The state of Florida and the Corps of Engineers, partners in ecosystem restoration in South Florida, are cutting monitoring programs meant to support this work by 60 percent. The chief environmental scientist for the South Florida Water Management District says, “We’re losing some of the cause-and-effect science that is so critical to understanding how the system operates.’’ Cuts will eliminate monitoring of submerged aquatic vegetation, circulation, water quality, and key aquatic species in southern coastal areas, like Biscayne Bay and Florida Bay.
This post relates to Topic 6: Management problems to be discussed during the Synthesis Sessions at CERF 2011.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Collaborative Decision-making Uses Science Effectively
William Nuttle, Organizer for CERF 2011 Synthesis Sessions
wnuttle@eco-hydrology.com
Sometimes, doing good science is not enough. Increasingly, scientists feel the call to address the needs and concerns of society in their research and to become personally involved in tackling difficult environmental problems. Often times, they are rewarded only by being marginalized and having their work misrepresented in contentious policy debates.
It also matters how decisions are being made. Karl, Susskind and Wallace (2007) believe that we need to change the traditional compliance-based approach to dealing with complex environmental issues. The traditional approach generates “winners” and “losers.” In the resulting adversarial environment, opposing sides use the uncertainties inherent in any scientific finding to delay decisions and pit scientists against each other.
Their solution is to adopt a collaborative approach to decision-making to replace the compliance-based approach. Science enters into collaborative decision-making through the process of joint fact finding. The emphasis in join fact finding is on shared learning within the community of people who are most affected by the decision. Karl, Susskind and Wallace claim that join fact finding “ensure[s] that good science is used in value-laden decisions and contributes to stable and effective public policy.”
Joint fact finding enlists stakeholders into a process of identifying critical unknowns, defining precisely the questions to be asked of research, and interpreting and applying the results. The process depends on a convener, usually a regulatory agency, that has the responsibility to act as the final decision-making body. The convener often relies on a “professional neutral” to facilitate the process.
Collaborative decision-making engages scientists differently. Scientists play their traditional role, providing technical information needed to scope problems, generate useful forecasts, and assist in selecting among possible courses of action. But, a greater degree of engagement is also required. Scientists must be engaged with stakeholders and policy makers throughout the decision-making process to help frame the questions that can be answered and assure that the scientific findings are communicated and understood by everyone.
This post relates to Topic 3: Management applications to be discussed during the Synthesis Sessions at CERF 2011.
Reference
Karl, H.A., L.E. Susskind, and K.H. Wallace, 2007. A dialogue, not a diatribe: effective integration of science and policy through joint fact finding. Environment 49(1):20-34.
wnuttle@eco-hydrology.com
 |
| Collaborative decision-making engages scientists fully |
Sometimes, doing good science is not enough. Increasingly, scientists feel the call to address the needs and concerns of society in their research and to become personally involved in tackling difficult environmental problems. Often times, they are rewarded only by being marginalized and having their work misrepresented in contentious policy debates.
It also matters how decisions are being made. Karl, Susskind and Wallace (2007) believe that we need to change the traditional compliance-based approach to dealing with complex environmental issues. The traditional approach generates “winners” and “losers.” In the resulting adversarial environment, opposing sides use the uncertainties inherent in any scientific finding to delay decisions and pit scientists against each other.
Their solution is to adopt a collaborative approach to decision-making to replace the compliance-based approach. Science enters into collaborative decision-making through the process of joint fact finding. The emphasis in join fact finding is on shared learning within the community of people who are most affected by the decision. Karl, Susskind and Wallace claim that join fact finding “ensure[s] that good science is used in value-laden decisions and contributes to stable and effective public policy.”
Joint fact finding enlists stakeholders into a process of identifying critical unknowns, defining precisely the questions to be asked of research, and interpreting and applying the results. The process depends on a convener, usually a regulatory agency, that has the responsibility to act as the final decision-making body. The convener often relies on a “professional neutral” to facilitate the process.
Collaborative decision-making engages scientists differently. Scientists play their traditional role, providing technical information needed to scope problems, generate useful forecasts, and assist in selecting among possible courses of action. But, a greater degree of engagement is also required. Scientists must be engaged with stakeholders and policy makers throughout the decision-making process to help frame the questions that can be answered and assure that the scientific findings are communicated and understood by everyone.
This post relates to Topic 3: Management applications to be discussed during the Synthesis Sessions at CERF 2011.
Reference
Karl, H.A., L.E. Susskind, and K.H. Wallace, 2007. A dialogue, not a diatribe: effective integration of science and policy through joint fact finding. Environment 49(1):20-34.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Online Atlas Maps Oregon's Coastal Ecosystems
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is compiling an Ecological Atlas to guide coastal marine spatial planning as part of Oregon’s Territorial Sea Plan. The Atlas maps individual marine resources – like kelp beds, rocky reefs and other ecological information – that will be used to determine potential sites for future ocean development projects. To view the Google Earth-based maps already incorporated in the Ecological Atlas, see Oregon Marine Map at: http://oregon.marinemap.org/.
This post relates to Topic 6: Management problems to be discussed during the Synthesis Sessions at CERF 2011.
This post relates to Topic 6: Management problems to be discussed during the Synthesis Sessions at CERF 2011.
Northern Gulf of Mexico (Brain-)dead Zone
Coastal scientist Don Scavia argues that it's time to decide on a new approach to combat human-induced anoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico in an op-ed published on 2 September 2011. "The definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
This post relates to Topic 3:Management applications and Topic 6: Management problems to be discussed during the Synthesis Sessions at CERF 2011.
This post relates to Topic 3:Management applications and Topic 6: Management problems to be discussed during the Synthesis Sessions at CERF 2011.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
DPSIR - Building Ecosystem Models of Everything, Including the Kitchen Sink
William Nuttle, Organizer for CERF 2011 Synthesis Sessions
wnuttle@eco-hydrology.com
wnuttle@eco-hydrology.com
 |
| The "acorn" to the mighty DPSIR - Odum's Silver Springs model |
Ecosystem based management represents a new stage in the development of ecosystem models. H.T. Odum’s ecosystem model of Silver Springs is the acorn from which mighty oaks have grown. Odum created this, the first ecosystem model, in the 1950s as a tool to synthesize information from disparate types of data and to illustrate the underlying processes at work in ecosystems. Later, beginning in the 1980s, ecosystem models found wide application in risk analyses related to the implementation of the Clean Water Act. Today, ecosystem models provide the comprehensive framework that managers use to assess environmental problems, often spanning large regions, and to evaluate proposed solutions.
With maturity and widespread application, changes in ecosystem models have followed an arc of increasing scope and complexity. As the acorn is to the oak, Odum’s Silver Springs model is tiny in scale and shares only the most rudimentary elements in common with today's model. Ecosystem based management defines an ecosystem as “a geographically specified system of organisms (including humans), the environment, and the processes that control its dynamics.” Where Odum’s model described the Silver Springs ecosystem simply, in terms of material and energy budgets, today ecosystem models must describe everything in a region - including people - and their kitchen sinks.
The DPSIR framework represents the latest form taken in the continuing growth and development of ecosystem models. DPSIR stands for Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response.
- Drivers are factors that result in pressures that in turn cause changes in the system.
- Pressures include factors such as coastal pollution, habitat loss and degradation, and fishing effort that can be mapped to specific drivers.
- State variables are indicators of the condition of the ecosystem (including physical, chemical, and biotic factors).
- Impacts comprise measures of the effect of change in these state variables such as loss of biodiversity, declines in productivity and yield, etc.
- Responses are the actions (regulatory and otherwise) that are taken in response to predicted impacts.
Recently, Atkins et al. (2011) argue that the needs of ecosystem based management can be met by incorporating the concept of ecosystem services into ecosystem models constructed around the DPSIR framework. The approach described by Atkins et al. brings people more fully into the picture by addressing management responses directly and by using ecosystem services to evaluate impacts. DPSIR has been applied broadly in environmental assessments of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, especially in Europe. But, the jury is still out on the question of whether ecosystem models built around the DPSIR framework are yet sturdy enough to support regional management of coastal ecosystems.
This post relates to Topic 3: Management applications, Topic 5: Dynamic ecosystems and Topic 6: Management problems to be discussed during the Synthesis Sessions at CERF 2011.
Reference:
Atkins, J.P., D. Burdon, M. Elliott, and A.J. Gregory, 2011. Management of the marine environment: integrating ecosystem services and societal benefits with the DPSIR framework in a systems approach. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62:215-226 (doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.12.012)
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Spatial Planning for New Energy Development on the Oregon Coast
Robert Bailey, Oregon Coastal Management Program (bob.bailey@state.or.us)
Science plays a big role in finding a place for new “hydrokinetic energy” projects into Oregon’s crowded coastal waters. In late 2007, coastal communities and ocean fishermen were up in arms over plans to put wave energy generating facilities smack dab in the middle of crabbing and other valuable fishing areas. In response, the Governor charged the Oregon Coastal Management Program with the task of working with scientists, stakeholders, agencies, interest groups and others to ensure that new ocean energy devices avoid impacts on ocean fisheries, recreation, and other uses, and protect valuable ecological areas. This kind of effort has today become known as “marine spatial planning.” After more than three years, Oregon is now rounding the corner headed for the homestretch of this effort.
A lot of factors have come into play to create conditions that enable us to incorporate a high level of scientific data into a marine planning process. First, our state ocean policies explicitly require it. Second is wide-spread availability of high-powered, low-cost information technologies, such as ArcGIS, Google Earth, on-line information resources such as the Oregon Coastal Atlas, and creation of “decision-support tools” using Open Source software. These are enabling us, along with scientists, stakeholders, and the public, to use desktop computers at home, public meetings, and in the office to find, view, and assess a variety of data about Oregon’s nearshore marine environment and its uses.
A key factor are the people involved and the fact that, over time, an informal network of scientists and other data providers has emerged along with a similar network of data managers and users within state and federal agencies and NGOs. A principal task has been to find and acquire relevant datasets and then create interactive geospatial databases that allow various data to be used together in a spatially-explicit format. Fortunately, a lot of smart (mostly young) people and some terrific technology, including some we have helped to advance, are enabling us to build a credible scientific data base and decision-support tools to support this planning process.
Even with these supportive conditions, it is still not as easy as one would think to use scientific data to support marine spatial planning decisions. Despite vast amounts of data collected over the years about the marine environment (and believe me, we do know a lot!), pulling the various kinds of data into decision-support frameworks is daunting and time-consuming. The marine environment is vast, complex in at least four-dimensions, and, as we all know, highly mutable over many spatial and temporal scales. While these existing data can be (and have been) used to frame a broad understanding of how the marine environment (in this case off Oregon) functions over time and across ocean space, surprisingly little of it is directly useful to making spatially explicit planning or management decisions (“here, not there”) for a point in time (“now”).
Add to this the fact that new field studies and even simple observations of the seafloor with high-definition video constantly reveal to us how little we truly know about even the ocean within just the first few miles from shore. Add in the reluctance of scientists in one discipline to use data collected from another and the demands of stakeholders and agency decision-makers for certainty, and we have a very complex situation for ensuring scientific integrity of our final plan.
Fortunately, a plan is just a plan. It is a guide, not reality. It will frame where energy development should not go and suggest where it might. We don’t need to know everything now. Many key questions about potential environmental effects of placing one or many wave-energy devices in our nearshore environment can be answered once we know the specific size, shape, and function of the technology involved and the exact location in which it will be placed. Policies already adopted require significant monitoring and rigorous assessment of potential effects such as physical alteration of wave regime on shoreline processes, changes in sediment transport, creation of new habitat structures where none exist, electromagnetic field effects on sharks and rays, contamination from paints and lubricating fluids, entanglement by whales and pinnepeds in a network of anchoring lines, and effects of lights on birds.
Our job as the agency charged with adopting the plan is to make sure the plan is scientifically defensible and is accepted by stakeholders, the public, and agencies as being the best we could do with what we know. The plan cannot outrun the science or faith in that science. So that will likely lead us, when all is said and done, to be fairly cautious about designating “ecological exclusion areas,” “areas important to fisheries,” and identifying areas where energy development will be allowed. But over the past three years we have created the conditions for incorporating science into the planning and…ultimately…the decision-making process. Science is, after all, the best way for us “decision-makers” to account for the complexities and uncertainties of our marine environment so that we don’t end up making decisions that subsequent generations will look upon and ask “what the heck were they thinking!”
This post relates to Topic 6: Management problems to be discussed during the Synthesis Sessions at CERF 2011.
(Figure credit: http://nenmore.blogspot.com/2010/04/doe-grant-for-wave-energy-project.html)
 |
| Schematic of the OPT wave energy system |
Science plays a big role in finding a place for new “hydrokinetic energy” projects into Oregon’s crowded coastal waters. In late 2007, coastal communities and ocean fishermen were up in arms over plans to put wave energy generating facilities smack dab in the middle of crabbing and other valuable fishing areas. In response, the Governor charged the Oregon Coastal Management Program with the task of working with scientists, stakeholders, agencies, interest groups and others to ensure that new ocean energy devices avoid impacts on ocean fisheries, recreation, and other uses, and protect valuable ecological areas. This kind of effort has today become known as “marine spatial planning.” After more than three years, Oregon is now rounding the corner headed for the homestretch of this effort.
A lot of factors have come into play to create conditions that enable us to incorporate a high level of scientific data into a marine planning process. First, our state ocean policies explicitly require it. Second is wide-spread availability of high-powered, low-cost information technologies, such as ArcGIS, Google Earth, on-line information resources such as the Oregon Coastal Atlas, and creation of “decision-support tools” using Open Source software. These are enabling us, along with scientists, stakeholders, and the public, to use desktop computers at home, public meetings, and in the office to find, view, and assess a variety of data about Oregon’s nearshore marine environment and its uses.
A key factor are the people involved and the fact that, over time, an informal network of scientists and other data providers has emerged along with a similar network of data managers and users within state and federal agencies and NGOs. A principal task has been to find and acquire relevant datasets and then create interactive geospatial databases that allow various data to be used together in a spatially-explicit format. Fortunately, a lot of smart (mostly young) people and some terrific technology, including some we have helped to advance, are enabling us to build a credible scientific data base and decision-support tools to support this planning process.
Even with these supportive conditions, it is still not as easy as one would think to use scientific data to support marine spatial planning decisions. Despite vast amounts of data collected over the years about the marine environment (and believe me, we do know a lot!), pulling the various kinds of data into decision-support frameworks is daunting and time-consuming. The marine environment is vast, complex in at least four-dimensions, and, as we all know, highly mutable over many spatial and temporal scales. While these existing data can be (and have been) used to frame a broad understanding of how the marine environment (in this case off Oregon) functions over time and across ocean space, surprisingly little of it is directly useful to making spatially explicit planning or management decisions (“here, not there”) for a point in time (“now”).
Add to this the fact that new field studies and even simple observations of the seafloor with high-definition video constantly reveal to us how little we truly know about even the ocean within just the first few miles from shore. Add in the reluctance of scientists in one discipline to use data collected from another and the demands of stakeholders and agency decision-makers for certainty, and we have a very complex situation for ensuring scientific integrity of our final plan.
Fortunately, a plan is just a plan. It is a guide, not reality. It will frame where energy development should not go and suggest where it might. We don’t need to know everything now. Many key questions about potential environmental effects of placing one or many wave-energy devices in our nearshore environment can be answered once we know the specific size, shape, and function of the technology involved and the exact location in which it will be placed. Policies already adopted require significant monitoring and rigorous assessment of potential effects such as physical alteration of wave regime on shoreline processes, changes in sediment transport, creation of new habitat structures where none exist, electromagnetic field effects on sharks and rays, contamination from paints and lubricating fluids, entanglement by whales and pinnepeds in a network of anchoring lines, and effects of lights on birds.
Our job as the agency charged with adopting the plan is to make sure the plan is scientifically defensible and is accepted by stakeholders, the public, and agencies as being the best we could do with what we know. The plan cannot outrun the science or faith in that science. So that will likely lead us, when all is said and done, to be fairly cautious about designating “ecological exclusion areas,” “areas important to fisheries,” and identifying areas where energy development will be allowed. But over the past three years we have created the conditions for incorporating science into the planning and…ultimately…the decision-making process. Science is, after all, the best way for us “decision-makers” to account for the complexities and uncertainties of our marine environment so that we don’t end up making decisions that subsequent generations will look upon and ask “what the heck were they thinking!”
This post relates to Topic 6: Management problems to be discussed during the Synthesis Sessions at CERF 2011.
(Figure credit: http://nenmore.blogspot.com/2010/04/doe-grant-for-wave-energy-project.html)
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Maryland BayStat - Fighting Crime, Restoring Ecosystems, and Connecting People
William Nuttle, Organizer for CERF 2011 Synthesis Sessions
wnuttle@eco-hydrology.com
wnuttle@eco-hydrology.com
Before becoming governor, O’Malley served two terms as mayor of Baltimore. When he entered office in 2000 Baltimore’s murder rate was five times the rate in New York City. During the 1990s New York served as a proving ground for systematic approach to fighting crime that was credited with reducing the crime rate. The approach, known as CompStat, implements concepts of quality control and systems management borrowed from business and industry. O’Malley brought a similar program to Baltimore and expanded it into a general approach for management and accountability in government.
O’Malley’s program for restoring the Chesapeake Bay, established in 2007, goes by the name of BayStat. It’s touted as a “tool designed to assess, coordinate and target Maryland’s Bay restoration programs, and to inform our citizens on progress.” Underlying this approach is an extensive program of environmental monitoring, modeling, and analysis by state agencies and academic scientists. Managers meet frequently with scientists and political leaders to assess progress toward restoration goals and adapt management actions based on results obtained.
One is tempted to say that there is really nothing new to BayStat. There are direct parallels between elements of O’Malley’s program and elements of ecosystem-based management and adaptive management as described in numerous reports by the National Research Council, Council for Environmental Quality, and large environmental NGOs. Quantitative ecosystem indicators, performance measures, restoration targets, and a report card – they are all here.
What makes Maryland's BayStat so special?
Well, for one thing, it is remarkable to see a political leader take the reins and offer a reasoned assessment of current conditions and progress toward restoration, including a summary analysis of the data on half a dozen indicators. This shows a reassuring commitment at the political level. But there is a bit of magic at work here as well. Somehow, in the politician’s hands the bare concepts behind ecosystem-based management, which lie inert on the pages of so many technical reports, become a means to connect people with each other and people with the ecosystems in which they live. Maybe, the magic is in the ability to articulate what fighting crime and restoring ecosystems have in common.
The information in this post relates to Topic 3: Management applications and Topic 6: Management challenges of the CERF 2011 synthesis sessions.
What makes Maryland's BayStat so special?
Well, for one thing, it is remarkable to see a political leader take the reins and offer a reasoned assessment of current conditions and progress toward restoration, including a summary analysis of the data on half a dozen indicators. This shows a reassuring commitment at the political level. But there is a bit of magic at work here as well. Somehow, in the politician’s hands the bare concepts behind ecosystem-based management, which lie inert on the pages of so many technical reports, become a means to connect people with each other and people with the ecosystems in which they live. Maybe, the magic is in the ability to articulate what fighting crime and restoring ecosystems have in common.
The information in this post relates to Topic 3: Management applications and Topic 6: Management challenges of the CERF 2011 synthesis sessions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)