously,
and by reporting results more regularly.
In this way we will be able,
in classical experimental fashion, to modify promising approaches for obtaining improved analytical
results, discard procedures that fail, and enhance
the effectiveness of our scientific tools over time.
THE ROLE OF MAN IN THE RIPARIAN SYSTEM
Focusing more specifically on socio-economic
issues concerning riparian systems, one of the open
issues during the 1981 Riparian Conference at the
University of California, Davis was whether man
should be regarded as part of the riparian system,
or as a predatory intruder. The tenor of the papers
presented at Tucson suggests that the issue is now
largely resolved. Undoubtedly, some scientists may
hold to the predatory view, but the integration
of bio-physical and socio-economic'dialogue at this
conference seems to clearly indicate that human
activities critically affect riparian systems and
must be integrated into management and protective
strategies.
Reference to papers presented concerning the Republic of Mexico and other arid countries,
where riparian systems must support a wide range of
basic human needs, renders this conclusion even
clearer.
Third, and following from the issue just discussed, two general, but quite different, types of
objectives seemed observable in the papers presented.
To borrow from Verne Huser's field of expertise,
effective negotiation requires two critical ingredients: a common perception of what pertinent data
say, and appreciation of each party's strengths and
failsafe points. One group of socio-economic presenters seemed to assume that strengths and failsafe
points were known and agreed to, and targeted "design
and mitigation" objectives. The thrust of those
papers seemed to be achieving a joint design for riparian systems that was agreeable to all parties.
Papers by Anderson on forest practices in Oregon,
by Foster on river use in the Ozark Scenic Riverways,
by Hill presenting a site signature method, and by
Kelly, Dawson, Swank, Vanderheyden, and Huser seem
generally to fall in this category.
1
Paper presented at the First North American
Riparian Conference. Tucson, Arizona, April 16-18,
1985
A second group of papers had a quite different
objective. They assumed that the basic strength of
2philip A. Meyer is president, Meyer Resources
Inc., Davis, Calif.
1
riparian values was not known or agreed to between
parties, and that establishment of such riparian values and failsafe points
was their basic study objective. These analyses
required quite different analytical methods and procedures, and were typified by Allen, reporting on
an FERC process in Montana, by Barclay, discussing
an Oklahoma riparian conflict, and by Meyer, concerning potential undervaluing of riparian systems
in the Grand Canyon.
Fourth, retention by Hightower of the riparian
system as the primary socio-economic product of concern contrasts with the characteristic by characteristic overlay approach used, for example, by Hill.
It is likely that these alternative approaches are
appropriate to different riparian circumstances.
Again, however, researchers need to consider this
issue explicitly, in judging how their analyses
should achieve balance between considerations of
"the forest" on the one hand, and "the trees lIon
the other.
negotiating/cont~sting
Both objectives are legitimate, but likely
require significantly different analytical techniques.
Differences in purpose should consequently be made
clear by investigators. The study by Hightower
appears to address both basic riparian values and
issues of mitigative design, and is recommended.
2
Finally, the paper by Jayne was the only one
presenting the perspective of America's Indian
peoples. With significant riparian resources located within America's Indian reservations, it
appears desirable to expand this dialogue at future
riparian meetings and conferences.