Triple Bottom Line or Stool analogy for management of Natural Resources

[1_pointer]

In the last two weeks I've heard two different people express this idea. One is a professor and the other a ranch manager for TNC. It is their idea that for successful management of natural resources in this society that three things have to be considered and properly balanced.
The three things (in no particular order):
1. Ecology
2. Economics
3. Society/Culture

They contend that without the proper balance of these three things management will not be successful. We can make the place as 'natural' as possible (Ecology), but if it is not economically feasible then segments of #3 is not kept happy. Both went on to explain that private landholders, on their land and in many places adjoining public lands, are providing services to society (open space, animal habitat, watershed values, etc) that they are not being compensated for. Thus, to meet #2, #3 should help pony up some money so that #1 could be met.

What do you guys/gals think?

**My opinion is that this is a good analogy and outlook for NR management. The proportions of all three things will change through time, but unless they are properly balanced (for that time and place) then nothing will get done. I feel that even the agencies are moving towards this, but in some places the societal and economic changes can take longer than the ecological changes. This is why I think there is so much contention on so many issues today. Previously, management didn't take all three things into consideration and managed, for the most part, to maximize profit. But, now that laws and societal views have changed, other values/opinions/points of view must be taken into consideration.

 

[Lostagain]

1== makes too much sense.... that a combination of benefits require a combination of costs. Helluva a good deal for all involved.
The roundup of the normal suspects will attack you/me on our spelling or pounc and not talk about this idea that we all give and we all receive......typical complaints of more welfare to the ranchers, etc....

 

[Washington Hunter]

Yes, economics and the environment have to work together. Without a healthy economy, the environment will suffer, and vice versa.

I would think that most landowners who are providing open space, wildlife habitat, etc. are compensated by lower property taxes. Also, conservation easements are a great way for landowners to be compensated for the benefits their land provide to the public.

 

[BuzzH]

Hell, I have no problem with landowners who practice good stewardship receiving compensation for their efforts...but if MY tax dollars or license fees are going to pay for it, I want to enjoy what I'm paying for.

1-pointer, that is absolutely the key to NR management. Finding that balance is the hard part.