Surprising cooperation despite apparently irreconcilable differences: Agricultural water use efficiency and CALFED

Much has been said about the need and benefits of consensus building for resolving disagreements about water and environmental management. Less has been said about how to better convene and facilitate those processes. This paper focuses on the latter, examining the challenges and breakthroughs encountered when decision-makers convene consensus building processes that seek an agreement among stakeholders who believe they have “apparently irreconcilable differences.” The research described here analyzes two multi-stakeholder, collaborative processes convened by the CALFED Bay-Delta Program (CALFED) on the issue of agricultural water use efficiency in the Sacramento and San Joaquin river watersheds of California. The first process made very little progress; however, stakeholder representatives in the second were able to forge an agreement that included significant innovation and surprising risk taking by all sides. Analyzing the two processes, this paper shows that the stakeholders, conveners, and facilitators in these processes had to do much more than make the discrete trades across interests envisioned in consensus building theory or reframing as described in theories about conflict and frames. Looking at the data, this paper shows how several concepts from outside consensus building—including boundary objects and interlanguage—along with less well-known concepts and issues within the consensus building literature—bricolage and representation—can provide insights into how the Steering Committee accomplished what it did. This paper introduces these additional concepts, how they mattered in this CALFED process, and suggests a complex set of interrelated insights into how future collaborative and integrative environmental programs can approach the most difficult environmental policy and management conflicts.     

Collectively engaging complex socio-ecological systems: re-envisioning science, governance, and the California Delta

We address the future of science and governance for the California Delta, focusing on the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, an interagency, multi-stakeholder effort to understand and manage the Delta for multiple purposes. We portray a Delta history as a coevolutionary process between science, governance and ecosystems. Global integrated environmental assessments (IEA) provide insights into understanding complex, dynamic socio-ecological systems. Many of the discursive stakeholder and scientific activities that have arisen under CALFED are similar to IEA and remain essential to the shared learning needed to effectively interact with a dynamic Delta. More deliberately enmeshing environmental monitoring, analysis, and collective learning into Delta governance will improve outcomes.     

The opportunities and responsibility for carbon cycle science in the U.S.

Strategies to address climate change increasingly include options to manage the terrestrial and oceanic portions of the carbon cycle, whether as part of national commitments to international treaties, or as elements of entrepreneurial business plans. Carbon cycle science has much to contribute to informing these strategies, but must consider how to organize so as to best provide more “usable science.” Experience in other areas of earth systems science demonstrates that for knowledge to be more useful to decision makers and others outside the scientific community, deliberate mechanisms must be created to prioritize, conduct and disseminate research that are informed by the needs of the target audience. Carbon cycle science has not yet explored operating in this more deliberate mode. Carbon management thus presents an opportunity for some portion of carbon cycle research to become more directly relevant to societal decision-making through innovative ways of organizing research and operating programs.     

Collaborative governance and adaptive management: Lessons from California's CALFED Water Program

Both for its technological and institutional innovations and for its history of conflicts, California's water system has been one of the most observed in the world. This article and this Special Issue on the CALFED Bay-Delta Program continue in this tradition. CALFED is likely the most ambitious experiment in collaborative environmental policy and adaptive management the world has seen to date. This Issue moves beyond the celebratory tone of other analyses of collaborative, adaptive management and looks closer into how collaborative networks work to produce innovation, and more importantly to reflect also on their inherent contradictions, limitations and “dark sides”. While collaborative governance enhances mutual understandings and can be a source of innovation, it appears ill-suited to resolve alone the distributive dilemmas at the core of many water – and other environmental – conflicts. A lacuna in existing research concerns the institutional design of effective boundaries and linkages between democratic politics, legitimate authority, and adaptive governance, i.e. the mix of institutions that can provide sufficient responsibility, accountability and democratic legitimacy, without choking off the self-organizing interaction, shared learning, and communication that is at the heart of collaboration. A painful realization in the Delta is that environmental conservation and further growth may be fundamentally at odds; efficient win–win solutions, institutional or technological, seem insufficient to satisfy the competing demands posed upon the system. Radical decisions and changes might be necessary, but they seem unlikely under current institutional arrangements and political conditions.     

Ingredients in sustainably managing water in semi-arid environments

The lessons learned from CALFED indicate that ingredients important in the long-term resolution of water management issues may not result in short-term “solutions”. The value of this special issue lies in its identification of ingredients that stimulate re-framing of issues, adapting to new knowledge and innovative decisions. But sustainable water management also requires the political patience to sustain those processes as a means of perpetuating the long-term decision-making necessary to anticipate and/or respond to an ever-changing environment.     

Harnessing expert-based information for learning and the sustainable management of complex socio-ecological systems

Human-used and managed natural resources, such as watersheds, represent complex socio-ecological systems where learning from different knowledge sources is essential for sustainable management. Guided by the advocacy coalition framework, the paper presents a set of propositions that help explain the different functional uses of expert-based information, the network position of scientific experts, and learning within and between coalitions. Most importantly, the paper investigates common assumptions about the superiority of consensus-based institutions for integrating science into policy-making by examining two collaborative and two adversarial policy subsystems. The findings show that the scientists’ centrality as coalition allies and opponents is lower in collaborative policy subsystems than in adversarial policy subsystems. The findings suggest a more hospitable setting for learning and sustainability in the management of natural resources in collaborative compared to adversarial subsystems. The paper concludes with suggestions for future research in sustainability and learning.     

The means do not justify the ends: A comment on CALFED

The state-federal CALFED process was more successful in transforming the means of thinking about decisions regarding California Bay-Delta resource management than in achieving the desired policy ends. Case studies in this special issue document how CALFED helped change the dynamics between stakeholders and agency managers; between scientists and implementers; and between endangered species managers and water project operators. In most cases, however, the new relationships and agreements failed to achieve the desired policy outcomes. The new tools and approaches that CALFED fostered can complement and support – but not substitute for – the obligation of policy makers to honestly confront and resolve fundamental oppositions of interest over resource management issues.     

Marginalization by collaboration: Environmental justice as a third party in and beyond CALFED

Governance and planning of ecosystem and water management within the California Bay-Delta, a critical component of California's water economy, have been characterized by a range of innovations in collaboration and conflict resolution. Despite legal mandates to incorporate environmental justice, the California Bay-Delta Authority's (CBDA) policy-development process and the subsequent Delta Vision process have systematically marginalized the role of environmental justice in California's water policy. We suggest that environmental justice in Bay-Delta planning can be understood as a “third party” with a tenuous seat at the CALFED water management table. As such environmental justice is a useful lens through which to assess the state's broader commitments and capacities relative to equity as a planning principal and outcome. We interpret the fate of environmental justice within Bay-Delta planning as indicative of the inherent tensions between systems based on increasing market dominance and state legitimation and the values of environmental justice based on distributive, procedural, and cognitive justice. We construct a model of marginalization and environmental injustice in collaborative planning to illustrate these tensions. We draw upon experiences of members of the Environmental Justice Sub-Committee of CBDA's Bay Delta Public Advisory Committee, as well as interviews with other key environmental justice interests, and a comprehensive review of internal and public CBDA documents relating to the environmental justice program including budgets and program plans, and ethnographic field work. We conclude that by learning from the mistakes of Bay-Delta planning, a positive model of collaborative, environmental justice-based planning for water and ecosystem management is possible.     

Divergent perspectives on water resource sustainability in a public–policy–science context

Diverging perspectives toward environmental problems, their causes, and solutions can exacerbate controversy in participatory decision making. Past research has examined the lay–expert divide in perceptions about diverse risks, but relatively few studies have examined multidimensional perspectives on water scarcity across expert groups with different knowledge systems. We address this gap by examining conflicting perspectives across ‘lay’ residents and academic and policymaking ‘experts’ in Phoenix, AZ. We analyze ecological concern about water issues, risk perceptions regarding the factors contributing to scarcity, and policy attitudes pertaining to resource management alternatives. All three groups expressed substantial concern for broad-scale water issues, especially drought. Residents exhibited a heightened tendency to blame other people for water scarcity, in addition to opposition toward stringent approaches such as water pricing. While strongly supporting the acquisition of more supplies, policymakers exhibited lower concern about regional water use rates while displacing blame away from anthropogenic causes compared to both residents and academic experts. Scientists, on the other hand, stressed the need for stricter regulation of water demand. Findings point to the challenges of meshing different knowledge systems for collaborative research and policy making.     

WebGIS 与Mashup 在黑河流域信息化平台构建中的应用

随着eScience 的发展,大量的科研信息化。如何综合应用共享的信息资源,再次产生新的科研成果,为科研问题的解决提供决策支持,是信息化研究需解决的问题。本文设计了基于信息聚合与WebGIS 技术支持的黑河流域信息化平台,主要通过Mashup 与WebGIS 技术搭建该信息化平台,重点研究科研信息的聚合应用。基于WebGIS 与信息聚合的黑河流域信息化平台,能够实现黑河流域空间信息的聚合共享,以更直观快捷的方式实现科研信息化,数据与应用服务的共享与交换,使科研成果服务于大众,便于数据的共享与互操作,形成多学科交叉的新组织模式和协作环境。以地下水、土壤等数据的信息聚合应用为案例,基于ArcGIS 云平台,通过WebGIS 技术实现数据资源信息的聚合共享应用。     

Knowledge users’ perspectives and advice on how to improve knowledge exchange and mobilization in the case of a co-managed fishery

Environmental scientists have long been frustrated by the difficulties involved in transferring their research findings into policy-making, management, and public spheres. Despite increases in scientific knowledge about social-ecological systems, research has consistently shown that regulators and stakeholders draw on tacit, informal, and experiential knowledge far more than scientific knowledge in their decision-making. Social science research in the fields of knowledge exchange (KE) and knowledge mobilization (KMb) suggest that one of the major barriers to moving knowledge into practice is that scientists fail to align their communication strategies with the information-seeking behaviours and preferences of potential knowledge users. This article presents findings from in-depth qualitative research with government employees and stakeholders involved in co-managing Pacific salmon fisheries in Canada’s Fraser River. We investigate how members of these groups access, view, and use scientific information, finding both similarities and differences. Members of both groups express a strong interest in academic science, and self-report using scientific information regularly in their work and advocacy. However, the two groups engage in different information-seeking behaviours, and provide notably different advice to academic scientists about how to make research and communication more relevant to potential users. For example, government employees focus on the immediate applications of research to known problems, while stakeholders express greater concern for the political context and implications of scientific findings. We argue that scientists need to “go where the users are” in the behavioural and intellectual sense, and tailor their communications and engagement activities to match the habits, preferences, and expectations of multiple potential user groups. We conclude with recommendations on how this may be done.     

Understanding socio-cultural dimensions of environmental decision-making: A knowledge governance approach

Sociological critiques of scientific research processes and their application have developed nuanced understandings of the social, cultural and political forces shaping relationships between science and decision-making. Simultaneously, environmental researchers have sought to construct more engaged, dynamic modes of conducting research to facilitate the application of science in decision-making and action. To date, however, there are relatively few theoretically-oriented approaches that have been able to draw productive connections between the sociological critique and the practical applications that can aid in navigating this complex and diverse milieu. In this article, we propose that the concept of “knowledge governance” can bring together targeted inquiry into the socio-political context in which environmental science is situated, alongside analysis of specific interventions that change knowledge-to-action relationships. Drawing together Jasanoff’s (2005) concept of civic epistemology with Cash et al.’s (2003) knowledge systems for sustainability approach, this knowledge governance inquiry framework offers an integrative lens through which to critically reflect on knowledge-based processes, and incorporate that deeper understanding into intervention efforts. We briefly illustrate its application with reference to a pilot project examining conservation decision-making in the Western Pacific island nation of Palau.     

Combining social learning with agro-ecological research practice for more effective management of nitrate pollution

The path of research followed by a team of agro-ecologists who sought to address a complex environment issue by means of a social learning approach is described. Agro-ecological data from monitoring nitrates in surface and ground water and agricultural practices at micro-catchment scale provided the material for the process. The failure of scientists to deploy scientific data effectively in order to influence agro-environment policy implementation was attributed to an ineffective linear transfer of knowledge approach. Thereafter, on account of co-learning instances with new research team members with a background in participatory action research, new assumptions were made and the agro-ecologists began to view nitrates no longer as a technical problem but rather as an issue emerging from interactions between ecological and human factors. A new process was designed: ecological data were introduced as “socio-technical objects”, integrated into “dialogical tools” and used to de-construct the issue during participatory sessions and to identify strategies for concerted actions. These activities fostered stakeholder engagement and led to an array of interlinked emergent practices. The underlying model developed for placing scientific agro-ecology data into society can be effective in building relations with stakeholders for the purposes of knowledge management and for helping to elucidate competing claims around complex agro-environment issues.     

Science–policy interface for addressing environmental problems in arid Spain

Science–policy interfaces are avenues for finding solutions for environmental challenges through strengthening collaborations between research disciplines and public administrations. Here we present a methodology for the conduct of science–policy interfaces between scientists and policymakers for addressing day-to-day environmental problems in the southeastern Spanish drylands. A knowledge brokering approach based on six consecutive workshops was used to facilitate mutual understanding and trust between scientists and policymakers. Water policy and biodiversity loss were identified as major environmental concerns in the region, and 12 final environmental problems were agreed as priorities. A graphical tool was used for diagnosing each environmental problem according to the available scientific knowledge, the current regulatory capacity of administrations, and the level of public engagement necessary for addressing the problem. The use of the graphical tool also allowed for (a) the clarification of roles involved in problem solving, and (b) the promotion of a culture of shared responsibility for the implementation of management actions based on collaborative work. We discuss lessons learned and propose recommendations for future experiences.     

Adaptive management intentions with a reality of evaluation: Getting science back into policy

In Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin water reform has been contentious as government attempts to reconcile historical over allocation of water to irrigation with the use of water for environmental outcomes. However, in many aspects, scientific knowledge of the environment is either imperfect, incomplete or environmental responses are unpredictable, with this uncertainty preventing definitive policy and closure of political arguments. In response to uncertainty and knowledge gaps, adaptive management has been written into the legislation, along with provisions for periodic evaluation.This research ascertains how adaptive management is understood by policy makers, with this indicative of future implementation of adaptive management. The way in which adaptive management is constructed by policy makers is determined through legislation, public speeches, government reports and semi-structured interviews. The findings demonstrate that adaptive management has been subsumed by evaluation. The loss of adaptive management as a distinct concept is seen as a loss of science and discovery from the policy process, with the dominance of evaluation discussed as limiting innovation and reinforcing a ‘muddling through’ of policy.     

Public ecology: an environmental science and policy for global society

Public ecology exists at the interface of science and policy. Public ecology is an approach to environmental inquiry and decision making that does not expect scientific knowledge to be perfect or complete. Rather, public ecology requires that science be produced in collaboration with a wide variety of stakeholders in order to construct a body of knowledge that will reflect the pluralist and pragmatic context of its use (decision context), while continuing to maintain the rigor and accountability that earns scientific knowledge its privileged status in contemporary society. As such, public ecology entails both process and content. The process is that of a post-modern scientific method: a process that values the participation of extended peer communities composed of a diversity of research specialists, professional policy-makers, concerned citizens and a variety of other stakeholders. The content of public ecology is a biocultural knowledge of dynamic human ecosystems that directly relates to and results from the participatory, democratic processes that distinguish public ecology as a citizen science. The primary goal of public ecology is to build common ground among competing beliefs and values for the environment. The purpose of this paper is to help unify and establish public ecology as a distinctive approach to environmental science and policy in global society.     

Collaborative networks and new ways of knowing

To move beyond legal and regulatory gridlock around water issues in the California Bay-Delta, a new inter-agency initiative, commonly known as CALFED, was created in 1994. CALFED has been an ongoing experiment in policy innovation. Part of the change in management practice has involved constructing new arenas that engage multiple perspectives and transform regulatory impasse into provisional steps forward. We examine the construction of so-called boundary objects, which are forums and policy instruments that cross group boundaries and foster integrative deliberation. We compare the design and action of two boundary objects created by CALFED, namely the Environmental Water Account (EWA) and the Water Use Efficiency (WUE) program. We find that the presence of the boundary object, in itself, does little to explain the success of each policy experiment. Rather, the answer lies in the types of network interactions that result, along with the way meaning is coproduced. In fact, rather than create new patterns of interrelationship (e.g., between fish habitat advocates and pump station operators), the boundary object might further embed institutionalized routines. To more deeply understand what makes the new institution an integrative one, we introduce the concept of Ways of Knowing which explains how new knowledge emerges from the network of new relationships.     

决策科学与DSS

要实现科学管理,必须掌握决策的科学,并在决策过程中运用现代管理的基本工具——计算机,以辅助决策,提高组织效能。本文正是以“国家环境质量决策支持系统”为分析范例,从决策科学与DSS技术的结合上介绍了决策模式分析,决策模型建立和决策选择,综述了DSS概念,结构和建立初始系统,并通过自适应的设计和应用过程形成最终系统的开发方法。文中列举了一些国内外开发应用DSS的实例,并指出在高层次复杂决策问题上,目前的DSS支持手段还是比较薄弱的      

How the DPSIR framework can be used for structuring problems and facilitating empirical research in coastal systems

As pressures on coastal zones mount, there is a growing need for frameworks that can be used to conceptualize complex sustainability challenges and help organize research that increases understand about interacting ecological and societal processes, predicts change, and supports the management, persistence, and resilience of coastal systems. The Driver–Pressure–State–Impact–Response (DPSIR) framework is one such approach that has been adopted in some coastal zones around the world. Although the application of the DPSIR framework has considerable potential to bridge the gap between scientific disciplines and link science to coastal policy and management, current applications of DPSIR in coastal environments have been limited and new innovations in the application of the DPSIR model are needed. We conducted a structured review of literature on the DPSIR framework as applied to the function, process and components of complex coastal systems. Our specific focus was on how the DPSIR framework has been used as a tool to organize sophisticated empirical scientific research, support transdisciplinary knowledge at a level appropriate for building understanding about coastal systems, and how adopting a DPSIR approach can help stakeholders to articulate and structure challenges in coastal systems and use the framework to support policy and management outcomes. The review revealed that DPSIR models of coastal systems have been largely used to support and develop conceptual understanding of coastal social–ecological systems and to identify drivers and pressures in the coastal realm. A limited number of studies have used DPSIR as a starting point for semi-quantitative or quantitative analyses, although our review highlights the continued need for, and potential of, transformative quantitative analyses and transdisciplinary applications of the DPSIR framework. The DPSIR models we reviewed were predominantly single sector, encompassing ecological or biophysical factors or focusing primarily on socio-cultural dimensions rather than full integration of both types of information. Only in eight of 24 shortlisted articles did researchers actively engage decision-makers or citizens in their research: given the potential opportunity for using DPSIR as a tool to successfully engage policy-makers and stakeholders, it appears that the DPSIR framework has been under-utilized in this regard.     

Making science relevant to environmental policy

Implementation of current environmental and natural resource policy has created an era of regulatory discontent, and has prompted calls for new approaches to management that can achieve both long-term ecological sustainability and improved policy performance. These new approaches, such as ecosystem management, emphasize the importance of holistic and integrated science, meaningful public involvement to reflect changing societal goals and objectives, collaborative decisionmaking, and flexible and adaptable institutions. Implementing such approaches will require significant institutional change in all institutions, including the institution of science. Attributes of the scientific culture — including adherence to the myth of objective, value-free science, preference for technical solutions as first-order solutions, and advancement of the scientific method and scientific rationality as preferred logic — have often worked to separate scientists from citizens and science from the policymaking process. They have also fostered undemocratic processes and results. Changes in the institution and culture of science, including embracing more holistic and integrated scientific processes, creating a more civic science, and rethinking the role of scientific advocacy in the policy process, will be required to move toward democratic as well as ecological sustainability.