Institutional Barriers and Opportunities in Application of the Limits of Acceptable Change George H. Stankey Abstract—Although the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) pro- wilderness, given the emphasis on protection of natural cess has been in use since the mid-1980’s and has contributed to processes and conditions in such areas. In response, both improved wilderness management, significant barriers and chal- managers and researchers have relied upon the concept of lenges remain. Formal and informal institutional barriers are the carrying capacity as the basic framework within which the principal constraint to more effective implementation. Although problem was framed. grounded in a traditional management-by-objectives model, the A major “driver” underlying development of the LAC was LAC is well attuned to collaborative management. However, proce- a realization that the carrying capacity model simply didn’t dural barriers, such as the Federal Advisory Committee Act, norma- work. Many reasons could be cited for this, but a key concern tive beliefs regarding relevant knowledge and power sharing, and was that the model tended to frame the problem of managing structural barriers, such as compartmentalization and institu- recreation use and associated impacts—social and resource— tional capacity, constrain effective application of LAC to wilderness in technical, mechanistic, and formula-driven terms and recreation settings as well as other resource management (Stankey and McCool 1984) rather than as a problem involv- issues for which it is potentially well suited. ing value judgments about appropriate types and levels of use and their management. Two changes were seen as needed in any alternative conception. First, we needed a conceptual framework that would help managers and re- Natural resources management takes place within a tightly searchers think about the problem as a socio-political, rather proscribed set of formal and informal norms. At the formal than technical, problem. Second, we needed to identify and level, various codified rules—laws, policies, planning proto- evaluate new forms of collaboration among managers, scien- cols—shape and direct actions. At the informal level are a tists, and citizens to deal with the underlying capacity variety of normative influences, internalized and reinforced issues. through influences such as the educational process and the The LAC framework was a response to the first need. sanctions that organizations, supervisors, and peers em- Predictably, the historical attachment to the carrying ca- ploy. Indeed, the cultural basis of these norms makes recog- pacity model proved (and continues to be) difficult to over- nition of their influence difficult and modifications of result- come. In part, this likely stems from a conception of carrying ing behaviors problematic. capacity, grounded in its central role in fields such as range Some norms are both formal and informal. For example, a and wildlife management, as an objective, quantifiable, and strong belief in, and reliance upon, rationality, science, and scientific framework. At least in theory, carrying capacity objectivity are cornerstones of modern scientific forestry offered a rational, science-grounded model consistent with (Wondolleck 1988) and embedded both formally (such as, prevailing normative concepts as to how, upon what bases, NFMA, NEPA) and informally (such as, by virtue of how we and by whom decisions about recreation use levels should be approach problem solving). Such broadly grounded norms made. Thus, we faced a struggle in communicating the result in profound impacts on how we define problems and limitations of the capacity model because any criticisms the ways we organize to solve them. challenged core values and beliefs held by managers and We were concerned with such issues in the development of reinforced by organizational policies and practices. But as the LAC planning framework. The LAC derived from tradi- formidable as this challenge was, it was neither the most tional comprehensive-rational origins, consistent with a difficult nor the most important contribution of the LAC, “management by objectives” (MBO) approach featuring ra- especially as applied in the Bob Marshall Wilderness tional and scientific approaches to identification of issues, Complex. inventory, identification of alternatives, evaluation, imple- What became apparent early on was the need to recognize mentation, and monitoring. the significant, even predominant, political component of The problem of managing recreation use and impact has establishing limits on the use of public resources and the long occupied attention but it has been a special concern in associated development of management strategies to imple- ment those limits. Ultimately, the underlying questions of limitation, regulation, and management involved choices: about values (such as recreation use versus environmental In: McCool, Stephen F.; Cole, David N., comps. 1997. Proceedings—Limits protection), about the distribution of those values (such as, of Acceptable Change and related planning processes: progress and future who gains versus who pays, such as between private and directions; 1997 May 20–22; Missoula, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-371. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain commercial users), and about the means through which the Research Station. distribution of those benefits and costs were achieved George H. Stankey is Research Social Scientist, Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Corvallis, OR 97331. (such as, use limits, campsite closures). 10 This recognition challenged our response to meeting the institutions, structures and processes for action, such as second need: How should we organize to implement the rules, norms, and terminology). LAC? In other words, what were the appropriate institu- Planning-led collaborations often are a component of, or tional arrangements for undertaking the task before us? If mandated by, government, such as commissions or task the LAC represented, at least hopefully, a new way of forces. They typically possess considerable ability to mobi- thinking about the carrying capacity issue, it followed that lize resources and usually are characterized by well-defined there would be a need for new mechanisms, processes, and processes and structures. On the other hand, their capacity structures for implementing such a “new” approach. How- to develop adequate and comprehensive measures of under- ever, the extent to which such mechanisms, processes, and lying issues and questions can be compromised by a rush to structures were in place, or for which adequate models premature closure to avoid political scrutiny. They also existed from which we might work, was problematic. In suffer from limited capacity to mobilize constituents; such retrospect, I don’t believe we fully appreciated how impor- as, citizens, who because of cynicism or lack of energy, are tant the development of new approaches was or the kinds of unwilling to engage. barriers that we would need to overcome. Visionary-led collaborations often are stimulated by, and Following the original work of John Friedmann (1981) built upon, charismatic individuals. Their use of symbols to and the adaptations of his work to natural resource manage- capture attention and mobilize resources and action, coupled ment settings by McLaughlin (1977) and Stokes (1982), we with intense personal involvement and commitment, lend adopted the transactive planning model as the basic frame- such groups special capacity. But while strong at issue work around which collaboration would be undertaken. The definition, they are “notoriously bad” at the institutional central thesis of the model argued that dialogue (“transac- tasks necessary to see the job through. Ironically, the quali- tions”) among stakeholders was a necessary component of ties of independence and creativity that define such groups, any planning exercise. As described in the issues paper tend to operate to their detriment when it comes to develop- elsewhere in these proceedings, the technical planning pro- ing structures and routinized processes. cess of the LAC was “married” with the transactive planning Finally, learning-led collaborations emerge from what model as a means of carrying out the process. Westley calls a “groundswell of concern”—the independent Whether this was a “marriage” made in heaven or one reactions of people to a particular issue or problem that conducted under the auspices of a shotgun remains argu- eventually coalesce. Starting at the individual level, actions able. What is clear is that it was an unusual union. The LAC flow outward; such groups have a highly developed emer- was an unadulterated child of social reform planning, rooted gent quality. They have a well-developed capacity to define in science, rationality, and objectivity. The transactive model issues and are well-suited to developing constituent sup- derived from an emergent planning tradition Friedmann port. However, given their idiosyncratic nature, they often (1987) calls “social learning”. In retrospect, it was a union lack resources and structures that facilitate implementa- designed to deal with what Pierce and Lovrich (1983, p. 1) tion and legitimization. This can handicap their long-term have described as the “technical information quandary”: effectiveness; such as that these collaborations might exist “how can the democratic ideal of public control be made only a short time, making on-going negotiations