PROFILE
Coping with Change: The Small Experiment as a
Strategic Approach to Environmental Sustainability
KATHERINE N. IRVINE
School of Natural Resources and Environment
University of Michigan
430 E. University, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1115, USA

STEPHEN KAPLAN*
Departments of Psychology and Computer Science and

Engineering
University of Michigan
525 E. University, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1109, USA

ABSTRACT / The patterns of living, planning, and resource
utilization as practiced in Western countries for decades are
not sustainable; change of some sort is essential. But what

changes are appropriate, and, perhaps more important, will
people accept them? The small experiment framework pro-
vides a strategy for meeting the challenge of change. By en-
couraging participation, limiting the scale of initial change, and
incorporating some aspects of the familiar, many of the diffi-
culties that make change so problematic can be mitigated or
even eliminated. An exploration, from a psychological per-
spective, of the characteristic difficulties surrounding potential
change provides the context for a discussion of the compo-
nents of the small experiment and an analysis of how these
elements address these characteristic challenges. A compari-
son to adaptive management is drawn, and several concrete
examples illustrate how the strategy has been used success-
fully to address a variety of environmental problems.

The adoption of more environmentally appropriate
patterns of living necessarily involves changing the cur-
rent way of doing things, at both a personal and societal
level. It is far less clear, however, exactly how best to
foster potentially beneficial changes. There are not
only questions of what to change but, of equal impor-
tance, of what not to change, as some tempting inno-
vations are fraught with hidden costs. In the recent past
environmental organizations have often considered
legislation, frequently at a national level, as the method
of choice for achieving needed change. Laws are far-
reaching, often creating mandates on a large scale.
Though understandably an attractive approach, expe-
rience has shown that legislating solutions to complex
problems entails many risks; even the best intended
legislation can have unanticipated costs so severe as to
make the very problem addressed worse rather than
better (Sieber 1981).

Questions have also been raised about the efficiency
and effectiveness of working at large scales to promote
and encourage change. Estava and Prakash (1994) note
that the popular phrase “think globally, act locally”
suggests that actions taken at the local level can make as
much (if not more) of a difference when compared to
larger scale action. In addition to praising local action,
the authors argue for thinking locally rather than glo-

bally, pointing out that it is easier to “think wisely about
what one knows well” (Estava and Prakash 1994, p.
162). Drawing on what one “knows well” may facilitate
taking action toward the attainment of environmental
sustainability.

If one takes seriously the concept of thinking locally,
and acting locally, one must also take seriously the local
human resources that are necessarily part of the solu-
tion to a problem. All too often the public is a ne-
glected, or largely untapped, resource. Finding ways to
utilize this resource might go a long way toward solving
our environmental problems and achieving sustainabil-
ity.

Before we begin our analysis, a note on terminology
might be appropriate. One difficulty in discussing the
need for change and the types of change necessary is
the strong feelings some have about the terms sustain-
able and environment. Some argue that sustainability is
an inadequate goal; given the damage done to so many
of the world’s ecosystems, mere sustainability is not
enough (Hawken 1993, McDonough and Braungart
1998). There is certainly merit to this position; none-
theless current human practices are, as a whole, still far
from sustainable (Meadows 2000). The goal of sustain-
ability is in the long run not sufficient, but in the short
term it is clearly a step that is necessary and by no
means trivial. Thus, given the importance of incremen-
talism (Johnson 1978, 1985) and the motivating power
of attainable subgoals and “small wins” (Weick 1984),
we have chosen to use the term sustainability. At the
same time, the approach we propose is equally appro-

KEY WORDS: Sustainability; Participation; Experiment; Local scale;
Adaptive management; Environmental problem solving

*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

DOI: 10.1007/s002670010256

Environmental Management Vol. 28, No. 6, pp. 713–725 © 2001 Springer-Verlag New York Inc.



priate to the steps beyond sustainability, as framed by
such farsighted visions as “the next industrial revolu-
tion” (McDonough and Braungart 1998), “natural cap-
italism” (Hawken and others 1999), and the “global
green deal” (Hertsgaard 1998).

In this article we propose an approach for achieving
environmental sustainability that makes public partici-
pation an essential and constructive part of the process.
Based on the “small experiment” concept (De Young
and Kaplan 1988, S. Kaplan 1990, R. Kaplan 1996), this
approach provides a way to test ideas without the risk of
making a far-reaching or radical departure from the
status quo. As a way to structure the process of solving
environmental problems, the small experiment con-
cept can facilitate the creation, evaluation, and the
ultimate acceptance of potential solutions. By relying
heavily on public participation, such an approach fos-
ters familiarity with and a sense of ownership of solu-
tions developed, both of which can aid the adoption
process. Public participation can also lead to explora-
tions of possible change that can be both more exten-
sive and more economical than would otherwise be
possible. And finally, by calling on human talent and
ingenuity, small experiments can provide not only effi-
cient solutions but ones that are satisfying as well.

The article first addresses the issue of why attempts
to change the status quo are sometimes difficult for
people. We then describe the small experiment as a
possible approach to change. This is followed by a
comparison of the small experiment approach to the
adaptive management concept. We end with specific
examples to illustrate how the small experiment strat-
egy has been used successfully to address a variety of
environmental problems.

The Challenges of Change: A Psychological
Perspective

Change suggests that something is going to be mod-
ified, to be made different from its current incarnation.
People have an inclination to be threatened by change
(Grabiner and Miller 1974, Kaplan 1991). The thought
of changing jobs, visiting a new city, or implementing
new technology is frequently viewed with some appre-
hension. This fear of change is especially acute during
times when many changes are occurring at once (Gra-
biner and Miller 1974). What is it that makes change so
difficult? Why is it that a species as mobile, creative, and
adaptable as humans has such difficulty with change?
More pragmatically, how can solutions to pressing en-
vironmental problems be reached given this all too
pervasive inclination?

The first step in dealing with people’s resistance to

change is to face the challenge of finding the “right”
change; that is, a change that has a good chance of
producing the desired effect and of minimizing unde-
sirable side effects. Then one can proceed in good
conscience (and with better chance of success) to the
second step, the challenge of getting the proposed
change adopted.

Finding the “Right” Change

The process of identifying a change that will im-
prove a situation or correct a problem would, from a
psychological perspective, be considered an instance of
problem solving. If an individual or group stops to
ponder a problem, the solution is presumably not ob-
vious, because if it were, it would no longer be a prob-
lem. Thus, not knowing what to do next is the charac-
teristic state of mind that leads to problem solving. Not
knowing what to do next is generally due to a deficiency
in one of three areas: pertinent knowledge, a source of
variation, or a means of evaluation (Posner 1973). Let
us examine each in turn.

Solving problems typically requires knowledge. In
the modern world experts are often counted on to have
the knowledge essential for solving problems in their
respective areas. Examining the sorts of knowledge ex-
perts possess is instructive. Experts are trained to know
what to focus on, what factors to attend to. This may be
cash flow or water table level or form, line, color and
texture, depending on the particular expertise in-
volved. They also, because of their vast experience, have
a rich repertoire of possibilities, of what might be done
in a given situation and of what the consequences of a
given decision might be. These are significant areas of
knowledge and are often essential in solving a problem.
It is important to remember, however, that there are
other realms of knowledge that can also be useful. In
the planning and management process, for example,
knowledge of local tradition, local history, and local
circumstances can play a central role (Ostrom 1990).
These sorts of knowledge tend not to be available from
the individuals traditionally regarded as experts.

Not infrequently a problem may resist solution not
because of a lack of knowledge but because a crucial
kind of variation is missing. The variation that is
needed, interestingly enough, is not in generating pos-
sible solutions, but in ways of looking at the problem
that needs to be solved. Research on problem solving
indicates that the most common difficulty when prob-
lem-solving fails is that the usual ways of looking at the
problem have not worked (Posner 1973, Bardwell
1991). The way one thinks of a problem (or, more
technically, the way one represents the problem) turns
out to be the single most important determinant of

714 K. N. Irvine and S. Kaplan



whether the problem is solvable (Posner 1973). The
remedy for this might appear to be obvious: simply
change the way of looking at the problem. This, how-
ever, is easier said than done. Not surprisingly, the way
one perceives a problem is typically experienced as the
right and natural way to understand the problem. In
fact, it often seems to be the only reasonable way one
could think about it. Thus, although some alteration in
the way the problem is conceptualized is often essential,
such variation typically is not easily achieved.

The third hazard in negotiating the problem solving
process is evaluation (Anderson 1975). There are two
sorts of situations in which evaluation is essential. Some-
times, when an impasse is reached, a solution is found
by relaxing constraints (e.g., time, budget, goals). One
becomes willing to entertain solutions that do not meet
all of one’s criteria. A solution obtained in this fashion
may, of course, be unworkable; therefore, it is essential
that the proposed solution receive an appropriate eval-
uation. At the other end of the spectrum, it is some-
times possible to think of a large number of solutions (a
not uncommon situation in the context of planning
and management). The difficulty then is not one of
coming up with a solution but of deciding which solu-
tion, from among many, to implement. Here, too, eval-
uation is essential. In both cases evaluation is exceed-
ingly difficult due to the impossibility of predicting in
advance how a proposed solution will work out.

Facilitating Adoption

Once one or more possible “right” changes have
been identified, there is the challenge of getting the
proposed change or changes adopted. The reason this
is so challenging can be stated simply, humans are
much more comfortable with the known than the un-
known (Zajonc 1968, Tversky and Kahneman 1973,
Kaplan 1992). Although this is seemingly an inconse-
quential statement, it provides an important observa-
tion about human nature. The “known,” whether it is a
particular environment, person, or issue, is something
about which one has some understanding. Understand-
ing and comprehension are critical for knowing what to
do. Being familiar with something is a way to achieve
this understanding, whether that “something” is the
surrounding physical or social environment or a more
abstract concern (e.g., sustainability, ecosystem man-
agement). It appears, therefore, that humans have
good reason for preferring the familiar. (At the same
time people are motivated to make modest exploratory
forays from the stable base of the known. The approach
we describe in the next major section takes advantage
of this motivation).

To understand why the bias toward the familiar is so

powerful, it is useful to think about a specific instance
of change. Computer software (e.g., word processing,
data management), which is constantly being up-
graded, provides a pertinent example. While often use-
ful, the modifications may create anxiety and perhaps
some resistance to the change. Actions that with the
current version were routine, took little effort, and
provided support for accomplishing a goal (e.g., writ-
ing a report, organizing data), may suddenly take
longer and require considerably more attention. There
may be uncertainty as to whether one will be able to
meet deadlines; one may also experience irritation at
the prospect of the time needed to learn the new
version.

Although perhaps a trivial example of the power of
the familiar, this example illustrates the benefits famil-
iarity brings. Being familiar with a physical place (e.g.,
a city, a park, a neighborhood), an issue (e.g., forest
management, water policy), or a relationship (e.g., be-
tween selective harvesting and wildlife biodiversity) al-
lows one to recognize where one is, make decisions,
predict, and evaluate possible next steps of action
(Craik 1943, Kaplan 1973). Familiarity, in essence, as
the above example illustrates, helps a person function
more effectively in the world. The ability to function in
one’s surroundings, in turn, leads to feeling competent
in one’s abilities. Feeling as though one is good at and
able to accomplish what one is doing is a powerful
motivational force for humans (White 1959, De Young
1996).

Being able to function effectively is not the only
reason to maintain the status quo. If people are resis-
tant to change that in the long run is likely to work out,
one would expect them to be even more hesitant where
there is uncertainty about the alternative outcome
(MacCrimmon and Taylor 1976, Slovik 1987). This con-
cern may well be realistic. Using a new, alternative
approach does not guarantee that the goal of a more
sustainable relationship with the natural environment
will be met. The potential for unintended conse-
quences does, unfortunately, exist (Sieber 1981). Cou-
pled with these may be the fear that something valuable
could be lost (e.g., an endangered species, a “way of
life”) in the process of attaining sustainability. Given
the time and energy involved in learning a new way of
doing things (whether it be managing forests or main-
taining viable populations of endangered species), in
the face of uncertain results the tendency to be skepti-
cal of new approaches is hardly surprising. Even if one
knows it may not be the best alternative, there is indeed
a strong inclination to stick with the current way of
doing things in the face of possible future surprises.

Coping with Change 715



Small Experiments: A Possible Strategy

Perhaps if the process of change were less confusing
and less overwhelming the resistance to adopting envi-
ronmentally appropriate patterns of living would be
minimized. In working to overcome this resistance to
change, it would be particularly helpful if an approach
could be found that enhanced familiarity with possible
new alternatives.

One way to lessen resistance and increase familiarity
would be to introduce change in incremantal steps;
small steps would maintain a certain level of the famil-
iar while still allowing for exploration of alternatives.
Taking small steps would also make it possible to keep
track of what effect each step had, an essential compo-
nent for evaluating what one has done and deciding
what step to take next. Last, an approach that encour-
ages participation would be useful. Participation helps
build familiarity and ownership of the process and in-
corporates the local knowledge and local talent that all
too often go to waste.

The above description may sound similar to a con-
cept known as “muddling through” (or simply “mud-
dling”). There is indeed a similarity both to this con-
cept and to “adaptive management” (Holling 1978,
Walters 1986). We discuss the former in this section
because it provides pertinent background to the small
experiment notion. The comparison to an adaptive
management approach is discussed later in the article
after the small experiment concept is presented more
fully. “Muddling through” is a phrase introduced by
Lindblom (1959) to reflect the incremental, even grop-
ing, character of decision-making in large organizations
(e.g., bureaucracies). Lindblom suggests that decision-
making is actually quite a slow process, characterized by
taking modest steps forward rather than grand leaps of
faith. Johnson (1978, 1985) subsequently applied this
concept to environmental management. The small ex-
periment concept is akin to muddling in that they both
approach change through taking small, manageable
steps. Because steps are small, both techniques avoid
big, potentially damaging mistakes. The scale of imple-
mentation, however, differs; small experiments focus
on change at the local level while most discussions of
muddling center on change at a larger scale (e.g., a
large organization or an entire country).

Both techniques address the human bias toward the
familiar by tying proposed changes to results of past
changes, but small experiments allow many solutions to
be explored simultaneously. Traditional muddling, by
contrast, tends to focus on instituting only one policy at
a time. This may be due to another difference between
the approaches, namely, the role of citizen participa-

tion. In muddling, the decision-making and implemen-
tation process are typically carried out by experts. Citi-
zen input, when it occurs, may be sought primarily at
the beginning of the process, when advice is garnered
from those most likely to be impacted by a policy, or
near the end, when the possibility of change is minimal.
With small experiments, special emphasis is placed on
providing creative opportunities for citizen involve-
ment, permitting far more person power for parallel
experiments.

A frequent criticism of muddling is its inability to
respond quickly. Here the possibility of many parallel
explorations is a major advantage of small experiments.
Trying out several alternatives at the same time makes it
easier to incorporate modifications in response to
changes in the environment or the process. The possi-
bility of multiple alternatives being explored at once,
however, requires some way to assess their effectiveness.
The luxury of just “getting an intutive feel for how
things worked out” is unlikely to be affordable or useful
when many efforts are being implemented simulta-
neously. The small experiment concept, thus, has an
explicit focus on evaluation.

The Small Experiment Concept

Undoubtedly many activities that would appropri-
ately be called small experiments are already under
way. One might argue they are going on all the time.
Sometimes called pilot projects, small studies, field
tests, or prototyping, they are often simply a local re-
sponse to local problems—innovative programs that
arise out of frustration with the status quo. If small
experiments are indeed a way in which to try out new
and different approaches to the way people– environ-
ment relationships are managed, how can we make
these efforts more helpful to the present state of affairs?
How, also, might small experiments be made a more
common approach to change? Some insight into these
issues can be gained by examining the components of
the “ideal” small experiment.

Purpose or goal. Small experiments have a specific
purpose. This could be in the form of a question to
explore (e.g., what would happen if. . .), a particular
value to maintain (e.g., small-town character), or goal
(e.g., improved water quality). Identifying a purpose
provides the motivation for exploring ways of changing
how things have always been done. A purpose also
focuses attention on the ultimate outcome rather than
on any one specific solution. The process thus becomes
an exploratory one; the proposed changes are a possi-
ble solution rather than the solution. It is often easier
to try something new if one knows that if it does not
work or brings unintended consequences, one has not

716 K. N. Irvine and S. Kaplan



made a long-term commitment to it. Viewing the pro-
cess as exploratory also means that some method of
evaluating it is required. Having an articulated purpose
provides clarity about what would constitute success or
failure and facilitates the evaluation of the experi-
ment’s effectiveness.

Information gathering and evaluation. Formal or infor-
mal tracking of what happens both during and after
implementing an “exploration” is a vital component of
a small experiment for two reasons. First, it allows for
feedback to participants. This feedback lets people
know how things are going in general (e.g., are popu-
lation numbers of a certain endangered species increas-
ing) and provides information to individuals active in
the effort about how their particular contribution has
helped. Second, information gathering provides fodder
for the process of determining what worked and what
did not work. Such evaluation helps assess what steps, if
any, to take next as well as identifies findings that are
appropriate to share with others.

Scale and scope. Experiments need not be large and
all-encompassing to be useful. What makes an experi-
ment small, however, will vary from one circumstance
to the next. “Smallness,” therefore, can have a variety of
referents. It may refer to the scale of the experiment or
the elaborateness of the measurement, or the size of
the sample. Taking a local scale approach, for example,
may help avoid many of the potential pitfalls often
associated with larger scale projects, such as the lack of
funds and potential for details to overwhelm the pro-
cess. Smaller-scale approaches often result in greater
participation, with the scope often being dictated and
managed by the people who are actually engaged in the
experiment rather than by external considerations
(e.g., source of funding). Given the uncertainty associ-
ated with change and the eternal question of whether
the experiment will have the hoped-for results, perhaps
it is safer to err on the side of too small rather than too
big. This way any possible negative effects can be more
easily remedied with minimal impact on the commu-
nity.

Communication and dissemination of results. Letting
others know about a particular strategy taken and the
results of the effort is also an important aspect of the
small experiment approach to change. Communicating
the findings of a small experiment to a larger audience
(people not directly involved in the project as well as
people who live elsewhere) is essential if others are to
profit and learn from the efforts. The strategy under-
taken becomes, via dissemination, an available alterna-
tive that others can try in their own setting. Sharing
information is one way to expand the level of knowl-
edge of different approaches to sustainability. Present-

ing the information in concrete and vivid language with
a suggestion that more information is available a little
farther down the road can enhance familiarity (Kear-
ney 1994).

Meeting the Challenges of Change:
Small Experiments and Participation

Small experiments can in principle be carried out
without the benefit of participation. It is our conten-
tion, however, that there are often considerable bene-
fits to involving local citizens in the process. In this
section we consider three interrelated issues concern-
ing local participation. First we examine the way such
participation can facilitate finding a promising solu-
tion. Then we turn to the issue of how it can aid
adoption once such a solution is identified. But these
benefits are for naught if local citizens are unwilling to
participate. Thus, we conclude this section with a dis-
cussion of the basis for believing that participation will
be experienced as a positively valued activity.

The impact of participation on finding the “right” change.
The kind of knowledge that experts have is usually well
represented in efforts to solve environmental problems.
Other realms of knowledge, however, are often over-
looked. These include the history and idiosyncrasies of
the setting, the special resources that might be avail-
able, and what has been tried in the past. These kinds
of knowledge are commonly held by local people.

A vivid example of the different ways of looking at
the same issue comes from the Green Revolution.
Clarkson (1970) describes a prototypic confrontation
between an agricultural expert and an indigenous
farmer of a less-developed country. Based on maps and
theory, the expert suggests that a certain crop be grown
in a certain field. The farmer refuses, referring to
ghosts traditionally associated with the field. Although
this may seem to be a straightforward conflict between
reason and superstition, Clarkson (a geographer)
points out that the local is likely to be in possession of
long-term, detailed information about the productivity
of that particular field— despite the information on the
generalized map and despite the local’s failure to de-
scribe this information in a way understandable to the
expert. Thus, when local people are central to the
problem-solving process a wider array of knowledge is
available. Participation in the planning and carrying
out of small experiments on the part of locals reduces
the danger of neglecting information that may be vital
to finding a solution to a problem.

The solution of difficult problems often depends on
new and different ways of looking at the problem. This
in turn requires diversity in how a problem is concep-
tualized. Incorporating local people into the process

Coping with Change 717



also addresses this need for diversity. People from the
local community who are participating in the process
are unlikely to have the same backgrounds, training,
and perspectives the experts possess. Thus, they are
likely to bring a variety of perspectives to the process.
And, to the extent that citizens come from different
backgrounds and have different work identities, they
are likely to differ not only from experts but from each
other as well, another useful source of diversity.

Evaluating a potential solution prior to widespread
implementation is another facet of the problem solving
process that can be aided through participation. It is
often difficult to adequately evaluate proposed solu-
tions without actually trying them out. In fact, in many
situations there is no substitute for trying out an inno-
vation on a small scale first. Peters and Waterman
(1982) describe how this approach to evaluation has
become institutionalized in some of the country’s most
highly regarded companies (e.g., IBM, 3M). Local par-
ticipation provides more people power for trying things
out on a small scale. When a sufficiently large group of
people is interested, it becomes possible to test several
alternative solutions at the same time. In this way the
problem-solving process can be moved along at a more
rapid and informed pace and the implementation of
sweeping changes without the benefit of prior small
scale evaluation can be avoided.

The impact of participation on adoption. People are
often resistant and even disturbed by proposed change.
One way to view this phenomenon is in terms of a lack
of clarity. It is important to distinguish a lack of clarity
from uncertainty. One can know a great deal about
something and still face uncertainly (e.g., a surgeon
facing surgery where the probability of a successful
outcome is 0.6). People routinely make decisions where
the outcome is uncertain. Unclarity, by contrast, entails
not understanding the pertinent issues, not knowing
what is important in the situation, and not knowing
how to evaluate what is going on. Thus, not surpris-
ingly, unclarity often inclines people to leave the situ-
ation or to avoid thinking about it (Kaplan 1978, 1991).
Considerable evidence suggests that people react with
discomfort and avoidance in the face of things they are
unclear about (Bruner and Postman 1949, Maslow and
Diaz-Guerrero 1971, Fortune 1976). Because potential
change is a likely source of unclarity, their negative
reaction is hardly surprising.

There are three key factors that reduce unclarity,
namely, familiarity, understanding, and concreteness
(S. Kaplan 1991, R. Kaplan and others 1998). Any
activity that facilitates these three factors should reduce
people’s almost reflexive resistance to proposed
changes. The small experiment is an ideal vehicle for

achieving this. By giving people the opportunity to try
something out, their familiarity is, by definition, in-
creased. The proposal becomes more concrete as they
implement a small-scale version of it in the real world.
It becomes more understandable as they participate in
carrying it out and observe its workings.

Some might worry that those participating in a small
experiment will come to favor the proposed change
independent of its merits. There are two reasons why
this is unlikely to be the case. First, if the experiment is
going badly the participants are not likely to have the
confidence and enthusiasm necessary to convince oth-
ers of its value. Second, persuading others is far more
difficult when the results of the experiment are not
favorable. The problem of adoption lies in the human
tendency to resist change even when there is good
reason to believe that it is needed and beneficial. A
small experiment is a procedure that differentially fa-
vors the acceptance of workable proposals.

On the face of it, it might seem that the beneficial
increase in clarity will only be experienced by those
who have been directly engaged in a small experiment.
If this were the case, it would be an important draw-
back, as the individuals who have participated are likely
to constitute only a small fraction of the total popula-
tion impacted. But a small experiment readily becomes
a case study, or, more informally, a story about what
other people did. Such shared experiences of having
been involved in a small experiment have shown them-
selves to be a powerful source of information that
makes it easier for people to take appropriate action
themselves (Monroe and Kaplan 1988). Stories of this
kind are more likely to be effective when people hear
several of them rather than a single instance. This is not
surprising because multiple examples are necessary to
build a concept one can be comfortable with and con-
fident of (Hebb 1949, Posner 1973, Rosch 1977). For-
tunately small experiments are generally inexpensive,
so that the launching of several in parallel may well be
feasible. Further, such multiple experiments provide a
sounder basis for action as well as a more effective
means of building the understanding that facilitates
adoption.

Will people actually get involved? These benefits of par-
ticipation are, of course, contingent on a sufficient
number of individuals being willing to participate.
Though this might seem to be a serious limitation of
the approach, there are, in fact, quite a few reasons for
believing that people find such opportunities both at-
tractive and satisfying.

Despite a strong desire for settings that foster under-
standing, humans, at the same time, have a natural
inclination toward exploring and learning. Opportuni-

718 K. N. Irvine and S. Kaplan



ties for exploration have, in fact, been shown to be
highly preferred (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989). The small
experiment provides an opportunity for meeting these
two potentially conflicting needs. In small doses, and in
settings that are relatively familiar, exploring new ap-
proaches can be quite engaging and rewarding. Explo-
ration is, after all, a process of expanding one’s knowl-
edge of the world. Small experiments allow discovery to
occur while involving small enough increments of
change to permit a feeling of familiarity and under-
standing to be preserved.

Second, because there are often fewer people and
resources available for small-scale projects, involvement
tends to be active rather than passive. Thus a small
experiment might involve developing and testing dif-
ferent ways to reduce runoff as opposed to the more
common citizen role of voting on a plan that was de-
veloped by an outside expert. The relative scarcity of
resources and people in an “understaffed” context has
been shown to increase the level of participation as well
(Gump and Barker 1964). Fortunately, people tend to
respond positively to opportunities to “do something”
(Kaplan and Kaplan 1982), so the kinds of opportuni-
ties provided by small-scale projects draw on human
motivations and inclinations (e.g., to learn, to be in-
volved) that may be difficult to express under other
circumstances.

As the name implies, a small experiment is some-
thing that takes place at a modest scale. There are many
advantages of such an arrangement. Overall familiarity
is maintained; mistakes, should they occur, are less
costly. Participants understand what they can do and
how their actions contribute to the process as a whole.
Having this kind of an understanding of a situation has
many advantages. It helps overcome the all-too-preva-
lent belief that individuals cannot make a difference,
makes involvement enjoyable, and frequently leads to a
sense of ownership and confidence in the process. An
important by-product of participation is the fact that
people find it satisfying (De Young 1985– 86, 1996). In
further support of this observation, Wandersman
(1979a) found that in contrast to the those who did not
participate, individuals in the participation condition
“felt significantly more creative, responsible, helpful,
and significantly less alienated and anonymous” (Wan-
dersman 1979b, p. 480).

Concerning the meaning of “small” and “experiment”.
The expression “small experiment” refers to a way of
learning from experience. It is an expression of the
belief that there are many ways in which an experiment,
a trying out of something, can be made less expensive
and more manageable. It is an expression of the belief
that an experiment need not be the intimidating task

that it so often turns out to be. Given the many contexts
in which the small experiment concept can be applied,
it is impossible to define the “small” aspect of a small
experiment with any exactness. In essence, it refers to
any modification from the usual approach that reduces
the cost, the effort, the duration, or the number of
people affected relative to the usual way of doing
things. Thus, the word small in small experiment plays
a similar role to the word appropriate in appropriate
technology; it is a reaction to the tendency of technol-
ogy to get out of hand, to foster ever more elaborate
and expensive solutions (Schumacher 1973).

There are two key consequences of such downsizing.
First, the reality of current practice is that innovations
in programs, policies, arrangements, and solutions are
often put into effect on a large scale without the benefit
of trying them first (Schumacher 1973, Peters and Wa-
terman 1982). Untold harm has been done by appar-
ently good ideas that not merely failed the test of time
but did so on an unconscionably large scale. Thus, the
focus on smallness is, to no small degree, an expression
of frustration with current approaches.

A second benefit of taking smaller scale action con-
cerns the notion of “experiment.” The very idea of
research has become so intimidating that it is not cur-
rently considered by individuals who are ideally posi-
tioned to learn from something that is about to happen
anyway. There are so many new programs tried, so
many opportunities to learn from experience that
would be far more informative if they were thought of
as experiments. Not as official, traditional, experi-
ments, but as approximations, as modest efforts, as ways
of preserving essential components of research (i.e.,
purpose, evaluation, communication) without bringing
with them the expensive baggage. The alternative to
runaway technology in the realm of trying things out
needs a name, a philosophy, and a legitimacy. It is our
hope and intention to contribute to the small but grow-
ing literature that attempts to address these needs. (It
must be acknowledged that what one learns by experi-
menting at a smaller scale does not guarantee that it
will behave similarly at a larger scale. But it is nonethe-
less vastly safer than not testing it at all.)

Small Experiments and Adaptive Management—
A Comparison

Not surprisingly, the idea of employing a more ex-
perimental approach to guiding environmental deci-
sion-making is not without precedent. In particular, the
adaptive management approach has received consider-
able attention for its utilization of this concept (Holling
1978, Walters 1986, Walters and Holling 1990, Johnson
1999a). It is useful to examine this approach both for its

Coping with Change 719



similarities and differences with respect to small exper-
iments and for how it has fared in applied contexts.

Grounded in industrial operation theory (Everett
and Ebert 1986), adaptive management was first ap-
plied to natural resource management in the 1970s
(Holling 1978). Central to the concept is the issue of
uncertainty (e.g., about the resource, about the effect
of management efforts). Unlike conventional manage-
ment practices, which, for example, often attempt to
make precise predictions and presume certainty, adap-
tive management accepts as given the reality of incom-
plete knowledge. It thus focuses on building opportu-
nities to learn into the design and implementation of
policies (Holling 1978, Walters 1986, Walters and
Holling 1990). In this way, adaptive management em-
phasizes learning by doing (Walters and Holling 1990),
treating management actions and policies as hypothe-
ses, designing and implementing them so as to gener-
ate “critical information about the resource being man-
aged” (Johnson 1999a, p. 1).

The approach typically includes several steps
(Holling 1978, Lessard 1998, Lee, 1999, Johnson,
1999b). The assessment phase seeks to identify specific
goals for the natural resource being managed (e.g.,
desired future condition of an aquatic ecosystem).
These emerge from a collection of current knowledge
about the resource with input from various stakehold-
ers. The second phase identifies and assesses the signif-
icance of gaps in knowledge and generates alternative
management actions. The actual implementation of
management actions is treated as an experiment. Infor-
mation is collected about the resource, impacts are
monitored, and management actions are evaluated as
to whether they are meeting management goals for the
resource. The final step includes utilizing findings to
revise policy as necessary.

It is instructional to look at where adaptive manage-
ment and the small experiment concepts overlap and
where they diverge. Both approaches attempt to bring
a more scientific approach to the solution of practical
problems. The emphasis on goal identification provides
both concepts with a benchmark against which to de-
termine whether efforts are addressing identified
needs. Information collected during the process of im-
plementation provides the basis for this continuous
evaluation in both adaptive management and small
experiments.

Both approaches identify the importance of sharing
information and findings. The audience and intent,
however, differ. Adaptive management focuses primar-
ily on communicating findings to those immediately
engaged in the process, with the intention of informing
the implementation of management actions and poli-

cies. Small experiments emphasize dissemination of
information to a wider audience. In addition to those
involved in the project, it also targets individuals in the
vicinity but not directly involved with the project at
hand, as well as individuals further away geographically,
working on similar or different projects altogether. In
essence, although both approaches create a feedback
loop so that a current activity can inform future deci-
sion-making, the small experiments concept extends
the dissemination beyond the immediate project at
hand.

A second, and perhaps more significant difference is
that of participation. Both approaches highlight the
importance of participation, but the extent of involve-
ment and who specifically is involved differ. In adaptive
management participation occurs primarily during the
goal identification phase, when relevant stakeholders
are gathered to pool existing data about the resources
and identify goals for the resource. Stakeholders are
often identified by the managing organization (e.g.,
Forest Service) and usually consist of individuals with
relevant expertise and knowledge (e.g., biologists; Pink-
erton 1999, Shindler and Cheek 1999). There is less
involvement at later stages of adaptive management
and few opportunities for the average citizen. The small
experiment expressly relies on participation through-
out the process by experts as well as nonexperts. In fact,
the distinction between experts and nonexperts is pur-
posefully deemphasized in the small experiment con-
cept, viewing the resource user (e.g., individuals using
resource for fishing, walking) as an important source of
creativity and of valuable local information.

A third difference is the scale of implementation.
Much of the current literature discusses the application
of adaptive management to the management of ecosys-
tems (Lessard 1998, Gunderson 1999). Ecosystems, or
eco-regions, typically cross boundaries (e.g., political,
ecosystem type, ownership), presenting biological, eco-
nomic, and social complexity on a large scale. Thus,
adaptive management has tended to operate at and be
perceived as a tool for larger scale management efforts.
The small experiment concept suggests the value of
applying an experimental approach to small-scale ef-
forts as well (e.g., neighborhood water use campaign).

In light of the above discussion about the small
experiment and adaptive management concepts, it may
be useful to focus on what can be learned about and,
perhaps more important, applied to efforts to create
environmentally appropriate patterns of management
and living. Adaptive management has been described
as a tool for organizational decision-making, particu-
larly for resource managers who are responsible for
developing and implementing strategies and policies

720 K. N. Irvine and S. Kaplan



for natural areas (Johnson 1999b). The implementa-
tion and use of the adaptive management concept
have, however, met with limited success (McLain and
Lee 1996, Walters 1997, Gunderson 1999, Lee 1999).
Describing the concept as “scientifically sound” yet “so-
cially challenged,” Johnson (1999a) identifies a need
for greater participation from nonexperts. Drawing
from the conceptualization of small experiments, a role
for nonexperts should exist beyond merely providing
additional information about the resource; such partic-
ipants can also contribute new perspectives and ap-
proaches (Gunderson 1999). Participation by a broader
array of stakeholders also has the added advantage of
gaining greater acceptance for identified goals. Even
though the involvement might require a change in the
approach taken, the ultimate goal may be reached
rather than stymied by public indifference or outright
opposition.

Adaptive management puts emphasis on a systematic
identification and collection of environmental data,
and the use of technology for the development of
multiple management strategies (e.g., computer mod-
eling). This focus can make the process costly and slow
(Walters and others 1993, Lee 1999). The small exper-
iment concept takes a more informal, organic ap-
proach to information collection and solution genera-
tion. This could lead to missed information. Yet both
concepts have their advantages, and in many situations
the two approaches can be complimentary. There are,
however, situations where speed, diversity of input, and
acceptability to the public are sufficiently important
that the small experiment approach might be prefera-
ble.

In general, adaptive management and small experi-
ments appear to share considerable common ground.
Both allow for the implementation of potentially risky
strategies precisely because they are treated as experi-
ments to be monitored and evaluated before adoption.
At the same time, the adaptive management approach
might benefit from adopting the broader concept of
participation that is so central to the small experiment
approach.

Can Modest Projects Make a Difference?

Is it realistic to think that such small-scale efforts can
accomplish anything of substance in pursuit of the
challenging goal of sustainability? A number of exam-
ples indicate not only that this is possible but that it is
an approach rich in potential. Examples are drawn
from different cultures, include national and interna-
tional projects, and cut across several environmental
issues. Innovative efforts undertaken in Davis, Califor-

nia; the Amish community; Curitiba, Brazil; a small
town in Wisconsin; and Ann Arbor, Michigan, demon-
strate both the usefulness and the flexibility of the small
experiment concept.

Energy Efficient Buildings—Davis, CA

The first example comes from attempts to reduce
energy consumption. In the mid-1970s, in response to a
national goal of energy conservation and conversion to
renewable resources, Davis, California, developed a lo-
cal-level solution based on local needs, constraints, and
resources rather than relying on national legislation to
solve the problem. The city designed its own building
code around local climate conditions in hopes of in-
creasing energy efficiency of new buildings. The idea
arose out of research done at the University of Califor-
nia, Davis campus and was shaped by the comments
and criticisms of many different segments of the com-
munity, such as environmental groups, energy groups,
consumer advocates, builders, and developers. Evalua-
tion was done primarily by those opposing the code to
see if it really worked. One builder found that the
inside temperature of unoccupied buildings, built un-
der the new code, was 20°F cooler than the outside
temperature on hot summer days, thus reducing the
need for air conditioning and therefore energy use
(Brunner 1980). City leaders in Davis have received
numerous requests for information about their local
energy policies. Builders now accept the new code as
efficient and cost-effective, and the code has been
adopted in nearby counties (Brunner 1980). The city of
Davis provides a nice example of decisions and policies
that were devised, explored, and implemented at the
local level, in contrast to legislation passed at the na-
tional level, which would not have involved as many
local groups and might not have adequately addressed
local issues.

Farming Technology Usage—Amish Culture

In the context of environmentally sustainable pat-
terns of behavior, decisions need to be made both
about new practices intended to increase sustainability
and about proposed innovations that may turn out to
reduce sustainability and thus should be modified or
rejected. If sustainability is a serious goal, then it is a
consideration with respect to any innovation, not
merely those intended to have an effect on the envi-
ronment. The next example illustrates the use of the
small experiment concept to purposefully evaluate, and
ultimately reject, a new technological innovation.

The Amish maintain a lifestyle that in many respects
is remarkably sustainable. Their practice is to examine
innovation for consequences that may be quite far re-

Coping with Change 721



moved from the purposes that made the innovation
attractive in the first place. The scale of these “experi-
ments” remains small; the church units within Amish
communities are inherently small and often only a few
families “try out” the new technology (Huntington per-
sonal communication). The effects of an innovation—
a tractor, for example—are watched with keen interest
and observations are communicated throughout the
community both formally (e.g., at specific membership
meetings) and informally (e.g., conversations with com-
munity members). Decisions about innovations are
made against a backdrop of stability and community
stemming from common, identifiable values shared by
all in the community. The Amish wish to maintain their
separateness from the “English,” to maintain equal sta-
tus among all members of their own community, and to
maintain strong, healthy, families and communities
(Huntington 1994). Thus, the Amish will question em-
bracing the use of tractors, despite the increase in
productivity a tractor could bring to their farming,
because observation and communication would indi-
cate that the use could ultimately upset the balance
within the community and the separateness of the com-
munity from the larger society.

Public Transportation and Waste Management—
Curitiba, Brazil

Curitiba, Brazil, provides an inspiring example of an
attempt both to preserve key values and to make im-
provements with respect to both sustainability and the
quality of life. Throughout efforts to modernize the
city, the use of high-tech (and expensive) practices,
believed to be essential to a modern city, was ques-
tioned; well-thought-out alternatives were explored,
evaluated, and if determined to be appropriate, imple-
mented. A particularly striking example was the deci-
sion to emphasize public transportation rather than
individual car use, and to implement this decision using
buses rather than a subway system. The city achieved
remarkably high utilization levels through the use of
such elements as dedicated bus lanes, subway-like ter-
minals, and a public-private partnership for operating
the buses. Interestingly, another factor favoring the
choice of a bus system was the fact that the city was
already familiar with the operation and management of
buses. Thus, the thorny issue of how to provide trans-
portation routes for the city’s citizens was accomplished
at a fraction of the cost of a subway system, drew on
existing skills and knowledge, and had minimal impact
on the environment. This is only one of the many
experiments occurring at the same time in this fast-
developing city. Each is targeted to a specific problem
and places emphasis on appropriate technology, in

achieving an environmentally and humanly satisfactory
solution. As a result, the city has kept its pollution and
crime rates lower and its educational level higher than
is often the case with rapidly developing cities (Rabin-
ovitch and Leitman 1996).

Curitiba has also created a waste management sys-
tem that does not center around mechanized trash-
separation plants—a recommended necessity for cities
generating more than 1,000 tons of solid waste a day
(Rabinovitch and Leitman 1996). The city has instead
implemented labor-intensive programs that encourage
citizen participation. Through both a separation pro-
gram, in which citizens voluntarily separate their waste,
and a purchase program, which allows families from
neighborhoods difficult to service to exchange bags of
trash for bus tokens, food, and school notebooks, Cu-
ritiba has managed to clean up the city, reduce waste
going to landfills, provide employment, and conserve
resources (Rabinovitch and Leitman 1996). Despite
many important differences, Curitiba perhaps shows a
parallel to the Amish example in their ability to say “no”
to conventional wisdom and to the use of expensive
high technology.

Recycling—Wisconsin

The last two examples focus on efforts made by
individuals not normally viewed as agents of change.
The first is of a Wisconsin woman nearing retirement
who started a recycling company in 1978 (Sinclair and
others 1990), well before recycling was a household
word, let alone a household behavior. Her goal—to
reduce the amount of waste destined for the land-
fill—was an outgrowth of her well-water being polluted
due to leakage from a nearby landfill, and her realiza-
tion that landfills were not the only solution to dealing
with solid waste. As of 1987 the company had recycled
1,000 tons of refuse, saving the county $19,000 in
dumping fees (Sinclair and others 1990). The idea of
recycling was initially greeted with skepticism. However,
according to the company’s owner, this attitude has
changed dramatically; people now bring items that are
washed, flattened, and ready for recycling. Thus, in this
case, an individual brought change to the traditional
practice of sending all household solid waste to a land-
fill.

Water Quality and Lawn Care—Ann Arbor, MI

The issue of water quality provides the venue for the
final example. Officials responsible for watershed pro-
tection are increasingly concerned about the impact of
lawn chemicals on the quality of groundwater. Due to
the vast commercial investment in providing such lawn
care and the cultural attachment to the traditional

722 K. N. Irvine and S. Kaplan



lawn, addressing this problem is likely to be challeng-
ing. Perhaps children, who will ultimately pay the price
for chemically green lawns, could be an appropriate
vehicle for this message. An experiment at the scale of
a local neighborhood provides an indication of how
such an approach might work (Romaker 1995). A
group of preschool students in Ann Arbor, Michigan,
went door-to-door, explaining to their neighbors the
implications of and their concerns with lawn chemicals.
They asked individuals to sign a pledge agreeing to stop
applying chemical lawn sprays. About 50% of the peo-
ple with whom the children talked agreed to sign the
pledge and received a “safe lawn” sign to place on the
lawn to let others know of their commitment (Romaker
1995). Results of the children’s efforts were written up
in the local newspaper.

There are many problems implicit in moving from
current practice to sustainability. The small experiment
approach is presented as a framework for addressing
the challenges of building a sustainable relationship
between people and the natural environment. The ap-
proach can be thought of in terms of three themes:
local emphasis, experimental stance, and information
sharing (see Figure 1). The examples cited above all
incorporate, to a greater or lesser degree, the three
themes and provide insight into how they can be uti-
lized.

Local emphasis can occur in a variety of ways. For
instance, in the examples cited above, note the differ-
ent scales at which efforts to change the status quo can
be successful— city, community, small town, and neigh-
borhood. In each instance, an issue (e.g., water quality,
energy conservation, community) was addressed in an
exploratory manner, at a scale smaller than the issue
might usually be treated, with an emphasis on learning
about consequences before extensive resources were
committed and great disruption occurred. Participa-
tion by individual citizens, a key concept in the small
experiment approach, goes beyond providing input on

other people’s decisions. Citizens can have a role in
shaping policy, as in the case of Davis’s energy policy, or
in the Amish’s decisions regarding use of technology.
Citizens can actively participate in alleviating problems,
as in Curitiba, or could develop a program to reduce
the use of toxic chemicals on lawns, as in Ann Arbor. In
each case, local knowledge is utilized in meaningful
ways.

The examples also illustrate the numerous ways in
which the purpose or goal, central to the experimental
stance, can be formulated. For example, the Amish
emphasize maintenance of community-oriented values,
the city of Curitiba is working toward solutions of civic
and environmental problems in the context of citizen
participation, whereas in the other examples conserva-
tion of resources, such as water quality or energy, is the
focus. How information is gathered and evaluated also
varies, from the informal networks between neighbors,
as with the Amish and the preschool children, to more
formal venues such as the testing done by opponents of
the Davis housing code system.

Information sharing was also present in all cases.
Findings and results were communicated and dissemi-
nated via word-of-mouth and informal networks of col-
leagues (as between Davis city officials and other cities)
and more formal channels, such as biannual meetings
of the community (as done in the Amish setting) or
newspaper articles.

It is hopeful to see that many noteworthy efforts have
been and are being made to address the issue of envi-
ronmental sustainability. At the same time, the efforts
cited, though promising, could benefit from a more
vivid awareness of the importance of the local emphasis
and experimental stance themes, which might have
increased their effectiveness. Additionally, the scope of
information sharing was limited. The dissemination
that did occur was due as much to chance factors as to
conscious intent. If the small experiment is to realize its
full potential, more systematic means of making this
rich source of information available need to be em-
ployed. By encouraging participation in the explora-
tion of alternative solutions, and by making participants
aware of the usefulness of the various features of a small
experiment, many worthy goals would be accom-
plished. Knowledge about what works would grow rap-
idly. Vast quantities of human talent and ingenuity now
underutilized or wasted would be engaged in stimulat-
ing and worthwhile effort. The incorporation of local
knowledge and skills would increase the number and
diversity of alternatives worthy of consideration. Addi-
tionally, familiarity with new alternatives and openness
to making appropriate changes is likely to grow as the
level of participation increases. Finally, there is reason

Figure 1. Small experiment themes.

Coping with Change 723



to believe that both life satisfaction and commitment to
environmental concerns would benefit as well.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Trudy Huntington for her
help in exploring the connection between the small
experiment concept and the Amish approach to living.
We are also indebted to Jodi Asarch, Gordon Bradley,
Rachel Kaplan, Steve Lippman, Elizabeth McCance,
Bill Nichols, and Ali Phillips for their input. The feed-
back from the three reviewers, Richard E. Saunier, D.
Scott Slocombe, and Robert Staib, was most helpful and
greatly appreciated.

Literature Cited

Anderson, B. F. 1975. Cognitive Psychology: The Study of
Knowing, Learning, and Thinking. Academic Press, New
York, 402 pp.

Bardwell, L. 1991. “Problem-framing: A perspective on envi-
ronmental problem solving.” Environmental Management
15(5):503– 612.

Bruner, J. S., and L. Postman. 1949. On the perception of
incongruity: A paradigm. Journal of Personality 18:206 –233.

Brunner, R. D. 1980. Decentralized energy policies. Public
Policy 28(1):71–91.

Clarkson, J. D. 1970. Ecology and spatial analysis. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 60(4):700.

Craik, K. J. W. 1943. The nature of explanation. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 123 pp.

De Young, R. 1985– 86. Encouraging environmentally appro-
priate behavior: The role of intrinsic motivation. Journal of
Environmental Systems 15(4):281–291.

De Young, R. 1996. Some psychological aspects of reduced
consumption behavior: The role of intrinsic satisfaction and
competence motivation. Environment and Behavior 28(3):
358 – 409.

De Young, R., and S. Kaplan. 1988. On averting the tragedy of
the commons. Environmental Management 12(3):273–283.

Estava G., and M. S. Prakash. 1994. From global to local
thinking. Ecologist 24(5):162–163.

Everett, E. A., Jr., and R. J. Ebert. 1986. Production and
operations management: Concepts, models, and behavior.
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 860 pp.

Fortune. 1976. The stock market is “efficient.” Fortune 93(6):
147.

Grabiner, J. V., and P. D. Miller. 1974. Effects of the Scopes
trial. Science 185:832.

Gump, P. V., and R. G. Barker. 1964. Big school, small school:
High school size and student behavior. Stanford University
Press, California, 250 pp.

Gunderson, L. 1999. Resilience, flexibility and adaptive man-
agement—Antidotes for spurious certitude? Conservation
Ecology 3(1):7.

Hawken, P. 1993. The ecology of commerce: A declaration of
sustainability. HarperCollins Publishers, New York, 250 pp.

Hawken, P., A. Lovins, and L. H. Lovins. 1999. Natural capi-
talism: Creating the next industrial revolution. Little,
Brown and Company, Boston, 396 pp.

Hebb, D. O. 1949. The organization of behavior: A neuropsy-
chological theory. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 333 pp.

Hertsgaard, M. 1998. Earth odyssey: Around the world in
search of our environmental future. Broadway Books, New
York, 372 pp.

Holling, C. S. (ed.). 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment
and management. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 377 pp.

Huntington, G. E. 1994. Persistence and change in Amish
education. Pages 77–95 in D. B. Kraybill and M. A. Olshan,
eds., The Amish struggle with modernity. University Press of
England, London, 304 pp.

Johnson, B. L. 1999a. Introduction to the special feature:
adaptive management—scientifically sound, socially chal-
lenged? Conservation Ecology 3(1):10.

Johnson, B. L. 1999b. The role of adaptive management as an
operational approach for resource management agencies.
Conservation Ecology 3(2):8.

Johnson, W. 1978. Muddling toward frugality. Shambhala,
Boulder, CO, 252 pp.

Johnson, W. 1985. The future is not what it used to be:
Returning to traditional values in an age of scarcity. Dodd,
Mead and Company, New York, 246 pp.

Kaplan, R. 1996. The small experiment: Achieving more with
less. Pages 170 –174 in J. L. Naser and B. B. Brown, eds.,
Public and private places. Environmental Design Research
Association, Edmond, OK.

Kaplan, R., and S. Kaplan. 1982. Cognition and environment:
Functioning in an uncertain world. Praeger, New York.
Republished by Ulrich’s Books, Ann Arbor, MI. 1989, 287
pp.

Kaplan, R., and S. Kaplan. 1989. The experience of nature: A
psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge. Republished by Ulrich’s Books, Ann Arbor, MI,
1996, 340 pp.

Kaplan, R., S. Kaplan, and R. Ryan. 1998. With people in
mind: Design and management of everyday nature. Island
Press, Washington, DC, 225 pp.

Kaplan, S. 1973. Cognitive maps in perception and thought.
Pages 63–78 in R. M. Downs and D. Stea, eds., Image and
environment: Cognitive mapping and spatial behavior. Al-
dine Publishing Company, Chicago, 439 pp.

Kaplan, S. 1978. Attention and fascination: The search for
cognitive clarity. Pages 84 –90 in S. Kaplan and R. Kaplan,
eds., Humanscape: Environments for people. Duxbury
Press, Mass. Republished by Ulrich’s Books, Ann Arbor, MI,
1982, 480 pp.

Kaplan, S. 1990. Being needed, adaptive muddling and hu-
man-environment relationships. Pages 19 –25 in R. I. Selby,
K. H. Anthony, J. Choi, and B. Orland, eds., Coming of age,
proceedings of Environmental Design Research Associa-
tion’s twenty-first conference. Environmental Design Re-
search Association, Edmond, OK.

Kaplan, S. 1991. Beyond rationality: Clarity-based decision-

724 K. N. Irvine and S. Kaplan



making. Pages 171–190 in T. Garling and G. Evans, eds.,
Environment, cognition and action: An integrated ap-
proach. Oxford University Press, New York, 357 pp.

Kaplan, S. 1992. Environmental preference in a knowledge-
seeking, knowledge-using organism. Pages 581–598 in J. H.
Barkow, L. Cosmides, and J. Tooby, eds., The adapted
mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of cul-
ture. Oxford University Press, New York, 666 pp.

Kearney, A. 1994. Understanding global change: A cognitive
perspective on communicating through stories. Climatic
Change 27:419 – 441.

Lee, K. N. 1999. Appraising adaptive management. Conserva-
tion Ecology 3(2):3.

Lessard, G. 1998. An adaptive approach to planning and
decision-making. Landscape and Urban Planning 40(1–3):81–
87.

Lindblom, C. E. 1959. The science of muddling through.
Public Administration Review 19:79 –99.

MacCrimmon, K. R., and R. N. Taylor. 1976. Decision making
and problem solving. Pages 1379 –1454 in M. D. Dunnette,
ed., Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology.
Rand McNally College Publishing Company, Chicago, 1740
pp.

Maclain, R. J., and R. G. Lee. 1996. Adaptive management:
Promises and pitfalls. Environmental Management 20:437– 448.

Maslow, A. H., and R. Diaz-Guerrero. 1971. Adolescence and
juvenile delinquency in two different cultures. Pages 369 –
378 in A. H. Maslow, ed., The farther reaches of human
nature. Viking Press, New York, 423 pp.

McDonough, W., and M. Braungart. 1998. The next industrial
revolution. Atlantic Monthly 282(4):82–92.

Meadows, D. 2000. Trying to measure nations’ sustainability.
Timeline E-mail Edition May/June.

Monroe, M., and S. Kaplan. 1988. When words speak louder
than actions. Journal of Environmental Education 19(3):38 – 41.

Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: The evolution of
institutions for collective action. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 280 pp.

Peters, T. J., and R. H. Waterman. 1982. In search of excel-
lence: Lessons from America’s best-run companies. Harper
and Row, New York, 360 pp.

Pinkerton, E. 1999. Factors in overcoming barriers to imple-
menting co-management in British Columbia salmon fish-
eries. Conservation Ecology 3(2):2.

Posner, M. 1973. Cognition: An introduction. Scott Foresman,
Glenview, IL, 208 pp.

Rabinovitch, J., and J. Leitman. 1996. Urban Planning in
Curitiba. Scientific American 274(3):46 –53.

Romaker, R. L. 30 April, 1995. Preschool kids making a dif-
ference in environment. Ann Arbor News, p. C5.

Rosch, E. 1978. Principles of categorization. Pages 27– 48 in E.
Rosch and B. B. Lloyd, eds., Cognition and categorization.
L. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 328 pp.

Schumacher, E. F. 1973. Small is beautiful: Economics as if
people mattered. Blond and Bridges Ltd., London, 305 pp.

Shindler, B., and K. A. Cheek. 1999. Integrating citizens in
adaptive management: A prepositional analysis. Conservation
Ecology 3(1):9.

Sieber, S. D. 1981. Fatal remedies: The ironies of social inter-
vention. Plenum Press, New York, 234 pp.

Sinclair, T., R. Hoops, and S. Wittman, eds. 1990. Earthwatch-
ing III. University of Wisconsin Institute for Environmental
Studies and Sea Grant Institute, Madison.

Slovik, P. 1987. Perception of risk. Science 236:280 –285.

Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1973. Availability: A heuristic
for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology
5:207.

Walters, C. J. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable re-
sources. MacMillan Publishing Company, New York, 374
pp.

Walters, C. J. 1997. Challenges in adaptive management of
riparian and coastal ecosystems. Conservation Ecology 1(2):1.

Walters, C. J., and C. S. Holling. 1990. Large-scale manage-
ment experiments and learning by doing. Ecology 71:2060 –
2068.

Walters, C. J., R. D. Goruk, and D. Radford. 1993. Rivers Inlet
Sockey salmon: An experiment in adaptive management.
North American Journal of Fisheries Management 13:253– 62.

Wandersman, A. 1979a. User participation: A study of types of
participation effects, mediators, and individual differences.
Environment and Behavior 11(2):185–208.

Wandersman, A. 1979b. User participation in planning envi-
ronments: A conceptual framework. Environment and Behav-
ior 11(4):465– 482.

Weick, K. E. 1984. Small wins: Redefining the scale of social
problems. American Psychologist 39(1):40 – 49.

White, R. W. 1959. Motivation reconsidered: The concept of
competence. Psychological Review 6:313–324.

Zajonc, R. B. 1968. Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology 9:1–27.

Coping with Change 725