Copyright 1998 by The Resilience Alliance

*
Holling, C.S. 1998. Two cultures o ecology. Conser!ation "cology #online$ 2%&'( ).
A!ailable ro* the +nternet. ,R-( http(..www.consecol.org.!ol&.iss&.art).
A !ersion o this article in which te/t, igures, tables, an0 appen0ices are separate
iles *ay be oun0 by ollowing this lin1.
Editorial
Two Cultures of Ecology
C.S. (Buzz) Holling
University of Florida
This editorial was written two years ago and appeared on the main page of Conservation Ecology efore any
articles were pulished in the !ournal. "t was meant to help shape the focus for the !ournal. #s we have
recieved a numer of re$uests to cite this editorial% we are repulishing it in this issue in order to give it a
permanent &home& that can e referenced. "t is certainly as current now as it was then.
C.S. Holling
"cological science is in transition. 2re!iously separate schools o ecology are being lin1e0 across scales 3 ro*
physiological to lan0scape. 2olicy an0 practice are being integrate0 in ways that 0e*onstrate that science
beneits as *uch as 0oes practice. 4iological ecology is being co*bine0 with the en!iron*ental sciences an0
with social an0 econo*ic un0erstan0ing. +t is a transition *a0e possible by a *aturing bo0y o theory,
*etho0s, an0 e/a*ples. An0 it co*es at a ti*e when the policies nee0e0 to har*oni5e the interaction
between people an0 nature occurs at una*iliar scales ro* regional to global. +t is this transition in ecology
that pro!i0es the ocus or Conservation Ecology.
As in any transition, there are e/tre*e proponents o one !iew or the other, one approach or another. 6uch o
that is e/aggerate0 by li*ite0 e/perience. "cologists are 7ust beginning to 0e!elop the range o e/perience
nee0e0 to lin1 science, policy, an0 politics. 2olicy people are largely una*iliar with ways to recogni5e the
no!el interactions now e*erging between econo*ic, social an0 ecological syste*s. 4ecause the science is in
transition, there are not only conlicting !oices, there are conlicting *o0es o in8uiry an0 conlicting criteria or
establishing the cre0ibility o a line o argu*ent.
The spee0 o the transition is being 0ri!en by the spee0 at which regional an0 global changes are ero0ing the
planet9s natural heritage. To so*e, this lea0s to appeals or a0!ocacy. 4ut the 7ournal will not be a place or
a0!ocacy, howe!er i*portant the issue. Rather the 7ournal will ocus on the oun0ations o science, policy, an0
practice upon which inor*e0 action can be base0.
Conservation Ecology is 0esigne0 as a place to 0e!elop an0 e/plore the no!el theories, *etho0s, research, an0
policies that are nee0e0 to un0erpin the conser!ation, restoration, an0 *aintenance o the natural heritage
that sustains lie an0 hu*an opportunity. This ocus re8uires so*e research in what *ight be calle0 applicable
science 3 a *i/ o theory, basic research, an0 illu*inating applie0 e/a*ples. +t re8uires analysis an0 e/a*ples
o no!el ways to 0e!elop incenti!es such that in0i!i0ual sel interests better reinorce social goals o
conser!ation. An0 it re8uires e/peri*ents in no!el ways to 0e!elop citi5en science as an anti0ote to the power
lobbying that now so 0istorts the use o inor*ation in the 0e*ocratic process.
That is why the partners in the 0e!elop*ent o Conservation Ecology on the 4oar0 o "0itors are scientists an0
scholars whose interests co!er a range ro* genetics to planetary 0yna*ics, ro* resource *anage*ent to
econo*ic policy, ro* theory to practice. An0 it is why we ha!e a co3e8ual boar0, the "cological 2olicy Council,
co*pose0 o senior e/ecuti!es ro* business, go!ern*ent an0 the non3proit sector 3 in0i!i0uals ro* aroun0
the worl0 with !ision, practical e/perience, an en!iron*ental interest, an0 a syste*s perspecti!e.
+ calle0 Conservation Ecology a place. 4eyon0 the hype o the 0e!otees o the :orl03:i0e :eb an0 the
internet, there 0oes see* to be the possibility to 0e!elop a sense o place that engages an international
consortiu* o scientists, scholars, e/ecuti!es, an0 citi5ens. +t buil0s on the only e/isting culture that coul0
truly be calle0 global. That is the culture o international science, where 0ierences in history, language, an0
e/perience enhance the co**on oun0ation all scientists share in ways to ac8uire, apply, an0 sustain
1nowle0ge or the better*ent o hu*anity.
That is why we plan to 0e!elop an0 test !arious e/peri*ents in using the :orl0 :i0e :eb an0 the internet in
a set o Conser!ation "cology 2ro7ects. These are 0esigne0 aroun0 two progra*s( science policy 0ialogues on
special topics an0 regional satellite sites as part o a 0istribute0 learning networ1. ;nce these pro7ects are
un0erway, Conservation Ecology will ha!e beco*e less a 7ournal an0 *ore an institute3without3walls with an
e/ten0e0 a*ily o participants.
The ocus an0 the pro7ects o Conser!ation "cology ha!e been chosen to acilitate the transition in ecological
science by bri0ging gaps between two !ery 0ierent ways o !iewing the worl0. These are particularly clear in
the philosophies o two strea*s o science. The tension between those two is particularly e!i0ent in biology,
an0 the reason lies in the principle eatures o each as su**ari5e0 in the acco*panying table. ;ne is
brilliantly represente0 by the a0!ances in *olecular biology an0 genetic engineering. That strea* o science
pro*ises to lea0 to health an0 econo*ic beneits o biotechnology but also to a 7ourney on an uncertain sea o
changing social !alues an0 conse8uences. +t is an analytical strea* o biology that is essentially e/peri*ental,
re0uctionist, an0 0isciplinary in character.
TABLE 1. Co*paring the two cultures o biological ecology
ATTR+4,T" A<A-=T+CA- +<T">RAT+?"
2hilosophy
@narrow an0 targete0
@0isproo by e/peri*ent
@parsi*ony the rule
@broa0 an0 e/ploratory
@*ultiple lines o con!erging
e!i0ence
@re8uisite si*plicity the goal
2ercei!e0
organi5ation
@biotic interactions
@i/e0 en!iron*ent
@single scale
@biophysical interactions
@sel3organi5ation
@*ultiple scales with cross scale
interactions
Causation @single an0 separable @*ultiple an0 only partially separable
Hypotheses
@single hypotheses an0 nulls re7ection
o alse hypotheses
@*ultiple, co*peting hypotheses
@separation a*ong co*peting
hypotheses
,ncertainty @eli*inate uncertainty @incorporate uncertainty
Statistics
@stan0ar0 statistics
@e/peri*ental
@concern with Type + error
@non3stan0ar0 statistics
@concern with Type ++ error
"!aluation goal
@peer assess*ent to reach ulti*ate
unani*ous agree*ent
@peer assess*ent, 7u0g*ent to reach
a partial consensus
The 0anger
@e/actly right answer or the wrong
8uestion
@e/actly right 8uestion but useless
answer
The other strea* is integrati!e an0 is represente0 within biology by e!olutionary biology an0 by syste*s
approaches that e/ten0 to inclu0e the analysis o populations, ecosyste*s, lan0scape structures, an0
0yna*ics an0, *ore recently, urther e/ten0s to inclu0e biotic an0 hu*an interactions with planetary
0yna*ics. The applie0 or* o this strea* has e*erge0 regionally in new or*s o resource an0 en!iron*ental
*anage*ent where uncertainty an0 surprises beco*e an integral part o an anticipate0 set o a0apti!e
responses. +t is un0a*entally inter0isciplinary an0 co*bines historical, co*parati!e, an0 e/peri*ental
approaches at scales appropriate to the issues. +t is this co*bination that pro!i0es the necessary oun0ations
or any 1in0 o global science, i or no other reason than we ha!e but one globe to li!e on, or the present, at
least, an0 cannot e/peri*entally *anipulate lost pasts. +t is a strea* that is un0a*entally concerne0 with
integrati!e *o0es o in8uiry an0 *ultiple sources o e!i0ence.
+t is this strea* that has the *ost natural connection to relate0 ones in the social sciences that are historical
an0 integrati!e. +t is also the strea* that pro!i0es the bri0ge between analytical science, policy, an0 politics.
The properties o each strea* e/aggerate the tensions between the* 3 one is re0uctionist an0 certain, one is
integrati!e an0 uncertain. The irst strea* is a science o parts 3 e.g., analysis o speciic processes that aect
speciic !ariables 3 populations o in0i!i0ual species, le!els o nutrients, lu/ o gases. +t e*erges ro*
tra0itions o e/peri*ental science where a narrow enough ocus is chosen in or0er to pose hypotheses, collect
0ata, an0 0esign critical tests in or0er to re7ect in!ali0 hypotheses. Since it is e/peri*entally base0, the scale
chosen typically has to be s*all in space 3 the plot o a ew s8uare *eters, the bagge0 s*all tree 3 an0 short
in ti*e 3 certainly not longer than the proessional lie o the e/peri*enter or grant.
:here the scales are appropriate to the 8uestion, as in e/peri*ents that *anipulate properties o la1es or
s*all watershe0s, the analytical strea* has alrea0y beco*e an essential partner with the integrati!e strea*.
2artly as a conse8uence, eecti!e policies at regional scales ha!e been 0e!elope0 an0 applie0, as witness the
*ulti3national actions to control aci0 rain e*issions in "urope an0 <orth A*erica..
The goal o the science o parts is to narrow uncertainty to the point where acceptance o an argu*ent a*ong
scientiic peers is essentially unani*ous. +t is appropriately conser!ati!e an0 una*biguous, but it oten
achie!es that by being orce0 to be rag*entary an0 s*all in scale. +n ecology, it pro!i0es essential bric1s or
an e0iice but, by itsel, not the architectural 0esign.
The other strea* is a science o the integration o parts. +t uses the results o the irst, but i0entiies gaps,
0e!elops co*peting causati!e hypotheses, an0 constructs an0 uses si*ulation *o0els as 0e!ices or
e/ploration an0 e/peri*entation o!er scale ranges that are i*possible to achie!e by e/peri*ents in nature.
The integrate0 conse8uence o each co*peting hypothesis is e!aluate0 by using inor*ation ro* planne0 an0
unplanne0 inter!entions in the whole syste* or by co*paring an0 contrasting e/tre*e e/a*ples.
The goal is to narrow the range o possibilities by generating an0 testing pre0ictions o 0ierent co*peting
hypotheses. +n the process, so*e are re7ecte0, so*e urther conir*e0, so*e *o0iie0, to 0e!elop a cre0ible
line o argu*ent ro* *ultiple lines o e!i0ence. The scales chosen are 0ictate0 by the 8uestion an0 not by
practical li*itations o e/peri*entation.
The pre*ise o this secon0 strea* is that 1nowle0ge o the syste* we 0eal with is always inco*plete. Surprise
is ine!itable. There will rarely be unani*ity o agree*ent a*ong peers 3 only an increasingly cre0ible line o
teste0 argu*ent. <ot only is the science inco*plete, the syste* itsel is a *o!ing target, e!ol!ing because o
the i*pacts o *anage*ent an0 the progressi!e e/pansion o the scale o hu*an inluences on the planet.
; course, 1nowle0ge shoul0 be *obili5e0 to re0uce uncertainty where!er that is possible. 4ut ecosyste*s an0
the hu*an acti!ities associate0 with the* are inherently uncertain. 2art o that is because o inco*plete
1nowle0ge o no!el interactions across space an0 ti*e, an0 o no!el relationships between nature an0 hu*an
beha!iors. 2art is because *anage*ent changes the syste* being *anage0. Successully *anage0 syste*s
are e!er3changing targets because they release the resources or new 1in0s o hu*an opportunity an0 they
e/pose new classes o hu*an ris1.
+n principle, thereore, there is an inherent un1nowability, as well as unpre0ictability, concerning ecosyste*s
an0 the societies with which they are lin1e0. There is, thereore, an inherent un1nowability an0 unpre0ictably
to sustaining the oun0ations or unctioning syste*s o people an0 nature.
+ne!itably, thereore, inor*ation an0 0ecisions are !ulnerable to being *anipulate0 by powerul interests.
:hile scientists 0o not thereby nee0 to beco*e politicians, they 0o ha!e to be sensiti!e to political an0 hu*an
realities, an0 to recogni5e how theories, 0ierent *o0es o in8uiry, an0 0ierent rules o e!i0ence can
acilitate, hin0er, or 0estroy the 0e!elop*ent o constructi!e policy an0 action.
Reco**en0ations ha!e to be base0 on responsible 7u0g*ent an0 interpretation o the bur0en o e!i0ence.
The +nternational 2anel on Cli*ate Change is an eecti!e, organi5e0 e/a*ple o that process o accu*ulating
rele!ant 1nowle0ge, interpreting it by a co**unity o scientists ro* a nu*ber o 0isciplines, an0
0isse*inating it or the a0!ance*ent o both science an0 policy.
4oth the science o parts an0 the science o the integration o parts are essential or un0erstan0ing an0 action.
Those *ore co*ortable in e/ercising only one o these ha!e the responsibility to un0erstan0 the other.
;therwise the science o parts can all into the trap o pro!i0ing precise answers to the wrong 8uestion an0 the
science o the integration o parts into pro!i0ing useless answers to the right 8uestion.
Ainally, in ecology, practitioners o both strea*s o en0ea!or *ust 0e!elop a clear eye0 perception o, an0
e/perience with, policy, politics, an0 the won0erul, rustrating, an0 so*eti*es 0estructi!e orces that
*oti!ate people an0 their interactions with nature.
RESPONSES TO THIS ARTICLE
Responses to this article are in!ite0. + accepte0 or publication, your response will be hyperlin1e0 to the
article. To sub*it a co**ent, ollow this lin1. To rea0 co**ents alrea0y accepte0, ollow this lin1.
Address of Correspondent:
C.S. %4u55' Holling
Bepart*ent o Coology
,ni!ersity o Alori0a
&&D 4artra* Hall
>aines!ille, Alori0a D&E113&FF9 ,SA
2hone( %DG&' G)D3E9GG
Aa/( %DG&' D9&3DHF)
hollingI5oo.ul.e0u
*
The copyright to this article passe0 ro* the "cological Society o A*erica to the
Resilience Alliance on 1 January &FFF.
Ho*e K Archi!es K About K -ogin K Sub*issions K <otiy K Contact K Search