Abstract
This chapter approaches participatory modeling in environmental decision making from an atypical perspective. It broadly addresses the question of how to assure that science conducted to assist practitioners improves resource management. More specifically, it describes a case involving environmental science and natural resource management at Fort Benning, a United States (US) Army installation in the southeastern US where disparate environmental research projects were funded by a single federal agency to enhance the ability of Fort Benning’s resource managers to achieve their resource management goals. The role of our effort was to integrate the scientific studies in a manner that would be meaningful and useful for resource managers. Hence we assembled a team consisting of an anthropologist, ecologist, microbiologist, statistician, and geographic information systems specialist who developed a common framework that served as the basis for this integration. The team first used a Delphi expert elicitation, which evolved into an approach more akin to facilitated negotiation. This second approach arose organically, particularly when our team took advantage of an opportunity for face-to-face interaction. Although the shift in our approach was unplanned, it proved to be highly productive. We discuss the potential utility of our approach for other situations and suggest that it would be useful to initiate at the beginning of research where the aim is to produce scientific results that meet practitioners’ needs, specifically in the realm of environmental science and resource management.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This gap is evident in many contexts. As one example, Sedlacko et al. (2013) assess the use of science by policy makers in the realm of sustainability in their discussion of CORPUS (Enhancing the Connectivity between Research and Policy-Making in Sustainable Consumption) in Europe. As another example, in the medical arena, the science-practice gap falls under the umbrella of “translational research.” In fact, the US National Institutes of Health National created the Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) in 2011 to help assure that the results of medical research aid patients more quickly than has occurred in the past (http://www.ncats.nih.gov/, accessed in December 2014). And a 2005 National Research Council (National Research Council 2005) report makes recommendations to close the gaps between social science research and its use in environmental decision making.
- 2.
Website accessed in November 2014.
References
Aber J et al (2000) Applying ecological principles to management of the U.S. national forests. Issues Ecol 6:1–20
Bañuls VA, Turoff M (2011) Scenario construction via Delphi and cross-impact analysis. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 78(9):1579–1602
Bloor M, Sampson H, Baker S, Dahlgren K (2013) Useful but no Oracle: reflections on the use of a Delphi Group in a multi-methods policy research study. Qual Res 0(0):1–14
Cairns J, McCormick PV, Niederlehner BR (1993) A proposed framework for developing indicators of ecosystem health. Hydrobiologia 236:1–44
Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government (1992) Enabling the future: linking science and technology to societal goals. A report. Available via http://carnegie.org/fileadmin/Media/Publications/PDF/Enabling%20the%20Future%20Linking%20Science%20and%20Technology%20to%20Societal%20Goals.pdf
Dale VH, Beyeler SC (2001) Challenges in the development and use of ecological indicators. Ecol Indic 1(1):3–10
Dale VH, Beyeler SC, Jackson B (2002) Understory vegetation indicators of anthropogenic disturbance in longleaf pine forests at Fort Benning, Georgia, USA. Ecol Indic 1(3):155–170
Dale, VH, Mulholland P, Olsen LM, Feminella J, Maloney K, White DC, Peacock A, Foster T (2004) Selecting a suite of ecological indicators for resource management. In: Kapustka LA, Gilbraith H, Luxon M, Biddinger GR (eds) Landscape ecology and wildlife habitat evaluation: critical information for ecological risk assessment, land-use management activities and biodiversity enhancement practices, ASTM STP 11813. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, pp 3–17
Dale VH, Peacock AD, Garten CT Jr, Sobek E, Wolfe AK (2008) Selecting indicators of soil, microbial, and plant conditions to understand ecological changes in Georgia pine forests. Ecol Indic 8(6):818–827
Dalkey N, Helmer O (1962) An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Manag Sci 9(3):458–467
Dilustro JJ et al (2002) Soil texture, land-use intensity, and vegetation of Fort Benning upland forest sites. J Torrey Bot Soc 129(4):289–297
Duncan LK, Dilustro JJ, Collins BS (2004) Avian response to forest management and military training activities at Ft. Benning, GA. Georgia J Sci 62(2):95–103
Garten CT Jr, Ashwood TL, Dale VH (2003) Effect of military training on indicators of soil quality at Fort Benning, Georgia. Ecol Indic 3:171–179
Jones S, Fischhoff B, Lach D (1999) Evaluating the usefulness of climate-change research for policy decisions. Clim Chang 43:581–599
Krzysik AJ et al (2005) Development of ecological indicator guilds for land management, final report. Available via: https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Resource-Conservation-and-Climate-Change/Natural-Resources/Species-Ecology-and-Management/RC-1114
Landeta J, Barrutia J, Lertxundi A (2011) Hybrid Delphi: a methodology to facilitate contribution from experts in professional contexts. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 78:1629–1641
Linstone HA, Turoff M (eds) (1975) The Delphi method: techniques and applications. Addison-Wesley, Reading
Maloney KO, Mulholland PJ, Feminella JW (2005) Influence of catchment-scale military land use on stream physical and organic matter variables in small southeastern plains catchments (USA). Environ Manag 35(5):677–691
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, p 155
National Academies (2005) Sustainability at the National Academies: strengthening science-based decision making in developing countries. Available via: http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/pgasite/documents/webpage/pga_057633.pdf
National Research Council (2005) Decision making for the environment: social and behavioral science research priorities. In: Brewer GD, Stern PC (eds) Panel on Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities for Environmental Decision Making. Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. The National Academies Press, Washington
National Research Council (2009) Informing decisions in a changing climate. Panel on Strategies and Methods for Climate-Related Decision Support, Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. The National Academies Press, Washington
Peacock AD et al (2001) Soil microbial biomass and community composition along an anthropogenic disturbance gradient within a longleaf pine habitat. Ecol Indic 1(2):113–121
Rayner S et al (2001) Weather forecasts are for wimps: why water resource managers don’t use climate forecasts, final report. Available via: http://www.isse.ucar.edu/water_conference/CD_files/Additional_Materials/Weather%20Forecasts%20are%20for%20Wimps.pdf
Reddy R et al (2003) Determination of indicators of ecological change. Final report. September 2004. Available via: https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Resource-Conservation-and-Climate-Change/Natural-Resources/Species-Ecology-and-Management/RC-1114
Rowe G, Wright G (2001) Expert opinions in forecasting the role of the Delphi technique. In: Armstrong JS (ed) Principles of forecasting: a handbook of researchers and practitioners. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston
Sedlacko M, Pisano U, Berger G, Lepuschitz K (2013) Bridging the science-policy gap: development and reception of a joint research agenda on sustainable food consumption. Sustain Sci Pract Policy 9(2):105–123, Available at http://sspp.proquest.com/static_content/vol9iss2/1204-019.sedlacko.pdf
Sigma XI, The Scientific Research Society (1993) Science and public policy: linking users and producers. The Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology and Government, Washington
Steel B et al (2000–2001) The role of scientists in the natural resource and environmental policy process: a comparison of Canadian and American Publics. J Environ Syst 28(2):133–155
Suter GW (2008) Ecological risk assessment in the United States Environmental Protection Agency: an historical overview. Integr Environ Assess Manag 4(3):285–289
Taylor JG, Ryder SD (2003) Use of the Delphi method in resolving complex water resources issues. J Am Water Resour Assoc 39(1):183–189
Acknowledgements
We appreciate the assistance of many people who helped with this study and who participated in the discussions: Robert Addington, Beverly Collins, John Dilustro, Charles Garten, Thomas A. Greene, Anthony Krzysik, Robert Larimore, Maureen Mulligan, Joseph Prenger, and Peter Swiderek. Jeffrey Fehmi, Bill Goran, Hal Balbach, and Hugh Westbury provided support and helped us focus the effort as it unfolded. The project was funded by the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) Ecosystem Management Project (SEMP), project CS 1114C, to Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). Oak Ridge National Laboratory is managed by the UT-Battelle, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wolfe, A.K., Dale, V.H., Arthur, T., Baskaran, L. (2017). Ensuring that Ecological Science Contributes to Natural Resource Management Using a Delphi-Derived Approach. In: Gray, S., Paolisso, M., Jordan, R., Gray, S. (eds) Environmental Modeling with Stakeholders. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25053-3_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25053-3_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-25051-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-25053-3
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)