Lynn A. Maguire

Understanding Participant Perspectives: Q-Methodology in National Forest Management

Many policy practitioners and theorists have argued that value-free, objective solutions to policy problems do not exist. While participant values and subjective viewpoints influence policy problems, empirically determining participant perspectives and preferences has been a daunting task. This paper demonstrates how Q-methodology, a technique for systematically revealing subjective perspectives, can contribute to better problem identification and definition; estimation and specification of policy option; and selection, implementation, and evaluation of policies. Two case studies in national forest management are reviewed and demonstrate how Q-methodology can (1) identify important internal and external constituencies, (2) define participant viewpoints and perceptions, (3) provide sharper insight into participant-preferred management directions, (4) identify criteria that are important to participants, (5) explicitly outline areas of consensus and conflict, and (6) develop a common view toward the policy.

Stakeholder Values and Scientific Modeling in the Neuse River Watershed

In 1998, the North Carolina Legislature mandated a 30% reduction in the nitrogen loading in the Neuse River in an attempt to reduce undesirable environmental conditions in the lower river and estuary. Although sophisticated scientific models of the Neuse estuary exist, there is currently no study directly relating the nitrogen-reduction policy to the concerns of the estuarine systems stakeholders. Much of the difficulty lies in the fact that existing scientific models have biophysical outcome variables, such as dissolved oxygen, that are typically not directly meaningful to the public. In addition, stakeholders have concerns related to economics, modeling, implementation, and fairness that go beyond ecological outcomes. We describe a decision-analytic approach to modeling the Neuse River nutrient-management problem, focusing on linking scientific assessments to stakeholder objectives. The first step in the approach is elicitation and analysis of stakeholder concerns. The second step is construction of a probabilistic model that relates proposed management actions to attributes of interest to stakeholders. We discuss how the model can then be used by local decision makers as a tool for adaptive management of the Neuse River system. This discussion relates adaptive management to the notion of expected value of information and indicates a need for a comprehensive monitoring program to accompany implementation of the model. We conclude by acknowledging that a scientific model cannot appropriately address all the stakeholder concerns elicited, and we discuss how the remaining concerns may otherwise be considered in the policy process.

Buying into conservation: intrinsic versus instrumental value.

Many conservation biologists believe the best ethical basis for conserving natural entities is their claimed intrinsic value, not their instrumental value for humans. But there is significant confusion about what intrinsic value is and how it could govern conservation decision making. After examining what intrinsic value is supposed to be, we argue that it cannot guide the decision making conservation requires. An adequate ethical basis for conservation must do this, and instrumental value does it best.

Managing Wildfire Events: Risk-Based Decision Making Among a Group of Federal Fire Managers

Managing wildfire events to achieve multiple management objectives involves a high degree of decision complexity and uncertainty, increasing the likelihood that decisions will be informed by experience-based heuristics triggered by available cues at the time of the decision. The research reported here tests the prevalence of three risk-based biases among 206 individuals in the USDA Forest Service with authority to choose how to manage a wildfire event (i.e., line officers and incident command personnel). The results indicate that the subjects exhibited loss aversion, choosing the safe option more often when the consequences of the choice were framed as potential gains, but this tendency was less pronounced among those with risk seeking attitudes. The subjects also exhibited discounting, choosing to minimize short-term over long-term risk due to a belief that future risk could be controlled, but this tendency was less pronounced among those with more experience. Finally, the subjects, in particular those with more experience, demonstrated a status quo bias, choosing suppression more often when their reported status quo was suppression. The results of this study point to a need to carefully construct the decision process to ensure that the uncertainty and conflicting objectives inherent in wildfire management do not result in the overuse of common heuristics. Individual attitudes toward risk or an agency culture of risk aversion may counterbalance such heuristics, whereas increased experience may lead to overconfident intuitive judgments and a failure to incorporate new and relevant information into the decision.

Public participation in environmental decisions: stakeholders, authorities and procedural justice

We analysed a stakeholder participation process undertaken by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality to see if the process satisfied elements of procedural justice: representation of relevant parties, voice, sound technical basis, fair treatment by authorities and absence of bias. The rushed timeframe for the process compromised several elements of procedural justice. Representation suffered from the absence of pre-process contact with potential participants. Too frequent meetings prevented stakeholders from digesting complex technical information on water quality impacts of excess nutrients. The Division of Water Quality dominated the function of the stakeholder groups by playing multiple roles, including convening meetings, providing technical information, drafting documents, and serving as liaison to the state legislature. Stakeholders acknowledged that the divisions strong role was probably essential to making progress in such a short timeframe but worried that the result was biased in favour of division views.

Population Viability Analysis for Red-Cockaded Woodpeckers in the Georgia Piedmont

We evaluated risk of extinction for a red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) population in the Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge and Hitchiti Experimental Forest (PNWR-HEF), Georgia. Using data from this population for 1983-88, we calculated demographic parameters using 2 ways of correcting for newly banded and unbanded birds. These 2 parameter sets should encompass the possible range of true survival rates. Using program RAMAS/stage, we implemented a stochastic age-structured Leslie matrix model with habitat saturation and used it to simulate population dynamics and investigate sensitivity of model parameters. For the parameter set based on estimates that include newly banded, but not unbanded, birds, the model predicts a median time to extinction of 58 years, and a 0.87 probability of extinction over 100 years. For the parameter set based on estimates that include newly banded and unbanded birds, analysis shows that the population is growing and faces no risk of extinction. We cannot determine which parameter set is more accurate, and therefore recommend management that minimizes the risk of extinction under continued uncertainty about population status. Sensitivity analysis shows that changes in juvenile survival have the greatest effect on the population trajectory. To decrease risk of extinction for this population, management efforts should be directed at decreasing juvenile mortality.

A State-Based National Network for Effective Wildlife Conservation

State wildlife conservation programs provide a strong foundation for biodiversity conservation in the United States, building on state wildlife action plans. However, states may miss the species that are at the most risk at rangewide scales, and threats such as novel diseases and climate change increasingly act at regional and national levels. Regional collaborations among states and their partners have had impressive successes, and several federal programs now incorporate state priorities. However, regional collaborations are uneven across the country, and no national counterpart exists to support efforts at that scale. A national conservation-support program could fill this gap and could work across the conservation community to identify large-scale conservation needs and support efforts to meet them. By providing important information-sharing and capacity-building services, such a program would advance collaborative conservation among the states and their partners, thus increasing both the effectiveness and the efficiency of conservation in the United States.

Voting systems for environmental decisions.

Voting systems aggregate preferences efficiently and are often used for deciding conservation priorities. Desirable characteristics of voting systems include transitivity, completeness, and Pareto optimality, among others. Voting systems that are common and potentially useful for environmental decision making include simple majority, approval, and preferential voting. Unfortunately, no voting system can guarantee an outcome, while also satisfying a range of very reasonable performance criteria. Furthermore, voting methods may be manipulated by decision makers and strategic voters if they have knowledge of the voting patterns and alliances of others in the voting populations. The difficult properties of voting systems arise in routine decision making when there are multiple criteria and management alternatives. Because each method has flaws, we do not endorse one method. Instead, we urge organizers to be transparent about the properties of proposed voting systems and to offer participants the opportunity to approve the voting system as part of the ground rules for operation of a group. Sistemas de Votación para Decisiones Ambientales Resumen Los sistemas de votación agregan preferencias eficientemente y muy seguido se usan para decidir prioridades de conservación. Las características deseables de un sistema de votación incluyen la transitividad, lo completo que sean y la optimalidad de Pareto, entre otras. Los sistemas de votación que son comunes y potencialmente útiles para la toma de decisiones ambientales incluyen simple mayoría, aprobación y votación preferencial. Desafortunadamente, ningún sistema de votación puede garantizar un resultado y a la vez satisfacer un rango de criterios de desempeño muy razonable. Además, los métodos de votación pueden manipularse por los que toman las decisiones y votantes estratégicos si tienen el conocimiento de los patrones de votación y de las alianzas entre miembros dentro de las poblaciones votantes. Las propiedades difíciles de los sistemas de votación sobresalen en las tomas de decisiones rutinarias cuando hay criterios múltiples y alternativas de manejo. Ya que ambos métodos tienen fallas, no apoyamos a uno sobre el otro. En lugar de esto le pedimos urgentemente a los organizadores ser transparentes con respecto a las propiedades de los sistemas de votación y ofrecer a los participantes la oportunidad de aprobar el sistema de votación como parte de las reglas básicas para la operación de un grupo.

Conflation of Values and Science: Response to Noss et al.

GEORGE F. WILHERE,∗ LYNN A. MAGUIRE,† J. MICHAEL SCOTT,‡ JANET L. RACHLOW,‡ DALE D. GOBLE,§ AND LEONA K. SVANCARA∗∗ ∗Habitat Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA 98501, U.S.A., email wilhegfw@dfw.wa.gov †Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Box 90328, Durham, NC 27708-0328, U.S.A. ‡Department of Fish and Wildlife Sciences, College of Natural Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-1136, U.S.A. §College of Law, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844, U.S.A. ∗∗Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Moscow, ID 83844, U.S.A.

Endangered species recovery: A resource allocation problem

Explicit articulation of values and objectives is critical Many nations have laws to identify and protect imperiled species and their ecosystems. In the United States, actions taken under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) have prevented many extinctions, but few listed species have recovered to the point where they can have the ESA protections removed (1, 2). One reason for this [among many (3)] is a shortfall in funding, raising a conundrum for agencies responsible for species recovery: Should resources be allocated toward species facing imminent extinction or species whose long-term survival can most benefit from investment? Some argue that the latter strategy is ethically unsound because it may abandon species with little hope of long-term recovery [for example, (4)], even when science suggests that the former strategy may miss opportunities to prevent species from ever experiencing the risk of imminent extinction (2). We suggest that framing recovery prioritization as a resource allocation problem provides a structure to facilitate constructive debate about such important questions. We discuss here the merits of an explicit resource allocation framework and introduce a prototype decision tool [(5); see supplementary materials for details] that we developed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to facilitate transparent and efficient recovery allocation decisions.