National Academies Press: OpenBook

Sustainability for the Nation: Resource Connections and Governance Linkages (2013)

Chapter: 4 Development of a Decision Framework

« Previous: 3 Examples of Sustainability Connections and Linkages
Suggested Citation:"4 Development of a Decision Framework." National Research Council. 2013. Sustainability for the Nation: Resource Connections and Governance Linkages. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13471.
×

Chapter 4

Development of a Decision Framework

THE NEED FOR AND VALUE OF A DECISION FRAMEWORK

The preceding chapters identified the need for a consistent decision framework that can be used to strengthen sustainability linkages. Drawing from a number of the fact-finding examples and the literature, the committee identified the common elements of an effective decision framework, which form the basis for the framework presented here.

Decision frameworks provide a way to facilitate and enhance decision making by providing conceptual structures and principles for integrating the economic, social, ecological, and legal/institutional dimensions of decisions. Their application can result in consistent and effective results. Decision frameworks refer to principles, processes, and practices to proceed from information and desires to choices that inform actions and outcomes (Lockie and Rockloff, 2005).

While decision frameworks vary in design and purpose, they generally have common elements that include:

Problem identification and formulation,

Identification of clear goals,

Illumination of key questions that help decision participants scope problems and management options,

Processes for knowledge-building (including scientific, technical, experiential, and cultural knowledge) and application of appropriate analytical tools to assess actions, options, trade-offs, risks, and uncertainties,

Connection of authorities tasked with making decisions to outcomes associated with those decisions.

In addition to these common elements, decision frameworks generally provide transparency about goals, information, and decision processes; inclusiveness of relevant participants; and structures or processes to adapt decisions over time in response to new goals, changing circumstances, or new knowledge.

Suggested Citation:"4 Development of a Decision Framework." National Research Council. 2013. Sustainability for the Nation: Resource Connections and Governance Linkages. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13471.
×

In this chapter, the principles that form the basis for the decision framework the committee recommends are first articulated, followed by the framework itself. Recommendations concerning its implementation and use are also presented.

PRINCIPLES

The decision framework described in this chapter was developed to be:

Flexible and scalable to a wide range of complex sustainability issues

Based on the broad and diverse literature and practice of effectively and widely used frameworks

Inclusive of the major elements of such frameworks

As illustrated in the examples addressed in this report, any framework must be flexible enough that it can be applied to a broad range of sustainability linkage challenges. Consequently, for the decision framework presented here to be broadly useful, it must be sufficiently flexible to be adapted to a wide range of applications. As also illustrated in this report, sustainability linkage applications vary both temporally and geographically. Consequently, the decision framework must also be scalable.

A broad and diverse literature and significant practical experience with decision frameworks exist (see Box 4-1). This literature and experience provide the foundation for describing an effective and broadly applicable decision framework.1 Moreover, the committee has concluded that this literature and experience are broadly applicable to the examples considered and evaluated in this report.

The decision framework as applied to sustainability linkages must also include the major elements of relevant frameworks. These generally include the following elements:

Agreement on the problem or issue and its scope

Agreement on objectives and goals

Agreement on “who’s at the table”

Engagement of all relevant stakeholders

Capacity building to overcome asymmetries in stakeholder knowledge and resources

_______________

1In addition to the literature cited in Box 4-1, the World Bank has developed guidance for how to design a results framework, defined as “an explicit articulation (graphic display, matrix, or summary) of the different levels, or chains, of results expected from a particular intervention—project, program, or development strategy. The results specified typically comprise the longer-term objectives (often referred to as ‘outcomes’ or ‘impact’) and the intermediate outcomes and outputs that precede, and lead to, those desired longer-term objectives” (World Bank 2012).

Suggested Citation:"4 Development of a Decision Framework." National Research Council. 2013. Sustainability for the Nation: Resource Connections and Governance Linkages. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13471.
×

BOX 4-1
Relevant Decision Framework Literature

Numerous National Academies reports include frameworks for decisionmaking on issues ranging from the environment to public health to transportation. Some selected reports include IOM 2010; NRC 1996, 2005, 2008a, b, 2009a, b, 2011a, b, 2012. In particular, NRC 2009b summarizes key issues related to decision support systems and distills six principles that are broadly related to the committee’s framework that characterize these systems, including the benefits of following them. These include:

“Begin with users’ needs. Decision support activities should be driven by users’ needs, not by scientific research priorities. These needs are not always known in advance, and they should be identified collaboratively and iteratively in ongoing two-way communication between knowledge producers and decision makers.

Give priority to processes over products. To get the right products, start with the right process. Decision support is not merely about producing the right kinds of information products. Without attention to process, products are likely to be inferior—although excessive attention to process without delivery of useful products is also ineffective. To identify, produce, and provide the appropriate kind of decision support, interactions between decision support providers and users are essential.

Link information producers and users. Decision support systems require networks and institutions that link information producers and users. The cultures and incentives of science and practice are different, for good reason, and those differences need to be respected if a productive and durable relationship is to be built. Some ways to accomplish this rely on networks and intermediaries, such as boundary organizations.

Build connections across disciplines and organizations. Decision support services and products must account for the multidisciplinary character of the needed information, the many organizations that share decision arenas, and the wider decision context.

Seek institutional stability. Decision support systems need stable support. This can be achieved through formal institutionalization, less-formal but long-lasting network building, new decision routines, and mandates, along with committed funding and personnel. Stable decision support systems are able to obtain greater visibility, stature, longevity, and effectiveness.

Design for learning. Decision support systems should be structured for flexibility, adaptability, and learning from experience” (NRC, 2009b).

Mutually negotiated and agreed upon decision rules (e.g., “how much agreement is sufficient to constitute approval”) to ensure perceived legitimacy and accountability (may or may not require unanimity)

Clarification of participant roles, responsibilities, and accountability

Boundary processes/organizations at the intersection of scientists/technical experts and decision makers, managers, and stakeholders

Suggested Citation:"4 Development of a Decision Framework." National Research Council. 2013. Sustainability for the Nation: Resource Connections and Governance Linkages. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13471.
×

Maintenance of flexibility to adapt to new information and/or changing circumstances

Understanding of structural barriers that could limit success and ways to address them.

A DECISION FRAMEWORK

Figure 4-1 presents a graphic representation of the decision framework recommended by the committee. The purpose of this framework is to lay out a structured but flexible process, from problem formulation through achievement of measureable outcomes, which engages agencies and stakeholders in goal-setting, planning, knowledge building, implementation, assessment, and decision adjustments. It is designed to be used when addressing place-based sustainability challenges as well as in policy formulation and rulemaking. The framework incorporates an iterative (or incremental) process that yields solutions to a wide range of issues that vary in scope, characteristics, and time. As an iterative process, the framework can also be viewed as a learning tool that begins with problem formulation and includes knowledge regarding key drivers and their relationship to key stakeholders, as well as access to scientific knowledge regarding the connections among components of the system. The framework is consistent with and extends the sustainability framework developed for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the “Green Book” (NAS, 2011a). As per the statement of task, the decision framework presented here will help “examine the consequences, trade-offs, synergies, and operational benefits of sustainability-oriented programs. The decision framework will include social, economic, and environmental dimensions of sustainability.”

The framework is depicted in four phases: (1) preparation and planning; (2) design and implementation; (3) evaluation and adaptation; and (4) long-term outcomes. A description of each of the framework elements is given below. The framework is meant to apply to the creation of a sustainability program (an ongoing, interagency effort such as a crosscutting program to support sustainable development in cities) and projects (single interagency efforts focused on a specific task, such as a project to design sustainable water use and agricultural production in the Great Plains Ogallala Aquifer).

Phase 1: Preparation and Planning

This phase has three major steps that need to occur before the actual program or project is designed. This important phase and its associated steps are often overlooked or done in an incomplete or piecemeal fashion. The examples and other research done by this committee found that this phase and its elements were critical to the success of sustainability programs and, if not done well, contributed to the demise of programs. Because of the importance of this phase, a more detailed view is provided in Figure 4-2.

Suggested Citation:"4 Development of a Decision Framework." National Research Council. 2013. Sustainability for the Nation: Resource Connections and Governance Linkages. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13471.
×

image

FIGURE 4-1 Conceptual Decision Framework. Four phases are shown, along with the relevant steps within each phase. The framework could be applied in creating either programs or projects related to sustainability.

Suggested Citation:"4 Development of a Decision Framework." National Research Council. 2013. Sustainability for the Nation: Resource Connections and Governance Linkages. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13471.
×

image

FIGURE 4-2 Phase 1 of the decision framework in expanded detail. Each step identified in Figure 4-1 of Phase 1 now includes specific actions and outputs/outcomes for that action (see key).

Suggested Citation:"4 Development of a Decision Framework." National Research Council. 2013. Sustainability for the Nation: Resource Connections and Governance Linkages. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13471.
×

Phase 1: Preparation and Planning

This phase has three major steps that need to occur before the actual program or project is designed. This important phase and its associated steps are often overlooked or done in an incomplete or piecemeal fashion. The examples and other research done by this committee found that this phase and its elements were critical to the success of sustainability programs and, if not done well, contributed to the demise of programs. Because of the importance of this phase, a more detailed view is provided in Figure 4-2.

The steps that need to be taken in Phase 1, and their associated actions and outputs, include:

Frame the problem. A sustainability issue of sufficient complexity to warrant a multi-agency approach is first identified. Issues requiring a coordinated response are those of national significance due to their broad geographic extent, potential to impact long-term health and economic well-being, or crosscutting impact. Next, the issue must be framed so that the problem to be solved is clearly understood. This is analogous to problem formulation in human or ecological risk assessment. Effectively framing the problem requires a coordinated effort by an appropriate combination of federal, state, local, tribal, nongovernmental, and/or private-sector entities. An issue may be framed through a number of different avenues ranging from engaging key stakeholder partnerships to agency leadership and executive action. All dimensions of the problem must be identified, including the environmental resource connections, societal connections, and economic connections. These elements of the problem will inform the selection of agencies and nonagency organizations that should be involved in the program or project. It is important to note that agencies need not await structural overhauls in order to strengthen their capacity to address sustainability linkages. Agencies can begin by preparing a high-level systems map illustrating key linkages that can then be deployed widely across federal agencies for any sustainability-related program or project in order to incentivize policy coordination.

Some baseline analysis is typically required at this point to generally describe the magnitude of adverse impacts if the issue is not successfully addressed, and the magnitude of the benefits to be gained when it is. An initial estimate of the extent of the effort that might be reasonably expected to address the problem is also useful when framing it. These initial estimates will be refined as the decision process proceeds; thus, the process is iterative. An initial group of relevant parties—representatives of at least some of the relevant agencies, as well as some of the affected parties and those needed to implement potential solutions—are typically engaged at this point to assist with the framing. Some of these individuals often function as champions whose actions can engage relevant parties in the next step, as well as get buy-in from key agency administrators (“champion the cause”).

Suggested Citation:"4 Development of a Decision Framework." National Research Council. 2013. Sustainability for the Nation: Resource Connections and Governance Linkages. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13471.
×

Identify and enlist stakeholders. The next significant step is to identify the relevant agency linkages. Depending on the natural resources and social and economic aspects of the problem, it will be critical to engage all of the federal agencies affected by it. For example, a project to develop a sustainability plan for the Ogallala Aquifer would require participation by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), as well as states, tribes, and others. This participation also illustrates the highly collaborative nature of the process, which continues throughout.

The issue framing conducted during the first step should provide knowledge as to which organizations and individuals need to be involved and the information needed to engage them. The interpersonal skills of the individuals engaged in the first, problem-framing step become critical in this phase, as they will often not have the positional authority to engage all of the relevant organizations and individuals. The initial group must collectively possess sufficient collaborative leadership skills to engage the relevant parties. It may also be necessary for them to identify and engage sponsors who have the influence to bring relevant parties to the table, along with necessary resources to support the efforts of the team. At this step of the process, the technical skills and professional expertise needed to design and implement the program or project are identified.

Identifying relevant nonagency stakeholders is part of this step as well. Nonagency stakeholders are frequently those who must use or implement the approach or solution developed to address the problem, as well as those impacted by the approach or solution. These stakeholders may be individuals or entities at the local, state, tribal, regional, or national scales. They may include nonfederal governmental agencies, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), private-sector interests, or others who have significant interests in the outcome of decisions and actions. It is critical that all relevant players be involved; if a representative of a sector that is a key driver in the issue is missing, the likelihood of success is greatly diminished.

In the next step, the actual Project or Program Team (“Team”) is identified. The Team, which may be deployed either to design a sustainability program or to address a specific sustainability problem at the project level, should include individual representatives from the relevant organizations (“stakeholders”) identified during step 2. This group must have the necessary background, experience, and leadership skills to successfully design the project or program. Team members must be carefully selected by their member organizations; they must have the right commitment, expertise, and skill sets, and they must have appropriate authority from their organizations so that their participation leads to success. Sufficient expertise in the fields of environmental science, ecology, social science, economics, and public health should generally be included. Each Team member should be a collaborative leader, and each should add value to the Team. Members must be provided support and resources by their respective organizations. Attention should be paid to the informal and formal relationships

Suggested Citation:"4 Development of a Decision Framework." National Research Council. 2013. Sustainability for the Nation: Resource Connections and Governance Linkages. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13471.
×

that already exist across these organizations, as success can be strongly influenced by the trust that exists or is built among Team members.

If it has not been done previously, it is essential during this step to determine and specify the role the federal agencies will play relative to the other players. The agencies may be principal leaders, or facilitators, or deal-makers, or they may act as a backstop using their legal authorities, with regional, state, or other participants taking the leadership role. In several examples studied by the committee, federal agencies successfully provided (legal) cover for regional or local programs. Other successful examples highlighted federal agencies in a leadership role. Often it was the scale of the program (city vs. interstate) and willingness of the federal agencies to partner with and engage stakeholders effectively when they were in the position of leadership that contributed to success.

Develop project management plan. The importance of this step, in which the Team develops a management plan for the program or project, cannot be overstated. The plan should clearly delineate the roles, responsibilities, and accountability of each member organization or participant, as well as a business plan for the funding of the project design, implementation, and maintenance (thus assuring its longevity). Other partners may be identified at this point whose involvement will be necessary in order to meet the project goals and to balance any asymmetries in the capacity of the Team. This plan should be developed prior to any project design or implementation so as to avoid missing critical pieces and to avoid conflict among players as to who does what.

Phase 2: Design and Implementation

A more detailed version of Phase 2 is shown in Figure 4-3.

Set project goals. The Team establishes goals for the program or project—a step that should be taken with engagement of stakeholders and relevant members of the public. In addition, the short- and long-term outcomes and their associated measures are identified, and an evaluation process is developed. A project timeline for measuring and achieving goals is agreed upon. Goal and outcome settings may also inform the partnerships needed to achieve success. Evaluating baseline conditions before implementing a sustainability solution or approach is necessary so that a future evaluation can gauge the impact of the program.

Design action plan. Now the Team develops a comprehensive design of the approach, strategies, actions, etc. that are needed to address the sustainability issue and meet the goals established in the previous step. The necessary tools, knowledge, and information to accomplish the goals must be identified and pursued. The Team also needs to identify who will implement the plan, how the program will be maintained, and by whom. This plan must include “decision

Suggested Citation:"4 Development of a Decision Framework." National Research Council. 2013. Sustainability for the Nation: Resource Connections and Governance Linkages. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13471.
×

image

FIGURE 4-3 Phase 2 of the decision framework in expanded detail. Each step identified in Figure 4-1 of Phase 2 now includes specific actions and outputs/outcomes for that action (see key).

Suggested Citation:"4 Development of a Decision Framework." National Research Council. 2013. Sustainability for the Nation: Resource Connections and Governance Linkages. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13471.
×

rules” (e.g., consensus or majority vote) for what constitutes acceptable actions or outcomes. The Team must build in the principles of adaptive management—that is, provide for flexibility in altering goals, design, and implementation as knowledge is gained in assessing the course of the program implementation and short-term outcomes (e.g., CRS, 2011).

It is critical to include a systematic and explicit process for projecting the outcomes of the program or project in order to anticipate the consequences, both intended and unintended, added benefits in terms of efficiencies and cost-savings, the short- and long-term trade-offs of implementing the plan (vs. doing nothing), and any synergies gained from the program or project. This can be done with a variety of tools, including scenario analysis (Schmitt Olabisi et al., 2010) and policy analysis (Bardach, 2012).

Implement action plan. The design phase is where the action plan is developed for addressing the sustainability issue that was identified in the first step of Phase 1. This includes the “what” that needs to be done as well as the “how” and “by whom.” It also includes a determination of the kinds of decision-making tools or models that might be needed for implementation. In this step, the action plan developed in the previous step is actually implemented, either by the Team that designed the program or project or by the implementers determined during the design step. A key action in this step is determining the kinds of boundary organizations or processes that are needed. (A boundary organization or process is one that bridges the scientific and technical people with the policy people and stakeholders either within or across entities, horizontally or vertically. Such organizations often facilitate ongoing dialogue among experts and others (Guston et al., 2010).

Approaches to sustainability challenges generally take time and require maintenance to ensure their longevity, adoption, and success. The Team must develop and implement a maintenance plan that describes who is responsible for long-term maintenance, who pays for it, and who evaluates its effectiveness.

Phase 3: Evaluation and Adaptation

Realize short-term outcomes, assess outcomes, and adjust. This is where the “rubber meets the road” as results are achieved. Outcomes are assessed and evaluated relative to the baseline established in Phase 2. Short-term outcomes are on the scale of a year to a few years. Are the trends observed on track with goals? Significant learning typically occurs during this step as knowledge and actual experience are obtained, which allow modifications to framing the problem, the approach, design, and methods. At this point the evaluation plan identified above becomes critical, because it allows actual results to be compared to the original goals and for adjustments to be made. Additional stakeholders may also be identified and engaged at this point.

Suggested Citation:"4 Development of a Decision Framework." National Research Council. 2013. Sustainability for the Nation: Resource Connections and Governance Linkages. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13471.
×

Phase 4: Long-Term Outcomes

Long-term outcomes are on the scale of several years or more, and should closely track the goals. While performance is assessed and adjustments are made during this phase, as in the previous one, a point is reached where a formal assessment is needed. Using the outcome measures developed under Phase 2, at this stage evaluations are conducted to see if short- and long-term outcomes are meeting goals. Ideally, the results of this evaluation should be able to be compared to the results of the baseline evaluation conducted in Phase 2. Based on this evaluation, necessary changes to the Team, Goals, Outcomes and Measures, Management Plans, Design, Implementation, or Maintenance are made.

When well executed, this framework process will enhance legitimacy, encourage systems thinking and the relevance of government actions, and most importantly, result in streamlined and more efficient governance. An additional benefit is that the experiences and lessons learned while applying this process are fed back to the participating organizations and individuals, improving both future efforts and government efficiency.

Finally, a decision framework for sustainability is unlikely to lead to consistently favorable actions unless several additional elements are also in place. An important factor is building sustainability into the fabric of an organization: its mission statement, its goals and objectives, and its organizational and management structure. A previous NRC report (2011a) that addressed sustainability at EPA discussed the importance of incorporating sustainability into an agency’s culture and thinking. This committee (NRC, 2011a) found that integrating sustainability into the agency’s work and culture will be most effective when based on clear principles, vision, strategic goals, and implementation processes. Also, the report recommended that the agency institute a focused program of change management to achieve the goal of incorporating sustainability into all agency thinking to optimize the social, environmental, and economic benefits of its decisions, and create a new culture among all EPA employees. Similarly, this committee found the incorporation of a culture of sustainability within the operations of the agency is essential. Also very important are structuring sustainability decision making on long time frames and assessing ways to maximize benefits in all sustainability solutions and approaches.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Federal agencies should adopt or adapt the committee’s decision framework described above. Several key elements of the framework include the need to:

a.   Build sustainability into the fabric of an organization.

b.   Structure sustainability decision making on long time frames, incorporating adaptive management approaches.

Suggested Citation:"4 Development of a Decision Framework." National Research Council. 2013. Sustainability for the Nation: Resource Connections and Governance Linkages. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13471.
×

c.   Assess co-benefits and trade-offs in all sustainability solutions and approaches, and communicate these along with the primary outcomes.

d.   Engage locals, states, and NGOs through an iterative processes to the extent possible, stressing inclusiveness, receptiveness, and good communications.

2. Agencies need not await structural overhauls in order to strengthen their capacity to address sustainability linkages. Agencies can begin by preparing a high-level systems map illustrating key linkages, which can then be deployed widely across federal agencies for any sustainability-related program or project in order to incentivize policy coordination.

REFERENCES

Bardach, E. 2011. A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis. 4th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. EPA Announces Framework to Help Local Governments Manage Stormwater Runoff and Wastewater. Online. Available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/AB2035971BAB1AD485257A1B006F25B1. Accessed September 4, 2012.

Fiksel, J. 2006. A framework for sustainable materials management. Journal of the Minerals Metals & Materials Society 58(8):15-22.

Congressional Research Service. 2011. Adaptive Management for Ecosystem Restoration: Analysis and Issues for Congress.

Guston, D. H., W. Clark, T. Keating, D. Cash, S. Moser, C. Miller, and C. Powers. 2010. Report of the Workshop on Boundary Organizations in Environmental Policy and Science. New Brunswick, NJ: Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, Rutgers University.

IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2010. Bridging the Evidence Gap in Obesity Prevention: A Framework to Inform Decision Making. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Jabareen, Y. 2008. A new conceptual framework for sustainable development. Environment, Development and Sustainability 10:179-192.

Lockie, S., and S. Rockloff. 2005. Decision Frameworks: Assessment of the social aspects of decision frameworks and development of a conceptual model. Coastal CRC Discussion Paper. Norman Gardens, Australia: Central Queensland University. NRC (National Research Council). 1996. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

NRC. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

NRC. 2008a. Research and Networks for Decision Support in the NOAA Sector Applications Research Program. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

NRC. 2008b. Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

NRC. 2009a. Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Suggested Citation:"4 Development of a Decision Framework." National Research Council. 2013. Sustainability for the Nation: Resource Connections and Governance Linkages. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13471.
×

NRC. 2009b. Informing Decisions in a Changing Climate. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

NRC. 2009c. Sustainable Critical Infrastructure Systems: A Framework for Meeting 21st Century Imperatives. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

NRC. 2011a. Sustainability and the U.S. EPA. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

NRC. 2011b. Improving Health in the United States: The Role of Health Impact Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

NRC. 2012. Science for Environmental Protection: The Road Ahead. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Schmitt Olabisi, L. K., A. R. Kapuscinski, K. A. Johnson, P. B. Reich, B. Stenquist, and K. J. Draeger. 2010. Using scenario visioning and participatory system dynamics modeling to investigate the future: Lessons from Minnesota 2050. Sustainability 2(8):2686-2706.

Waheed, B., F. Khan, and B. Veitch. 2009. Linkage-based frameworks for sustainability assessment: Making a case for driving force-pressure-state-exposure-effect-action (DPSEEA) frameworks. Sustainability 2009(1):441-463.

World Bank. 2012. Designing A Results Framework for Achieving Results: A How-to Guide. Online. Available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTEVACAPDEV/Resources/designing_results_framework.pdf. Accessed February 28, 2013.

Suggested Citation:"4 Development of a Decision Framework." National Research Council. 2013. Sustainability for the Nation: Resource Connections and Governance Linkages. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13471.
×
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"4 Development of a Decision Framework." National Research Council. 2013. Sustainability for the Nation: Resource Connections and Governance Linkages. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13471.
×
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"4 Development of a Decision Framework." National Research Council. 2013. Sustainability for the Nation: Resource Connections and Governance Linkages. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13471.
×
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"4 Development of a Decision Framework." National Research Council. 2013. Sustainability for the Nation: Resource Connections and Governance Linkages. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13471.
×
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"4 Development of a Decision Framework." National Research Council. 2013. Sustainability for the Nation: Resource Connections and Governance Linkages. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13471.
×
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"4 Development of a Decision Framework." National Research Council. 2013. Sustainability for the Nation: Resource Connections and Governance Linkages. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13471.
×
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"4 Development of a Decision Framework." National Research Council. 2013. Sustainability for the Nation: Resource Connections and Governance Linkages. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13471.
×
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"4 Development of a Decision Framework." National Research Council. 2013. Sustainability for the Nation: Resource Connections and Governance Linkages. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13471.
×
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"4 Development of a Decision Framework." National Research Council. 2013. Sustainability for the Nation: Resource Connections and Governance Linkages. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13471.
×
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"4 Development of a Decision Framework." National Research Council. 2013. Sustainability for the Nation: Resource Connections and Governance Linkages. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13471.
×
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"4 Development of a Decision Framework." National Research Council. 2013. Sustainability for the Nation: Resource Connections and Governance Linkages. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13471.
×
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"4 Development of a Decision Framework." National Research Council. 2013. Sustainability for the Nation: Resource Connections and Governance Linkages. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13471.
×
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"4 Development of a Decision Framework." National Research Council. 2013. Sustainability for the Nation: Resource Connections and Governance Linkages. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13471.
×
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"4 Development of a Decision Framework." National Research Council. 2013. Sustainability for the Nation: Resource Connections and Governance Linkages. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13471.
×
Page 83
Next: 5 A Path Forward: Priority Areas for Interagency Collaboration »
Sustainability for the Nation: Resource Connections and Governance Linkages Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $46.00 Buy Ebook | $36.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

A "sustainable society," according to one definition, "is one that can persist over generations; one that is far-seeing enough, flexible enough, and wise enough not to undermine either its physical or its social system of support." As the government sector works hard to ensure sufficient fresh water, food, energy, housing, health, and education for the nation without limiting resources for the future generations, it's clear that there is no sufficient organization to deal with sustainability issues. Each federal agency appears to have a single mandate or a single area of expertise making it difficult to tackle issues such as managing the ecosystem. Key resource domains, which include water, land, energy, and nonrenewable resources, for example, are nearly-completely connected yet different agencies exist to address only one aspect of these domains.

The legendary ecologist John Muir wrote in 1911 that "when we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe." Thus, in order for the nation to be successful in sustaining its resources, "linkages" will need to be built among federal, state, and local governments; nongovernmental organizations (NGOs); and the private sector. The National Research Council (NRC) was asked by several federal agencies, foundations, and the private sector to provide guidance to the federal government on issues related to sustainability linkages. The NRC assigned the task to as committee with a wide range of expertise in government, academia, and business. The committee held public fact-finding meetings to hear from agencies and stakeholder groups; examined sustainability management examples; conducted extensive literature reviews; and more to address the issue. Sustainability for the Nation: Resource Connection and Governance Linkages is the committee's report on the issue.

The report includes insight into high-priority areas for governance linkages, the challenges of managing connected systems, impediments to successful government linkages, and more. The report also features examples of government linkages which include Adaptive Management on the Platte River, Philadelphia's Green Stormwater Infrastructure, and Managing Land Use in the Mojave.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!