National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Introduction
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

STAGE-SETTING PAPERS

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

COASTAL ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT: CHALLENGES FOR SCIENCE

Donald F. Boesch

Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies

University of Maryland

Introduction

At the California regional symposium initiating the Ocean Studies Board's efforts to improve interactions between coastal science and policy, I examined what natural scientists and policymakers and implementors need to know about each other to effectively bridge the gap between their communities (Boesch and Macke, 1995). Time has passed and issues have evolved, so that here I will briefly review our observations and advice and focus on what will be a major challenge for science relevant to environmental and natural resource management in regions such as the Gulf of Maine—application of the emerging concept of ecosystem management.

Bridging the Gap

In the California symposium paper, we examined differences in how scientists and policymakers and implementors operate and the processes of their interactions. We discussed the cultural differences characteristic of science and policy (Table 1), noting the disparate focus on knowledge versus action, on scientific evidence versus broader societal values, and on long-term versus short-term goals. The effective gap bridger will recognize these

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

Table 1 Behaviors and Points of View Typically Associated With the Cultures of Science and Policy (Boesch and Macke, 1995). From Coastal Management, Vol. 21(3), p. 189, Bernstein et al., 1993, Taylor & Francis, Inc., Washington, D.C. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved.

 

Science

Policy

Valued action

Research, scholarship

Legislation, regulations, decisions

Time Frame

That needed to gather evidence

Immediate, short-term

Goals

Increase understanding

Manage immediate problems

Basis for decisions

Scientific evidence

Science, values, public opinion, economics

Expectations

Understanding never complete

Expect clear answers from science

Grain Factor

Focus on details, contradictions

Focus on broad outline

World view

Primacy of biological, physical, chemical mechanisms

Primacy of political, social, interpersonal, economic mechanisms

differences and show understanding and accommodation at the interface. To be more effective across this interface, scientists are encouraged to take a broader view of their scholarship. Finally, it is important to recognize that beyond this simple polar model of science and policy cultures, scientists themselves are part of the social dynamic which influences policy decisions. The concepts of advocacy coalitions (Sabatier, 1988, 1995) among scientists, policymakers and implementors, and interest groups and epistemic communities (Haas, 1990) of experts who share beliefs and values were explored in our paper. It is important to recognize that scientists may play roles of authority figures, advocates, and antagonists within this social dynamic.

The processes of translation of scientific understanding to policy formulation and implementation is complex. Notably, these processes often involve the press and the public

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

as well as direct interactions with policymakers and implementors. We emphasized the need to nurture and support people who have the knowledge and skills to assimilate and articulate coastal science through the popular and semi-popular media as well as the importance of interpersonal interactions between research scientists and the technical staff of management agencies.

Next, we discussed the mechanisms for obtaining and providing advice, focusing specifically on scientific advisory committees, offering suggestions to both committee members and sponsoring agencies on how to make advisory committees more effective. We argued that science-policy interactions could be more effective if we more forthrightly dealt with the uncertainty of scientifically based predictions and contributed to the development of a Precautionary Principle that was truly operational. We emphasized the need to better integrate and balance the scientific approaches of research, monitoring, modeling, and analysis. And, finally, we touched on the need to provide scientific information and advice on a timely basis.

The Challenges of Ecosystem Management

I am struck by the recent embrace of the concept of “ecosystem management” by policymakers and managers, including the most senior officials of the federal government. For example, ecosystem management was identified in President Clinton and Vice President Gore's National Performance Review (NPR) as an important goal of the efforts to “reinvent government.” As an ecologist, I am at once elated and frightened. Environmental scientists have long preached the need to consider the whole ecosystem. Now we face the daunting reality of helping to put our words into practice. Here I will examine the scientific concepts embodied in the principles of ecosystem management identified by the White House Ecosystem Management Task Force and my observations on their application in five major coastal ecosystems of the United States: the Chesapeake Bay, Florida Bay, the Mississippi Delta, the continental shelf of the northwestern Gulf of Mexico, and San Francisco Bay. From this rather personal perspective, I will identify some specific challenges which lie ahead for the scientific and management communities.

Reinventing Government through Ecosystem Management

One recommendation of the NPR was that “the President should issue a directive to establish ecosystem management across the government” (Gore, 1993). This recommendation was based on the observations that contradictory policies from federal agencies have hindered effective environmental protection, resource management, and sustainable development. The NPR proposed the development of “a proactive approach to ensuring a sustainable economy and a sustainable environment through ecosystem management.” Further, it recommended that the White House Office of Environmental

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

Policy (OEP) convene an interagency task force of appropriate assistant secretaries to develop and implement cross-agency ecosystem management. This Ecosystem Management Task Force, composed of Assistant Secretaries of twelve departments and agencies, as well as representatives from the Office of Management and Budget and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, is presently evaluating ongoing and planned interagency ecosystem-based activities in order to provide lessons for broader application.

The White House Ecosystem Management Task Force has defined ecosystem management as “a goal-driven approach to restoring and sustaining healthy ecosystems and their functions and values. It is based on a collaboratively developed vision of desired future ecosystem conditions that integrates ecological, economic, and social factors affecting a management unit defined by ecological, not political, boundaries” (OEP, 1994). It defines an ecosystem as “an interconnected community of living things, including humans, and the physical environment with which they interact.” The Task Force has developed principles and guidelines for ecosystem management (Table 2) which embody principles that many ecologists and resource managers have long espoused. However, these principles are loaded with terms (italicized in Table 2) which provide challenging targets for natural scientists to make meaningful and effective contributions to ecosystem management.

Five Coastal Marine Ecosystems

I will examine the application of the italicized concepts listed in Table 2 in the management of five important coastal marine ecosystems in the United States (Figure 1) based on my own experiences as a researcher and scientific advisor. I have spent most of my career working in the Chesapeake Bay, the Mississippi Delta, and the Gulf of Mexico. My experience in Florida Bay and San Francisco Bay is more limited and comes primarily by service on scientific review and advisory committees.

The status of both scientific understanding and ecosystem management in these ecosystems varies considerably. Importantly, all five regions have undergone what Likens (1992) calls “human-accelerated environmental change” as a result of activities throughout the watersheds as well as in coastal waters themselves.

The Chesapeake Bay is one of the best-studied ecosystems in the world and has been the subject of a multi-state and federal management program that was formally begun in 1983 (Hennessey, 1994). The structure and approaches of the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) have been widely copied in the National Estuary Program (NEP) and in other programs around the world. A main focus of the CBP has been setting goals for reduction of nutrient inputs and implementation of controls throughout the watershed. The San Francisco Bay has also received sustained investigation, particularly with regard to conditions in the upper Bay and Sacramento-San Joaquin delta as they are influenced by consumption and diversion of fresh water. An NEP comprehensive management plan and a federal-state agreement for

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

allocating water to the delta have recently been concluded and a plan for long-term management of dredged material is being developed.

Table 2 Principles and Guidelines for Ecosystem Management Identified by the White House Ecosystem Management Task Force (OEP, 1994). The italicized terms provide targets and challenges for the natural science community.

Principles and Guidelines for Ecosystem Management

  1. Restore and maintain the health, sustainability, and native biological diversity of ecosystems.

  2. Base management on considerations of ecological units and time frames.

  3. Support sustainable economies and communities.

  4. Develop a vision of ecosystem health.

  5. Develop priorities and reconcile conflicts.

  6. Develop coordinated approaches to work toward ecosystem health.

  7. Rely on the best science available.

  8. Use benchmarks to monitor and evaluate outcomes.

  9. Use adaptive management.

  10. Implement through agency plans and programs.

The Mississippi Delta in Louisiana (and the Chenier Plain ecosystem to the west) experienced rapid loss of coastal wetlands during the latter half of this century. The causes of this wetland loss have been fairly well studied, but scientific controversies exist concerning the most effective means of slowing this loss (Boesch et al., 1994). The Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990 (CWPPRA) provides a powerful framework for federal-state comprehensive management of this coastal region. The northwestern Gulf shelf is the site of the vast majority of oil and gas production from the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (Boesch and Rabalais, 1987) and supports rich fisheries. Recently, severe oxygen depletion in bottom waters over a large area of the inner shelf has been documented and related to increased nitrogen inputs from the Mississippi and Atchafalaya rivers. The dramatic loss of seagrass and proliferation of algal blooms in Florida Bay (Boesch et al., 1993) has just begun to receive significant scientific attention and

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

the Florida Bay is now being factored into management plans for both South Florida (including the Everglades) and the Florida Keys.

Figure 1 Five major coastal ecosystems in the United States considered here. Although the issues in each area are numerous, central management issues in Florida Bay and San Francisco Bay revolve around freshwater inputs, in Chesapeake Bay around nutrient enrichment, and in the Gulf of Mexico around oil and gas development and nutrient enrichment. Fisheries management is an important concern in all areas.

Restore and Maintain

Coastal science has focused primarily on understanding how ecosystems work, how they vary over time, and how human activities change them. Scientists are much more able to detect and diagnose a problem than prescribe a cure for it. Yet in these five degraded ecosystems, management requires knowledge of how to restore ecosystems physically and to regulate inputs and uses in order to maintain them in a desired state. In the Mississippi Delta, management objectives are to slow wetland losses and create new wetlands to offset unavoidable losses. This maintenance and restoration is to be achieved by river diversion for sediment supply and salinity control and regulation of tidal water level and flow. In Florida Bay, critical issues concern how much of the presently diverted fresh water must be returned to the Bay and whether increasing exchange through the channels between the Keys would restore ecological conditions. In San Francisco Bay, a central question has been the freshwater requirements for maintenance of salinity regimes and spawning and nursery grounds for threatened or otherwise important fish populations. Wetland restoration, including the rehabilitation of “reclaimed” wetlands and the beneficial use of dredged material, is also an important issue. In the Chesapeake, major efforts have begun or are planned to restore the oyster bars which were essentially mined out during the early days of harvest. The objective is not only to enhance future harvestable resources, but also to increase filter feeding to remove excess phytoplankton. A management question concerns whether the goal of 40% reduction in nutrient loading will restore and maintain water quality. Finally, I feel certain that someday a critical management question for the Mississippi/Atchafalaya river system and adjacent continental shelf, just as it is for the

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

Chesapeake Bay, will be defining the nutrient load reductions required to achieve a defined reduction in hypoxia.

Important challenges for science are to:

  • define functional goals and engineering design criteria for environmental restoration;

  • emphasize the use of natural processes in restoring and maintaining function; and

  • determine the success of performance of restoration strategies.

Ecosystem Health

Ecosystem health is mentioned three times in the Ecosystem Management Task Force principles and guidelines (Table 2). Ecosystem health and ecosystem integrity are concepts often stated but seldom defined. In the Chesapeake Bay the volume of hypoxic water and abundance of seagrasses are central indicators of ecosystem health; benthic communities, phytoplankton, zooplankton, and demersal fishes are also being used in monitoring programs. For each of these components there have been efforts to define the range of targeted conditions. For the Mississippi Delta, maximizing the area of vegetated wetlands is the paramount management objective and is even prescribed as the management objective in CWPPRA. Although no ecosystem health goals have yet been set for Florida Bay, reductions in the coverage of seagrass beds, extent and intensity of algal blooms, and declines in fishery harvests have been interpreted as signs of general ecosystem degradation. In San Francisco Bay, salinity regime, fish stocks, and toxic effects of sediments have been used as environmental health criteria.

An important challenge for science is to develop and apply multiple indicators that will allow detection of less-than-catastrophic effects and can be understood and used by managers for environmental protection and restoration and resource conservation.

Sustainability

Sustainability has not been explicitly addressed within the ecosystem management approaches in the five areas. In the Mississippi Delta, goals have been mostly short-term. The consequences of long-term delta dynamics and sea level rise are daunting both to the public and to the management community. Offshore, we have scarcely begun to think about the effects of oxygen depletion and bycatch mortalities on sustainable populations of important living resources. Policymakers and managers have just come to the realization that the phenomena observed in Florida Bay may result from population growth, water use, and

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

agricultural expansion which cannot be sustained. Recent decisions concerning the allocation of fresh water among agriculture, public water supplies, and fish and wildlife use in the delta and bay are but the first step toward reconciling a sustainable future in San Francisco Bay. In Chesapeake Bay we are struggling to meet the year 2000 goal for reducing nutrient loads by 40%, yet know that even if this goal is reached, efforts will have to be redoubled to maintain those levels in the face of the rapidly increasing population within the watershed. On the other hand, the surprising recovery of striped bass populations in the Chesapeake Bay following restrictions on harvest gives some hope that resources can be sustained.

In the end, sustainability poses challenges to both society and the scientific community. Ludwig et al. (1993) suggest that we are suffering under a misunderstanding of the possibility of achieving scientific consensus concerning resources and the environment. Lee (1993) states: “Sustainable development is not a goal, not a condition likely to be attained on earth as we know it. Rather it is more like freedom or justice, a direction in which we strive.”

Important challenges for science are to:

  • place resource abundance and use in context of natural variability;

  • assess how the past, present, and future use of land-based resources (water, soils, nutrients) and living marine resources affect ecosystem function and structure; and

  • improve watershed-atmosphere-coastal ecosystem models.

Native Biological Diversity

To date, biodiversity has not been a central management goal in any of the five coastal systems other than as represented in endangered species. Some biotic indicators used in monitoring ecosystem health do reflect species diversity within a community, but biodiversity within the ecosystem as a whole has not yet received the attention in coastal marine ecosystems as it has in terrestrial and freshwater systems. Three threats to biodiversity are particularly important: habitat modification, invasion by non-indigenous species, and large incidental mortalities from fishing activities. In San Francisco Bay, many dominant benthic animals and zooplankters are non-indigenous. They have displaced many indigenous species and some have had profound effects on production and trophic dynamics in the estuary.

Important challenges for science are to:

  • evaluate biological diversity on regional scales and the effects of habitat modification and fragmentation on diversity; and

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
  • relate diversity to ecosystem function and resilience.

Ecological Units and Time Frames

The perspectives of management in these coastal ecosystems have evolved to include larger and interrelated ecological units and longer time frames. In Louisiana, management plans by the state and under CWPPRA are based on the nine hydrological basins of the Mississippi Delta Plain and Chenier Plain. Each of these basins are large estuarine systems. But, a collection of basin plans does not constitute a comprehensive ecosystem management plan because decisions have to be made concerning interbasin allocation of riverine waters and sediments (Boesch et al., 1994). Scientific controversies in the Mississippi Delta system are often based on different time perspectives, with geologists seeing delta wetland deterioration as part of a natural process of cyclic construction and destruction, whereas ecologists are alarmed at the rapid rates of change compared to recent history. Similarly, until sediment tracers yielded evidence of increased eutrophication, some argued that hypoxia on the inner shelf had probably always existed as it does today. There was no historical perspective. In South Florida, the Everglades, Florida Bay, and the Keys are increasingly seen as a continuous and interconnected landscape and seascape (Boesch et al., 1993). Still, important questions remain regarding the importance of historical events, especially hurricanes, and long-term climatic variations in Florida Bay. In San Francisco Bay, significant differences between the northern and southern portions of the Bay provide the basis of different management strategies. It is recognized that because of sedimentation resulting from mining activities in the watershed, the infilling of Bay margins, and the introduction of numerous non-indigenous species, the Bay today is far different than it was before European settlement. Return to the pristine state is not an option. Similarly, the historical changes and potential futures of the Chesapeake Bay have become better understood. Management is now focusing on the Tributary Strategy, in which each major subestuary and its watershed is being managed. Time frames of processes have received attention: in situ, continuous measurements detect biologically important, weather-related events; residence times in groundwater of several years are important it controlling the flow of nitrogen through the watershed; and the consequences of deforestation and reforestation over decades and centuries can be followed in the sediment record.

Important challenges for science are to:

  • describe and measure at appropriate space and time scales; and

  • evaluate the effects of cumulative small scale effects on the larger ecosystem.

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
The Best Science

In general, it is my experience that good science has power that ultimately prevails. But there is frequently much wasted energy and time spent on pedestrian or irrelevant science and too little research and scientific assessment of critical ecosystem processes and complex interactions among environmental media or human-use sectors. For example, support for initial scientific studies of the effects of nutrient enrichment in Chesapeake and Florida bays and on the northwest Gulf of Mexico shelf was very difficult to obtain. No agency seemed to own the problem, a problem which seemed so complex as to defy clear understanding or solution. Also in the Gulf of Mexico, many scientific studies of environmental, social, and economic issues related to offshore oil and gas development focused on relatively tractable (e.g., the effect of a single discharge of drilling fluids or direct economic impacts) and generally trivial issues (Boesch and Rabalais, 1987; Freudenburg and Gramling, 1994). Complex issues (e.g., the ecological consequences of production activities coupled with riverine contaminant input, hypoxia, and intense ground fishing activity or socio-cultural effects) were generally avoided.

Effective ecosystem management requires sustained ecological research (Likens, 1992). It will also require more imaginative and integrative science and the sound application of that science. Scientific investigations need to be on target in relevance to the management question, but must accommodate and even inspire the ingenuity of the scientist. I refer to this as strategic research—research that attempts to answer well-stated questions related to important management issues, but for which the approaches and methods are not overprescribed.

Important challenges for science are to:

  • peer review not only research proposals and programs, but also the application of science; and

  • develop processes for strategic research.

Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation are critical elements of adaptive management (see below). A large and successful monitoring program has been conducted in Chesapeake Bay for ten years. Results are used to track reductions in inputs, re-evaluate goals, and detect ecological recovery. In the Mississippi Delta, monitoring plans are in place for the restoration projects funded under CWPPRA. In San Francisco Bay, there is ongoing monitoring of hydrographic and biological conditions in the upper estuary and delta and monitoring of the ocean dumpsite of dredged material is planned. Florida Bay does not have a comprehensive monitoring plan yet in place, but efforts are underway to design and fund an interagency effort. Only the

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

continental shelf of the northwest Gulf of Mexico lacks a monitoring program or plan at this point. But, monitoring by itself is of little use. It must include meaningful and responsive measurements, be linked with modeling for testing of assumptions and refining models, and be used to evaluate the outcomes of management approaches.

Important challenges for science are to:

  • monitor effective indicators of ecosystem health and evaluate performance of restoration;

  • interrelate models and monitoring; and

  • integrate monitoring and evaluation into adaptive management.

Adaptive Management

Although the management efforts, in their various stages of maturity, for each of the five coastal ecosystems have changed over time as a result of new scientific information and perspectives, these adjustments have generally been episodic rather than ongoing. Hennessey (1994) examined the Chesapeake Bay Program and concluded that it has operated according to adaptive management principles, but Malone et al.'s (1993) assessment of the historic influence of science on the management of nutrient inputs into the Chesapeake presents a picture of science and policy which were not that tightly coupled. Advocates of adaptive management such as Walters (1986) and Lee (1993) have in mind the inherent treatment of policies as experiments and an emphasis on learning from them. Practitioners of adaptive management take special care with information: they are explicit about what they expect, collect and analyze information so that expectations can be compared with actuality, and transform comparison into learning and adjustments to policy. While the advanced modeling and monitoring of the Chesapeake Bay Program, the evaluation of CWPPRA projects in the Mississippi Delta, and the hydrodynamic and fisheries modeling of freshwater flow effects in upper San Francisco Bay display some elements of adaptive management, Lee's (1993) responsive and true ”compass” of ideal adaptive management is not yet in existence in any of the five coastal ecosystems.

Important challenges for science are to:

  • embrace alternative explanations and approaches rather than seeking narrow consensus and precise predictions (see Walters, 1986); and

  • improve mechanisms for rapid reporting of results.

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

Priorities for Coastal Ecosystem Science

Many of the challenges I suggested relate closely to the priorities identified in the recent National Research Council Report Priorities for Coastal Ecosystem Science (NRC, 1994), as summarized in Table 3. This is no coincidence because I chaired the committee

Table 3 Priorities Identified in the National Research Council (1994) Report Priorities for Coastal Ecosystem Science, Listed by Priority Areas Being Used by the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR, 1994).

CENR National Priority Research Areas

Priorities for Coastal Ecosystem Science Recommendations

Integrated Monitoring

  • Measure Diffuse Inputs

  • Develop Indicators of Biological Status and Processes

  • Deploy Improved In Situ and Remote Sensing Systems

  • Link Regional and National Monitoring

  • Improve Monitoring Management Systems

Water Availability and Flow

  • Couple Watershed Hydrology and Material Flux

  • Develop Atmosphere-Watershed-Coastal System Models

  • Increase Understanding of Physical Forcing Processes

Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Functions

  • Relate Nutrient Flux to Ecosystem Dynamics

  • Conduct Strategic Scientific Assessments of Toxic Effects

  • Investigate the Role of Sediments in Coastal Ecosystems

  • Relate Resource Use to Ecosystem Sustainability

  • Assess Multiple Stressors and Scales

  • Promote Comparative Coastal Ecosystem Science

Ecological Restoration and Rehabilitation

  • Determine Effects of Habitat Loss and Degradation on Biodiversity and Productivity

  • Advance Restoration Science and Engineering

  • Guide the Remediation of Toxic Contamination

Predictive Systems Management

  • Implement Observation and Prediction Systems

  • Employ Ecosystem Models as Management Tools

  • Advance Adaptive Ecosystem Management

  • Stimulate Interactions Between Science and Management

that produced this report and was in the thick of preparing the report at the time of this symposium. My ideas were shaped by this committee process as well as my own experiences. The NRC report was a response to a request from the Water Resources and

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

Coastal and Marine Environments Subcommittee of the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR) of the recently created National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). That subcommittee is charged with developing a national research and development strategy to manage water resources and provide healthy Great Lakes, estuarine, and marine ecosystems by balancing two closely related environmental values: (1) water quantity and allocation and (2) ecosystem integrity, including the productivity, diversity and vitality of aquatic ecosystems and their watersheds (CENR, 1994). The NRC assessment was thus limited to priorities for natural sciences related to the maintenance of coastal ecosystem integrity and the use of water resources consistent with this goal, and specifically does not address issues assigned to other CENR subcommittees and NSTC committees, such as global change, biodiversity, resource use and management, natural disasters, health and safety, and national security. Nonetheless, the recommendations of the NRC committee are highly pertinent to the issue of ecosystem management and specifically include recommendations concerning improvements in science-policy interactions.

Literature Cited

Bernstein, B.B., B.E. Thompson, and R.W. Smith. 1993. A combined science and management framework for developing regional monitoring objectives. Coastal Management 21: 185-195.

Boesch, D.F., N.E. Armstrong, C.F. D'Elia, N.G. Maynard, H.W. Paerl, and S.L. Williams. 1993. Deterioration of the Florida Bay Ecosystem: An Evaluation of the Scientific Evidence. Report to the Interagency Working Group on Florida Bay. National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Washington, D.C.

Boesch, D.F., M.N. Josselyn, A. J. Mehta, J.T. Morris, W.K. Nuttle, C.A. Simenstad, and D.P. Swift. 1994. Scientific assessment of coastal wetland loss, restoration and management in Louisiana. Journal of Coastal Research Spec. Issue 20:1-103.

Boesch, D.F., and S. A. Macke. 1995. Bridging the gap: What natural scientists and policymakers and implementors need to know about each other. Pp. 26-39 in Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Boesch, D.F., and N.N. Rabalais (eds.). 1987. Long-term Effects of Offshore Oil and Gas Development. Elsevier Applied Science, New York.

Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. 1994. A National R&D Strategy and Implementation Plan for Freshwater and Marine Environments. National Science and Technology Council, Washington, D.C.

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

Freudenburg, W.R., and R. Gramling. 1994. Oil in Troubled Waters: Perceptions, Politics, and the Battle over Offshore Drilling. State University of New York Press, Albany.

Gore, A. 1993. From Red Tape to Results: Creating a Government That Works Better and Costs Less. Report of the National Performance Review. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Haas, P. 1990. Saving the Mediterranean: The Politics of International Environmental Cooperation. Columbia University Press, New York.

Hennessey, T.M. 1994. Governance and adaptive management for estuarine ecosystems: The case of Chesapeake Bay. Coastal Management 22:119-145.

Lee, K.N. 1993. Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Likens, G.E. 1992. The Ecosystem Approach: Its Use and Abuse. Ecology Institute, Oldendorf, Germany.

Ludwig, D., R. Hilborn, and C. Walters. 1993. Uncertainty, resource exploitation, and conservation: Lessons from history. Science 260:17,36.

Malone, T. C., W. Boynton, T. Horton and C. Stevenson. 1993. Nutrient loadings to surface waters: Chesapeake Bay case study. Pp 8-38 in Keeping Pace with Science and Engineering, M.F. Uman, ed. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

National Research Council. 1994. Priorities for Coastal Ecosystem Science. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Office of Environmental Policy (OEP). 1994. Ecosystem Management Initiative Overview. Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C.

Sabatier, P.A. 1988. An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences 21:129-168.

Sabatier, P.A. 1995. Alternative models of the role of science in public policy: Applications to coastal zone management. Pp. 69-80 in Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the California Symposium. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Walters, C. 1986. Adaptive Management of Renewable Natural Resources. Macmillan, New York.

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

SOCIAL SCIENCE CONTRIBUTIONS TO MANAGING ECOSYSTEMS

Michael K. Orbach

Duke University Marine Laboratory

School of the Environment

Duke University

Introduction

Management of ecosystems occurs both through private sector effort and through the mechanism of public policy. In either case, what is being “managed” is not the physical environment directly, but the human behavior associated with that physical environment. In this paper, the term “physical environment” will be used to refer to the nonhuman components and processes in an environment, and the term “human ecology” to refer to the human components and processes in an environment. When we refer to the “environment, ” or “ecosystem,” we mean both the human and non-human components and processes. Although the policy and management principles and processes we discuss are generalizable to all environmental or ecosystem policy and management, we will be referring to those policies which apply particularly to coastal and marine environments and ecosystems.

All “management,” whether emanating from the private or public sector, involves human value-based decision making. The policies upon which such management is based necessarily reflect underlying human values, “value” being defined here as a culturally-defined rule or standard. The fact that humans wish to conserve natural resources is a value standard defined by humans themselves. Policies which allocate the use or benefits of natural resources are clearly based on value decisions concerning that use or benefit.

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

Policies which assign different importance to different components of the physical environment, such as those in the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), are clearly based on the cultural values humans assign to particular components of the physical environment. To varying degrees the same is true for fisheries, wetlands, general land and water use, minerals, wildlife, water quality, and other policy arenas.

Social science is the study of humankind in all of its cognitive and behavioral dimensions. If we presume policy making to be a rational deliberative process, making explicit both the bases upon which policy decisions are made and the potential impacts of those decisions on “the environment” (human and non-human), then it necessarily follows that the social sciences must be an integral part of all policy making, public and private, including the subset of environmental policy and management involving coastal and marine environments.

Having addressed the question of why social science and scientists must contribute to environmental management, we may also ask how such contributions might be made. First, we will establish the principal of a “cultural ecology” to enable us to view the human and nonhuman components of the environment as a unified system. Second, we will briefly characterize the principal social science disciplines, with a note on the role of the humanities in environmental management as well. Third, we will summarize the different ways in which social science and social scientists enter the policy-making process, and some of the structures and organizations through which they do so. Finally, we will comment briefly on some of the impediments to the use of science in policymaking that are particular, if not unique, to the social sciences.

The Cultural Ecology of Coastal and Marine Environmental Policy and Management

Just as a salt marsh or fisheries ecologist views all of the physical, chemical, and biological components and processes of a salt marsh or fishery population and habitat as interrelated, so must we view the human components and processes associated with such a marsh, population, or habitat as being interrelated. Within the larger “environment,” or “ecosystem,” encompassing both the human and non-human components, we will focus here on the human components and processes.

The cultural ecology of coastal and marine environments has two broad sub-components: (1) the human constituencies of the physical environment, for example the people who live in, use, or otherwise are concerned in their beliefs and behaviors with that physical environment, and (2) the people who make up the organizations that develop and implement the policies intended to govern the behavior of the constituencies defined in (1). The cultural ecology of coastal and marine environments, in skeletal form, is represented in Figure 1. For the purposes of this paper we have separated “scientists” as a distinct

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

component of this human ecology, a component related to both the constituencies and to the policymakers.

Figure 1 The cultural ecology of coastal and marine environments.

It is important to note that this cultural ecology includes people who may be very remote from the physical environment of the coast or ocean. Even though it is the people who actually live in the coastal environment whose behavior is most directly affected by policy decisions, coastal and marine policy may also affect—and be affected by—people who never see or visit coastal or marine environments. Coastal and marine policies affect these people because they care—that is, because they have some value orientation towards those environments —and because such people may be participants in the policy-making process even though they never personally interact with those environments. Offshore oil and gas policy is a good example of such a policy arena. Oil and gas policy affects people whether they live at the coast or not, and non-coastal residents certainly play a part in the formation of policies concerning offshore oil and gas—witness the case of oil spills.

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

On the other hand, public policymakers whose actions affect coastal constituencies are often themselves very remote from coastal and marine environments. This fact has significant implications for the ability of those policymakers to understand coastal constituencies adequately and to formulate, implement, and evaluate policy.

The symbiosis implied in Figure 1 between the human and non-human components of the environment, or ecosystem, applies to the three plenary subjects of this symposium: (1) cumulative impacts, (2) significant habitats, and (3) indicators of environmental quality. In the case of cumulative impacts, we must understand the term to mean cumulative social and economic and well as physical and biological impacts. In the case of significant habitats we must understand that term to mean the significant social and economic as well as physical and biological structures and processes. In the case of indicators of environmental quality, we must understand that term to include measures of the benefits and satisfactions derived from human perception and use of the physical environment as well as measures of the state of the physical environment itself.

To understand the human component of coastal and marine environments —and to understand the policy and management process itself—we must understand the beliefs and behaviors of all of the people in the cultural ecology outlined in Figure 1. Such understanding is the province of social science and the humanities. Humans form, along with non-human components, the coastal and marine ecosystem.

What is Social Science?

Social science is the study of humankind is all of its dimensions. Economics deals with the production and distribution of scarce goods and services. Sociology deals with the relationships among humans in their perceptual and behavioral dimensions. Psychology deals with the inner workings of each individual, with social psychology taking that analysis to the group level. Political science deals with the ways in which humans deal with the processes, principles, and structures of government and institutions. Anthropology deals with humans in both the physical and cultural dimensions, with an emphasis on cross-cultural comparison. Geography includes both the physical and cultural features of the human environment.

The humanities deserve a place in this discussion as well. History, literature, the arts—all of these provide important perspectives towards the principal goals of all social science, which is to describe and explain human beliefs and behaviors. It would be difficult for a social scientist to describe or explain some of the aspects of belief and behavior in coastal and marine environments better than writers such as London, Carson, Melville, or Steinbeck.

The theories and methods of the social sciences are myriad, but in general the approaches are very similar to those in the natural and physical sciences. Developing and

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

validating hypotheses; systematic data collection; quantitative and qualitative analysis and interpretation; all of these principles are held in common with the natural and social sciences. In addition, because of the complexity and variability of human beliefs and behaviors, social scientists often supplement the more documentable, quantifiable aspects of their analysis with more descriptive and interpretive material to convey the richness of human culture not amenable to tabular summary.

Although certain of the social sciences—notably economics and political science—have historically been involved in policy processes to a much greater extent than other social science fields, all are relevant to some portion of the policy and management process.

The Uses of Social Science in Coastal and Marine Environmental Policy and Management

We must begin this section by making a distinction between social science of environmental policy and management and social science for environmental policy and management. The former, the study of the human ecology, is useful in its own right and for many of the applications noted below. However, it is the latter—social scientific results which are actually used in the policy-making process, upon which we will focus here.

For heuristic purposes we will divide our discussion into social science and scientists in the process of policy development versus the process of policy implementation. Policy development will be defined as that portion of the process up to, but not including, the production of detailed rules and regulations. For our purposes, policy development thus includes the development of legislation and the more general policies required by the legislative mandates. Policy implementation will be defined as the development of detailed rules and regulations, enforcement, monitoring, evaluation, and revision. Although there are many conceptual frameworks within which these processes may be viewed, this broad binary division emphasizes the two behavior processes with which we are dealing: that of the people who develop the major policy principles; and that of the people who are affected by those policies.

Policy Development

The process of policy development entails several related tasks. The first is the recognition and definition of a problem or issue. The second is the construction of a human structure and process through which potential policies might be developed. The third is the development of specific policies through that structure and process. These tasks are the same whether the policy is being developed in the public or private sector, and the social sciences can assist in all of them.

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

Most coastal or marine problems or issues arise through routine channels in our existing policy and management structure, such as constituents contacting legislative representatives or administrative agency personnel; scientific advisors bringing them to the attention of policymakers; or routine monitoring producing warning signs in various measures. The social sciences can assist this process in two ways.

First, in cases where a potential problem or issue has already been brought to the attention of the policymaker, social science can assist in further defining the problem or issue and investigating its depth and dimension. Survey and sampling techniques can document the breadth and nature of concern for the issue among the constituencies. Ethnographic techniques can further define the character of the issue. Second, “scoping” survey and sampling techniques can explore for perceived problems or issues among the constituencies which may not yet have been brought to the attention of the policymakers.

Much of the structure and process of our public policy-making system is prescribed by legislation and embodied in existing regulations. However, the social scientist can assist in either restructuring existing organizations and processes or in adapting processes within existing frameworks to perform more effectively. Political scientific analysis of comparative policy-making systems, for example, can be useful in this regard. As another example, a variety of social network techniques may be used in determining which constituencies should be involved in the policy-making process.

Scientists from each social scientific discipline can assist in identifying the different human variables that must be taken into account in every policy process, and special variables that are relevant to particular issues or questions. Economists, for example, can advise on how to build the evaluation of costs and benefits into basic policy-making processes, or on how to consider such special cases as valuation of non-consumptive use of wildlife resources. All social scientists can contribute to the establishment of baseline, or base case data against which potential changes as a result of policy changes may be compared. Such contributions are in fact required under the National Environmental Policy Act and many other legislative mandates.

In the development of specific policies for specific domains such as fisheries, oil and gas, or coastal land use planning, social scientists must work alongside natural scientists in, for example, the definition of policy alternatives and in particular in the analysis of the potential impacts of those alternatives. For any potential policy alternative there is first a potential human impact, and only then, through the alteration in human behavior, a potential impact on the physical environment. The analysis of such alternative impacts was the original intent of environmental impact statements, regulatory impact reviews, and other regulatory analysis documents. The field of social impact assessment, for example, has developed in response to the requirements of such analyses.

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Policy Implementation

The second general portion of the policy-making process involves carrying out the intent of the policies. Implementing policies involves the development of those rules and regulations which actually attempt to change human behavior (something no piece of legislation ever does), the process of enforcement of those rules and regulations, monitoring, evaluation, and amendment.

It is precisely in the development of detailed rules and regulations that social scientific analysis can be most helpful. The effective design of rules and regulations must be based on accurate knowledge of the behaviors that one intends to change, and of the beliefs and perceptions of the people subject to those rules. For example, in setting a fishery policy the policymaker may have determined, using a general knowledge of conditions in a fishery, that time and area closures are the most appropriate mechanism for management of the fishery. The decisions concerning the exact location and timing of the closures, however, require a much greater level of detail concerning the behavior of the fishermen.

Monitoring and evaluation, by definition, cannot take place without social scientific data, because the major intent of regulation is to change human behavior. Whether one is evaluating the effect of regulation on specific human populations or the functioning of the regulatory process itself, it is social scientific data on human behavior which is required. The same generic requirements for monitoring (both short-term and long-term), data management, storage, and analysis, that apply to the natural sciences also apply to the social sciences.

Existing Mechanisms for Social Scientific Input

There are three mechanisms for social scientific input to environmental policy and management: (1) social scientists working internal to the public policy process, that is, as public agency employees; (2) social scientists with positions on bodies advisory to the policy process; and (3) social scientists working as researchers who provide data and analysis to the policy process.

In the first category, there are social scientific occupational categories in the federal Civil Service system, which define specific areas of social science expertise for specific applications. This situation is less true of the state systems, and even less true of local government. In some agencies, primarily at the federal level, there is a “critical mass” of social science professionals, and the ability exists to produce social science data or analysis internal to the agency. More often, however, the social scientists employed by the public-sector agencies lack this critical mass and must act essentially as “entrepreneurs ” of the social sciences. In this entrepreneurial role the social scientist must attempt to convince (1) the agencies to provide the resources for social scientific work; (2) qualified social scientists

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

outside of the agency—at universities or in private firms—to produce the social scientific data and information; and (3) the agencies to put that data or analysis to use. This is the situation that generally exists in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Minerals Management Service, the federal agencies with responsibility and authority for many coastal and marine policy issues.

In the second area, that of formal advisory functions, virtually all of the coastal and marine environmental policy sectors have included some social scientists in such functions. In fisheries, social scientists have participated on the Scientific and Statistical Committees of the Regional Fishery Management Councils; on the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee; and on specialized social science and issue task forces. In the regulation of oil and gas exploration and development, social scientists have served on the national Scientific Advisory Committee for the Minerals Management Service in the Department of Interior, and on regional and issue-oriented task forces. In coastal zone management, social scientists have served on advisory committees for state, regional, and national programs.

In addition, social scientists have participated on National Research Council (NRC) functions concerning coastal and marine issues. For example, the Ocean Studies Board and Marine Board, the Tuna-Porpoise Mortality Committee, and the NRC committees on the adequacy of environmental information for outer continental shelf oil and gas decisions have included social scientists.

In the role of data and information producers, social scientists are involved both as individual researchers and as participants in formal organizational arrangements, such as cooperative agreements between regulatory agencies and universities or partnership projects between regulatory agencies and private entities. There are common challenges that arise in many such arrangements, stemming from the different organizational cultures of each entity, and from the attempt to use social scientists or social scientific information in the policy process in general.

Impediments to the Use of Social Scientists and Social Scientific Data in the Coastal and Marine Environmental Policy Process

There are three generic problems in the use of social science in environmental policy and management. The first concerns the perceived nature of the social, as compared to the natural, sciences. The second involves the support and resources available for social science applications in coastal policy. The third concerns the actual translation of social scientific data into the policy process.

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Is Social Science Science?

At the beginning of this paper we argued that social science involves the same general processes as any scientific endeavor (hypothesis development, systematic data collection, etc.) There is, however, a perception that the social sciences are a different kind of science from the natural sciences. Part of this perception is due to the extensive use of qualitative methodologies and the production of data not amenable to tabular summary. Part is due to the difference between data points of relative stability in characteristic and behavior, such as those geologists study, and data points (people) with generally wide variability in characteristic and behavior that social scientists study. Biology, dealing in the coastal application with non-human living organisms, lies somewhere between geology and sociology on this dimension.

Another aspect of social science that is different from natural science is that social science deals with organisms that have motive and perception themselves. In many cases these organisms are reactive to the scientific process in ways that may alter the results of the study in question. Fishermen change their behavior to adapt to a regulatory process, thereby confusing the initial social impact assessment; oil companies employ strategies which may alter the nature of the policy-making process itself. Fish and oil do not behave in this manner.

Having noted these characteristics, however, it is fair to point out that (1) social science uses both qualitative and quantitative approaches; (2) variability is simply a parameter which must be taken into account in the design and analysis of a project; and (3) reactions to studies or policy processes are themselves social scientific data. Although the perception of social science as “different” clearly exists, the objective components of this perception may be fully, if not easily, addressed.

Support and Resources for Coastal Social Science

There are relatively few social scientists employed in regulatory agencies. Funding for social science research, especially in the applied areas, in programs such as those of the National Science Foundation, the National Sea Grant College Program, and the programs of the line agencies, such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or the Minerals Management Service, has been much smaller than that for the natural sciences. Although social scientists serve on advisory groups, their potential for input has been restricted by the lack of data to use in their functions, and by the kind of perception referred to above. To some extent this is a chicken-and-egg problem: If social science were better understood as a part of the public policy process, it would receive more funding and support; but more funding and support is dependent on the provision of clear examples of where and how social science is relevant, the production of which is dependent on funding and support.

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Translating Social Science into Policy

The greatest challenge in incorporating the social sciences into policy making is in answering the “so what?” question. Once we know the value of a resource in its different forms and uses to different potential users, how do we allocate it? Once we know that a potentially affected community has a certain social structure, how do we take that into account? If a national management regime should be merged with state and local regimes to best accomplish the policy objective, how do we accomplish that reconfiguration of the public policy process?

There are at least three factors which affect the ability of social science and scientists to enter the policy process. The first has to do with the personal characteristics of the scientist themselves. The second is an issue of skills and training. The third involves, for lack of a better term, serendipity.

Scientists go into their chosen field for many different reasons, among them interest in the substance of the field; the appeal of the inquisitive life; or comfort with the university or other institutional setting. Scientists often, however, place a high value on the order and control inherent in scientific research, especially that research amenable to experimentation. Unfortunately, most applied science —including by definition most science relevant for coastal and marine policy making—takes place under anything but conditions of order and control.

Scientists often feel that environmental policy becomes “political” rather than “scientific.” This is in part a major and basic misperception on their part because, as we pointed out at the beginning of this paper, all environmental policy is value-based decision making, which is essentially and incontrovertibly “political.” When added to the general lack of control over many of the research variables, this distaste for the “political” thwarts many efforts to involve scientists in the policy-making process.

Second, the ability to take scientific research results of any kind and integrate them into the policy process is a skill—a teachable, technical ability. At the very least, it involves the “translator ” having virtually as good a basic working knowledge of the public policy portion of the human ecology of the system as they do of the constituent or physical environment portion of the system. This is true as well for natural and physical scientists; to fold their knowledge into policymaking they must have a knowledge of the policy-making system itself. These are generally skills not included in the basic training of scientists.

Finally, the effective translation of social scientific knowledge into policy often involves having the right combination of conditions occurring at the right time. The data collection must be organized under a conceptual framework oriented to the particular policy problem or issue. Funding must be available in the correct amount and time frame. Trained personnel must be available for both the research and the “translations” into the policy

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

process. Resources for monitoring and evaluation must be available. All of these factors and inputs to the process are difficult to control, and are often accomplished serendipitously.

Conclusion

All environmental, or ecosystem, policy and management is value-based decision making. The effective development and implementation of such policy and management must take place within a complete framework of the cultural as well as physical ecology of coastal environments and constituents. There is a place in this process for all of the social science disciplines, and the humanities as well, with both quantitative and qualitative data and information.

Specific roles for social scientists may be internal to the policy-making organization, as advisors to the process, or as producers of the social scientific data and information itself. These are roles with unique characteristics, and for which specific knowledge, training, and often specific temperaments are required. All of these roles must be filled for the effective production and translation of social science into policy.

Although several impediments exist to the full incorporation of social scientists into the coastal and marine policy-making process, that incorporation must be accomplished before we will have a fully rational, comprehensive system for our value-based environmental policies.

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

ON THE ROLE OF SCIENCE IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF NATIONAL COASTAL OCEAN MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

Robert W. Knecht

Center for the Study of Marine Policy

University of Delaware

Introduction

Through studies of various policy areas, analysts have come to understand the “policy process” as consisting of five or six rather discrete phases. The role of science in each of these phases can be expected to be somewhat different, both in degree of potential impact on the process and in the nature of the interaction. The goal of this paper is to explore the science-policy interface—both existing and potential—at various stages of the policy process in the context of a number of national coastal ocean management programs. Examples will be drawn from the national Coastal Zone Management Program, the National Estuary Program, the Outer Continent Shelf Oil and Gas Program, fisheries management under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and marine mammal protection under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

It is clear that virtually everyone favors strengthening the scientific basis and the technical soundness of public policy making. Indeed, policymakers often plead for scientific studies to guide and support their decisions and this is quite understandable. If well understood causal relationships are in hand, policy making becomes a much easier task. For example, if concentrations of silt in coastal waters greater than a particular level have been clearly shown to inhibit the growth of corals, then it is relatively straightforward to put a policy in place that regulates those shoreland activities that generate silt runoffs at such levels.

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

The difficulty lies in the fact that a great deal of coastal and ocean policy making is taking place without the benefit of a full (or in some cases even partial) causal understanding of the processes involved. This occurs, of course, because of the desire, especially by elected policy bodies, to take action of some sort to reduce or eliminate unwanted outcomes. The typical response is to formulate a policy and create a new program to achieve the agreed policy goals even if there is no clear evidence to link the chosen means to the desired end.

Hence, we now have in place coastal zone management (CZM) programs aimed at confronting a wide range of increasingly serious problems, which employ approaches that may or may not be effective. We have fishery management programs in use which use prescribed management devices yet it is freely admitted that we do not really understand why fish populations vary the way they do. Similarly, achievement of our policy of “no net loss” of wetlands depends upon an effective mitigation effort, especially with regard to the restoration of degraded wetlands; however, the requisite scientific understanding is not yet available.

We find ourselves in the situation mentioned above because society often demands some sort of public action even in advance of full understanding. In some cases, it is possible that an empirically derived relationship can be used to good effect even without a full understanding of how a particular remedy works. The use of small daily doses of aspirin to ward off heart attacks may be a case in point.

The purpose of this paper, as mentioned above, is to examine the present role of “science” in national coastal ocean management programs. The aim is to obtain a better understanding of why science seems to play a stronger role in some parts of the policy process than in other parts and in some coastal ocean programs than in others. Particular emphasis is placed on implementation and evaluation as stages in the policy process where the greater attention to scientific rigor could have a substantial payoff. To accomplish these aims, the paper is divided into four parts:

  1. science and its place in the policy process,

  2. program implementation as an experimental process,

  3. the use of science in national coastal ocean programs, and

  4. conclusions.

Science and Its Place in the Policy Process

The term, the policy process, is used here to describe the various stages that a policy goes through from the earliest recognition that an emerging problem (or opportunity) is likely to require a new policy or policy change to the final step when action is taken to modify or terminate the policy in question. Brewer and deLeon defined six steps—(1) initiation, (2) estimation, (3) selection, (4) implementation, (5) evaluation, and (6) termination (Brewer and

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

deLeon, 1983). For purposes of this study, steps 2 and 3 have been combined under the term “formulation” and step 6 has been renamed modification and/or termination. The categories we will use in this study, therefore, are policy initiation, policy formulation, policy implementation, policy evaluation, and policy modification and/or termination.

Policy initiation refers to the initial stage, wherein a problem is recognized and placed on the national agenda; policy formulation takes place when, after a review of available options, a specific policy response is drafted into legislation; policy implementation is the process by which the mechanisms called for in the legislation (to achieve the policy goals) are made operational; policy evaluation is the stage of the process wherein the results being obtained by the newly implemented mechanisms are compared to the policy outcomes being sought; and, finally, policy modification/termination describes the process by which the results of the evaluation are used in a feedback sense to either modify the program accordingly or to terminate it (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 Stages in the policy process.

It is important to note that the existence of this framework for better understanding the policy process is, itself, the product of the application of the methods of social science. Thus, when we employ this methodology in the present study, we are using an analytically derived instrument in our analysis.

Before examining how “science” relates to each of these stages, it is useful to discuss what is meant by “science” in this paper. Science, as used here, refers to the extent to which the scientific method or scientific approach is employed. By scientific approach we mean the systematic use of analytically or technically rigorous methodologies. Also implied is the use of scientifically derived data and information when such data are needed. This use of scientific data and information involves not only the methods of the natural sciences but the methodologies and approaches of the social sciences as well (economics, geography, political science, law, etc.).

That having been stated, it is important to stress that “science” in the context of the policy process is more than simply the injection of scientifically derived results at various points in the process, although this is an important part of it. I believe that science can play a significant role in structuring important parts of the process itself. In the section on

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

program implementation as an experimental process (below), for example, it is suggested that, given the novelty of the approaches being taken, much, if not all, of the implementation stage of the policy process as it pertains to coastal resource management programs should be thought of as “experimental” in nature. With this in mind, a properly designed implementation process can produce a great deal of information that can be of direct value in modifying the approaches being used or in later efforts of a similar nature. Too little use of this kind of “feedback” is seen. Similarly, a more scientific (more rigorous) approach to coastal zone management would involve much greater emphasis on the evaluation of outcomes and the subsequent adjustment of the management process based on such assessments.

Thus, I believe that the science-policy interface is a very broad one indeed—that science can (and should) play a role in a number of steps in the policy process, particularly in the design and execution of the implementation and evaluation phases.

The possible roles of science in each of the five stages of the policy process are briefly described below.

Policy Initiation

The role of science at this, the earliest stage in the policy process, is somewhat uneven in practice. Science can play a very large role if the issue in question is perceived as largely a technical one —for example, the effect of chlorofluorocarbons on the ozone layer or greenhouse gases on global warming. On the other hand, science is sometimes “used” by special interest advocates trying to attract attention to the need for new public policy in a given area. But clearly, science has an important role to play at this stage in assisting in “framing ” the policy issue to insure that, at the later stages, some intellectual clarity is present. Also, given the wide variety of issues demanding attention and the fact that resources are almost always limited, science can help in winnowing out trivial or unimportant issues and in setting priorities.

It should be remembered, however, that there are factors at work that tend to reduce or restrict general access to the policy initiation stage. Policy initiation, almost by definition, is a decentralized activity that occurs very early in the policy process. It is possible, therefore, that the opportunity to apply good science to an emerging policy issue may only come at the next stage—the policy formulation stage.

Policy Formulation

It is useful to think of policy formulation as having two parts: (1) the development of policy options and (2) incorporation of selected options into legislation.

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
  1. The process of formulating an appropriate range of options to deal with particular problems can and often does benefit from science and the use of the scientific approach. At this stage, there is generally a strong desire for objective analyses of available options. Both the natural sciences and the social sciences can play important roles. To the extent that the issue has a technical component, such as fisheries management, the natural sciences come into play. To the extent that normative values will be used to differentiate one option from another, the social sciences can be helpful. Also, the social sciences, especially political science, law, public administration, and economics, are often critical in the analysis of the social and administrative viability of various options.

  2. The process of converging on a single option and writing it into law is heavily political, of course. At this stage especially, the processes of accommodation, trade offs, and bargaining take place, most of which can be seen as the antithesis of a rigorous approach. Science per se may be used, but probably to justify preconceived or preferred options. In this setting, one set of recruited scientists sometimes is pitted against another, especially if the policy area under discussion is complex and lacks agreed methodologies.

Policy Implementation

In policy areas involving the coastal zone and the coastal ocean and management of the resources contained therein, the implementation phase is by far the longest and, many would argue, the most important. This situation is especially true if one includes the entire operational phase of a management program in the implementation phase. Implementation is the phase of the policy process during which (1) the activities necessary to convert a piece of legislation into an operational program are undertaken (interpretations of the statute, preparation of rules and regulations, creation of an administrative structure and operational procedures, etc.) and (2) the operation of the program begins and, generally, continues indefinitely. Although science can play important roles in both aspects of implementation, it can be perceived to be in competition with bureaucratic necessities during this stage. Because of the central importance of this phase of the policy process, it is dealt with more extensively later in the paper.

Policy Evaluation

As is well known, this is often the most neglected stage in the policy process. All too frequently, the policy process ends with the implementation phase, with little or no serious evaluation ever taking place. In part, this is understandable, given the inherent difficulties of program evaluation. Self evaluation (evaluation conducted by those administering the program) lacks the appearance of objectivity, whereas “outside” evaluations sometimes also have certain biases built into them. But, perhaps most important, is the fact that outcome-related data against which to assess program performance are frequently either not

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

available or not reliable. Relatedly, the stated goals of some management programs are so general, so diffuse, or so conflicting that they do not lend themselves to ready evaluation.

Designing appropriate evaluation methodologies clearly demands good science. Indeed, in my view, much more attention needs to be placed on this aspect of the policy process. Without rigorous evaluation procedures in place, coastal resource management programs could be “flying blind.” How is it possible to improve management programs over time without objective, reliable, and timely information on how well they are doing? Designing sound programs to obtain this kind of information for use in systematic evaluation efforts should be given high scientific priority. The social sciences can play an important role here.

Policy Modification/Termination

The point of periodic evaluation of management programs is to inform the process of program modification and, where appropriate, termination. If the legislation being implemented is absolutely straightforward, with little or no discretion given to the implementors, and no uncertainty exists with regard to achievement of the desired outcomes, then it might be safe to assume that the operation of the newly implemented program is producing the desired results. Obviously this is virtually never the case. More realistic is the assumption, especially with regard to coastal zone and coastal ocean management initiatives, that considerable discretion is left to the implementing agency and that the linkage between program inputs and desired program outcomes is ill-defined and poorly understood. In the real world, therefore, periodic adjustment or modification of the program based on the results of carefully conducted, regular evaluations is a vital aspect of a properly functioning policy process.

Program Implementation as an Experimental Process

We now turn to a more detailed examination of the program implementation phase of the policy process which, together with the evaluation phase, holds great promise to benefit from more attention to science and the scientific approach.

The discussion below is divided into three parts: (1) the nature of the implementation process; (2) implementation as an experiment; and (3) the need for a technically sound evaluation process.

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
The Nature of the Implementation Process

During the implementation process, the intent of Congress as embodied in the legislation is converted into a working program complete with rules and regulations; procedures; staffing and offices; and, sometimes, a field structure. Far from being a straightforward process, a substantial measure of policy making is usually called for to fill gaps in the legislation; to interpret unclear or ambiguous provisions; and to deal with unanticipated issues. Furthermore, if the coastal states and/or local governments are to be included in the program, the federal agency assigned the responsibility for implementation of the legislation immediately confronts a “double bind.” The agency must attempt to design the details of the new program in such a way as to accommodate the differences between states (in terms of politics, administrative structure, tradition, etc.) while at the same time struggling to put uniform standards in place across the nation as a whole.

As mentioned above, it is useful to divide the implementation process into two parts: (1) the initial period shortly after the enactment of the legislation when a number of one-time activities, such as the writing of rules and regulations, are undertaken in preparation for the operational phase of the program and (2) the operation of the program itself, a phase likely to extend over a number of years. In principle, both parts should be candidates for strong scientific input, because the heavy politics surrounding the shaping of the legislation will generally not be present and since the implementing agency is usually given a rather significant amount of discretion in most legislation. Yet factors are present that tend to mitigate against the use of science. For one thing, time pressures almost inevitably exist since, increasingly, Congress is setting the timetable for the preparation of rules and regulations in the legislation itself. Agency staff, under these conditions, turn to familiar approaches to compile the requisite new rules, regulations, and procedures, such as the use of specialized consultants or in-house staff familiar with the bureaucratic timelines and constraints.

Another barrier to the use of more science in the initial implementation phase relates to the matter of agency culture and the emphasis in the implementation process on legal and policy issues. During this critical period in gearing up a new program, staff tends to focus on Congressional intent, the needs of the clients (including the coastal states), and the review procedures for new regulations inside the government (other federal agencies and the Office of Management and Budget). In this environment, unless specifically called for in the legislation, using the best science in deriving proposed new regulations may seem an unnecessary luxury.

The second phase of implementation is the long-term operation of the program itself. For programs that are funded (in part) by the federal government and conducted (for the most part) by the states and territories, as many coastal resource management programs are, a strong intergovernmental focus develops. Indeed, implementation at this stage often becomes an activity involving not only the responsible federal agency but counterpart state

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

and local agencies as well. In the process the emphasis shifts from questions of interpretation of the legislation and the establishment of working procedures, to intergovernmental coordination, administration (grants management, etc.), and oversight. And at the state and local levels, concentration is on the formulation of responses to the new federal mandates and, sometimes, to new state mandates as well, through the establishment and operation of the resource management programs. Again, while the potential is large for the application of science to put the soundest possible management and regulatory programs in place, the bureaucratic pressures tend to push in other directions.

Implementation as an Experiment

As can be seen from above, the implementation phase is largely conducted in a sequential fashion. This phase is usually seen as a process whereby regulations and procedures are created at the federal level and are received and interpreted at the state level, leading to regulatory and management programs which are operated at state and local levels. In some cases, state legislative mandates in coastal management predate federal initiatives and state programs are already in place.

One can question whether this linear approach is the best way to undertake the implementation of programs that often contain untried concepts and novel approaches. Furthermore, these new approaches are being tried in greatly varying state and territorial settings. These very different contexts challenge both the initial phase of the implementation process, wherein national uniformity is sought in rules and regulations, and, as well, the operational phase of the program, which anticipates that each of the 35 or so coastal state and territorial programs will follow a generally similar course.

New concepts are built into coastal and ocean management legislation with some regularity. The federal consistency provisions and the national interest requirements were virtually untested concepts when they were incorporated into the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. The concept of “optimum yield,” in the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and the approach embodied in “optimum sustainable population, ” in the Marine Mammal Protection Act, were also new ideas. Yet, the implementation processes generally proceeded as if the legislative language, the national rules and regulations, and the state responses to them were bound to be “right” (or close enough) the first time out! Most of us would agree that this “faith” in the success of our initial efforts to deal with new concepts is probably misplaced. The potential difficulties represented in this approach are increased still further when one realizes that objective data upon which to evaluate the success or failure of these (new and untested) efforts are generally not available.

The coastal states and territories are exceptionally varied in their characteristics. These differences extend from the structure of the state government; the individual endowments of coastal resources, and the nature and perceived urgency of coastal and ocean

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

problems, to political traditions; the relations between states and their local governments; the varying roles and power of interest groups; economic conditions; the goals and values of the electorate; and many other factors. Virtually all of these factors affect the way in which the implementation of national coastal and ocean resource management programs proceed in a given state. Some factors make the process easier, others slow it down, and still others have a diversionary effect. All of these influences (and many others) leave their “mark ” on the implementation process—for example, on the extent to which commissions or councils are used in CZM permitting; on the “transparency” (or lack thereof) of the regulatory process; on the role of local governments and resource management; on the degree to which science is used in the decision making; and on many other aspects of the implementation process.

Each state and territory also experiences a generally different stream of coastal and ocean issues, problems, and opportunities throughout the implementation process. It is true that most coastal states have had to confront the same set of particular national issues as these arose (i.e., acceleration in the national Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas program) but, for the most part, the particular combination of issues confronted by each state CZM program was unique to that program. These differences, too, had varying influences on the implementation process.

Taken together with the structural differences between the states discussed above, these factors ensure that what emerges from the national level as a set of uniform rules, regulations, procedures, and guidance will necessarily generate a wide variety of responses as the implementation proceeds at the state and local level. States will structure and empower their management efforts very differently. For example, they will choose different regulatory devices; they will house their management programs in different agencies; and will give them greatly varying amounts of visibility and/or autonomy, depending on their own realities, constraints, and opportunities.

Indeed, after 10 to 15 years of evolution, for example, the 35 state and territorial CZM programs look very different from one another. One would scarcely believe that they represented responses to the same piece of federal legislation. Yet all have been certified by the federal government as meeting the standards of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. The differences between these programs are not random. The specific characteristics that they now possess can be traced to the individual peculiarities of each state and territory —peculiarities in the state politics, structure, administration, traditions, bureaucratic culture, and differences in the coastal and ocean environment and resource issues faced by each state.

In effect then, the implementation process under these conditions should be seen as a large scale social science experiment and designed as such. This would mean that states and territories would more systematically document why certain changes in the structure, implementation, and/or operation of their programs took place. More care would be taken to be aware of key decisions made in the structure or operation of the programs and the reasons

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

for the actions taken. Most importantly, considerably more attention would be paid to the evaluation issue. Program resources would be allocated to the design and implementation of processes to measure the extent to which CZM programs (for example) achieved expressly articulated goals. This would entail setting specific, “on-the-ground ” goals and objectives, probably on an annual basis, and creating a process to collect the data on results and outcomes necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of the management program in reaching the specified goals.

With this kind of information, we could better understand the kind of CZM experiment that is being conducted in California, or in South Carolina, or in Delaware and could derive some important new information from these extensive (and expensive) experiments. For example, California has gained a wealth of experience on the pros and cons of employing a politically appointed regulatory commission as a part of its CZM program. On the other hand, Delaware has shown what can be done in coastal management using a minimum of dedicated administrative structure and staff.

Thus, it would seem that the incorporation of this additional rigor is essential if coastal zone management or other coastal programs are to become more scientifically grounded programs. Some of the implications of this are discussed in the next part.

Need for a Technically Sound Evaluation Process

Four steps are necessary to create a more rigorous assessment process:

  1. the establishment and articulation of a clear set of goals for coastal management programs to achieve in a prescribed time period

  2. the design and operation of subprograms to achieve each of the agreed goals

  3. the collection of data necessary to evaluate the extent to which each of the individual goals were met in the prescribed time period

  4. comparison of goals with outcomes, analysis of results, and the formulation of appropriate program modifications (or termination)

Each of these are discussed briefly below.

Setting Goals—Goals undoubtedly are already being set by coastal management programs, but in many cases these are process-related, not outcome-related, goals. For example, a state may have the goal of issuing new regulations on wetlands during the coming year or the goal to increase wetland enforcement actions by thirty percent, both being process-related goals. Alternatively, a state could have the goal of cutting the rate of state coastal wetland loss to

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

no more than 1,000 acres during the next year (a decrease from a rate of 2,000 acres per year averaged over the last three years). Specific, outcome-oriented, “on-the-ground” goals should be set in each of the major goal areas of the management program in question. For CZM programs, these would typically include wetlands protection, beach and dune management; improved public access; management of coastal development to reduce losses due to natural hazards (erosion, storms); and, soon, the management of non-point source pollution. As much as possible, the goals developed in each of these areas should be expressed quantitatively and progress toward the achievement of the goals should be subject to observation and measurement. To the extent that the goals can be expressed in quantitative terms, it should, in principle, be possible to place a “value” on the achievement of each of the goals and hence on the regulatory functions of the overall CZM program. Of course, work on establishing the value of fully functioning natural coastal wetlands of various types is still very much in its infancy and the ability to estimate benefit-cost ratios, to the extent that they are desired, may be still somewhat in the future. Nonetheless, even the information on how much is being spent per acre to protect coastal wetlands would be of considerable interest.

Program Operation—The more rigorous approach to coastal management would require that specific attention be paid to the individual parts of the state' s coastal management program associated with each of the agreed goals —that a clear methodology be set out showing what will be done during the next 12 months to achieve each of the goals. Using the wetland example above, the plan would show how the 2,000 acres per year loss was going to be reduced to 1,000 acres per year loss—perhaps 500 of the 1,000 would come from increased enforcement actions and the other 500 from a series of pending rezoning actions. The important point here is that the plan to achieve each of the goals should be shown in sufficient detail to allow a later determination as to which parts need modification based on a year-end analysis of actual achievements.

Collection of Outcomes Data—Surprisingly, relative little attention has been given to this need as yet. However, with the specific goals of the management program in a given year more clearly spelled out, the collection of outcome-related data should become a relatively straightforward task. Questions regarding the kind of data needed and how to collect them should be resolved as an integral part of the goal-setting exercise. Indeed, the setting of concrete goals and the methodology to be used to determine the extent to which the goals are achieved should be seen as part of the same task. Without doubt, proper attention to this aspect will require the investment of resources (time, money) devoted expressly to this need. New data reporting schemes may have to be established.

Analysis and Program Modification/Termination—The final step begins with a comparison of the individual goals and the related outcomes data. To the extent that shortfalls exist, an analysis should be undertaken to attempt to relate the shortfalls to the methodology that the program put in place in order to achieve the outcome. If shortfalls in desired outcomes can be traced back to specific program elements, modifications or changes can be made in the

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

deficient elements. Ultimately, the analysis may show that the management program or parts of it are no longer cost effective and that termination is indicated.

The Use of Science in National Coastal/Ocean Programs

This section discusses the role of science in four major national coastal ocean programs—(1) the Coastal Zone Management Program (under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as amended), (2) the Fisheries Management Program (under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 as amended), (3) the Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Program (under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments of 1978 as amended), and (4) the Marine Mammal Protection Program (under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972 as amended). The purpose of the section is to describe the way that (and the extent that) science is now incorporated into or influences these programs and to provide some examples where increased use of science appears to be occurring.

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972

Much of the earlier discussion used examples drawn from the Coastal Zone Management Program and these will not be repeated here. The CZMA has no provisions that explicitly bring science into the policy making and management processes with the exception of the estuarine reserve research provision, which encourages research in formally designated estuarine reserves. The Act seeks to “preserve, protect, develop, and, where possible, restore and enhance the resources of the coastal zone” by encouraging the coastal states to exercise their full authority. “Encouragement” is provided in the form of grants, technical assistance, and the incentives implicit in the additional intergovernmental leverage offered in the federal consistency provisions.

In contrast to other programs where the overall goal is reasonably specific (i.e., protecting marine mammals or managing fish), the CZMA has multiple, sometimes inconsistent goals, which clearly add complexity to the program. Furthermore the tractability of the marine mammal and fishery management problems is substantially higher than in the case of CZM. As Kem Lowry has put it (Lowry, 1985):

The CZMA is unique among national environmental programs in its lack of an explicit causal theory. It sets no standards and prescribes no intervention technologies for coastal resources management. It is not based on a set of hypotheses about the relationships among specific management techniques and desirable outcomes.

Lowry goes on to say that the approach used in the CZMA involves “variables that are related in poorly understood ways and for which no widely accepted solutions exist.”

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

Prohibiting the “take” of marine mammals as prescribed in the MMPA should restore the populations of these animals, which is a central goal of MMPA. Managing fishing effort, one of the measures called for in the Magnuson Fishery and Conservation Management Act (FCMA), should restore fisheries abundance. But, does it necessarily follow that providing financial assistance and intergovernmental incentives to states will necessarily lead to reduced losses of wetlands; increased public access to the shoreline; and fewer losses from natural coastal hazards—all goals of the CZMA?

In terms of the overall goals of CZM, since 1980 there has been a steady effort, both in legislative amendments to the CZMA and in administrative oversight, to specify the national goals of CZM with less ambiguity and more clarity. Indeed, today it is probably possible to lay out a set of national coastal goals that would be accepted by most of the concerned interests. However, systematic and rigorous evaluation of the extent that the CZM programs of the nation are achieving these goals (and others set by the individual states) is not yet underway.

In addition to overall program soundness issues as discussed above, most of the technical areas of CZM have important scientific aspects. Management of coastal erosion requires a detailed understanding of coastal processes; restoration and creation of coastal wetlands requires a good appreciation of the various natural functions of wetlands and the extent to which they can be replicated in man-modified or man-created systems. Research needs such as these should be systematically identified, and funding should be found for the necessary studies. The 1990 amendments to the CZMA reemphasize the technical assistance dimension of coastal zone management. The agency administering this program (the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) intends to substantially strengthen the technical assistance part of their activity.

The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act

The legislation is fashioned with the need for scientific information in mind. Scientific and statistical committees are called for as a part of each regional council structure, and councils are mandated to take account of the recommendation of these committees in devising specific fishery management plans. Recently, fishery management-related scientific studies have focused on rationalizing the fishery allocation process in order that commercial fishing can be done in a more economically efficient manner. One of the new schemes being tested—individual transferable quotas (ITQs)—emerged directly from the research studies of fishery economists.

While some analysts may see the first introduction of ITQs into U.S. fisheries management programs as an “experiment,” the implementation of the new program must apparently go forward as if fishermen were receiving, using, and trading fixed percentages of

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

the total allowable catch of the fish stock (e.g., surf clams off the Mid-Atlantic coast), which they will hold (own) in perpetuity. If this situation were not perceived to be permanent, fishermen would be less inclined to take the long-term view in seeking the best strategies to protect their economic interest, hence, invalidating one of the central tenets of the privatization approach. This “reality ” seems to rule out the possibility to do very much preliminary research or pilot studies on ITQs prior to their universal adoption in a given fishery.

Many important scientific questions remain with respect to fisheries management. For example, fishery scientists are not yet in a position to ascribe many of the observed variations in fish abundance to specific causes (pollution, overfishing, habitat loss, etc.), although clearly, this kind of understanding is basic to a rational management program.

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments (OCSLAA)

The offshore oil and gas activities in the United States are governed under the OCSLAA of 1978. This legislation contains an explicit “science” component—the Environmental Studies Program (ESP) of the Minerals Management Service (MMS). The purpose of the ESP is to conduct studies in support of the overall national offshore oil and gas program. Quite a bit of research has been done under this program, although some critics charge that the results do not seem to be closely related to the policy- and decision-making processes. Due to conflicts among some of the coastal states, environmental interests, and the federal government, both the Congress and the President have placed moratoria on the leasing of certain offshore ocean areas over the last six years. The resumption of preparations for leasing in some of these areas has been predicated on the completion of an adequate set of environmental studies. A recent National Research Council study, conducted at the request of MMS, also pointed out that the ESP has not supported enough social and economic studies in its program to date (National Research Council, 1993). Recommendations were made with regard to a wide range of studies that are needed.

An important difference exists between the OCS oil and gas program and the two programs discussed above (CZM and fisheries management). The first two programs are truly intergovernmental in nature, with the states and territories playing active roles as “partners” with the federal government. [The same is true for the National Estuary Program discussed below.] The oil and gas program (and the marine mammal protection program discussed below, as well) is first and foremost a federal program, operated principally for national purposes with the states limited to an advisory role (except for the legal leverage gained through the operation of the federal consistency provisions of the CZMA). Better science can sometimes reduce conflict in controversial development proposals by narrowing the difference between estimates of adverse effects. However, conflicts directly related to perceived inequities in decision-making power must be addressed directly by adjustments in policy- and decision-making procedures.

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

In addition to questions regarding the adequacy of socioeconomic studies of the impacts of offshore oil and gas development and the debate over the role of the states and territories in decision making, a number of other issues involving the more technical aspects of offshore oil and gas operations have also faced the program. One example would be the impacts of the use and disposal of drilling muds on the surrounding environment and the resources contained therein. Are such muds injurious to the marine environment and to marine resources? If so, under what conditions? Too often, even after MMS has funded environmental studies to examine issues such as this one, controversy continues. Controversy may persist because the validity of particular findings are in question, or the interpretation of the results is debatable. Recently, MMS is making greater use of outside peer review groups to help in the drafting of work statements; in the review of requests for proposals and in the selection of research proposals to be funded. Hopefully, this more rigorous scientific approach to the operation of the ESP will contribute to a more widely accepted offshore oil and gas program.

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972

From the beginning, science has been an integral part of the national effort to protect marine mammals in the United States. The legislation —the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972—authorized the creation of the Marine Mammal Commission and a committee of scientific advisors on marine mammals. There was (and still is) a close working connection between the agencies implementing and enforcing the legislation (the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service), the Marine Mammal Commission, and the marine mammal scientific community. The prominence of science may be attributable to the fact that a tractable problem is posed in the legislation—that of protecting marine mammals by prohibiting the taking of the animals and through other related measures. Science has a clear place in assisting in the achievement of that goal. Scientific studies are undertaken of ways to achieve optimum sustainable populations and of all of the factors affecting the health and well-being of various types of marine mammals. Science also is used in developing innovative methodologies to estimate population levels of animals that are sometimes difficult to observe. Research is carried out with regard to the effects of changes in habitat, pollution, food supply, and other changes that could affect various species.

On the other hand, fewer studies seem to be undertaken of the interactions between marine mammals and other species, for example fish stocks, which are not under the same kind of protective regime. Also, few studies of the long-term implications of the policy of near absolute protection have appeared in the literature and, with the exception of research involving indigenous peoples, relatively few social science studies exist.

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
National Estuary Program

The National Estuary Program (NEP) is the newest coastal ocean management program to appear at the federal level. Formally authorized by the 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act, 21 of our nation's most important estuaries are now a part of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-administered effort. The aim of the program is to produce improved management of important estuaries in the United States, using a waterbody-drainage basin approach and not an approach structured principally by political boundaries and jurisdictions.

The legislation and EPA's operational guidance together have built a significant science component into each of the estuary programs. Patterned after the “flagship” program—Chesapeake Bay—scientific and technical advisory committees are created as one of the major organizational elements of each program. These committees oversee research programs aimed at filling the gaps in understanding the behavior of the estuaries in question. If the Delaware estuary program is a representative example, the bulk of the funding available to the individual NEP programs during their first several years goes into research and characterization studies of the estuaries.

With the completion and federal approval of the initial comprehensive conservation management plans (CCMPs), the first several estuary programs are entering the “implementation” phase, notably Buzzards Bay (Massachusetts) and Puget Sound (Washington). No specific implementation plan had been included in the 1987 legislation on the assumption, presumably, that each of the agencies in the “management conference” (a body of all of the involved and affected federal, state, and local agencies) would accept the responsibility to implement those portions of the CCMP under their control. Relatively little NEP funding appears to be going into management or implementation-related research, although a novel program like NEP would seemingly benefit from such studies.

Estimates of the degree of science involvement in each of the five coastal ocean management programs are noted in Figure 2. Entries in the table have been subjectively estimated by the author based on reference to the underlying legislation; the nature of the implementation processes used in connection with the five programs; and a general appraisal of the policy making approaches in each area.

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

Figure 2 Science and national coastal/ocean management programs.

Figure 2 shows that “science” is explicitly built into four of the five coastal ocean management programs. Only the CZM program has no such element. Of the five programs, the marine mammal protection program is judged to be the most tractable; the fisheries management program and the offshore oil and gas program, the second most tractable; the estuary management program is of “moderate” tractability; and the CZM program is the least tractable (Cicin-Sain, 1986). Estimates of the degree that the natural sciences are involved in the program suggest that the most tractable program is likely to have a larger natural science involvement than the less tractable program. Similar estimates for the social sciences suggest an involvement more than minimal in only two program areas, fisheries management and offshore oil and gas.

Conclusions and Suggestions

I have argued that science can play an important role in the formulation, implementation, and operation of national coastal ocean management programs. In practice, however, the role is uneven and varies from program to program and is dependent on the phase of the policy process. Figure 3 below contains a list of some of the principal ways that, in my view, science can have a positive influence on the coastal ocean policy, decision-making, and management process.

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

Taking into account the opportunities for science input suggested in Figure 3, several suggestions are offered to those agencies currently funding coastal ocean science research. This research is being conducted to support improved policy making, decision making, and management, and to support those responsible for the drafting of legislation and the implementation and operation of national coastal ocean management programs.

  1. Coastal ocean management legislation should contain specific mandates for regular, objective evaluation of the management systems resulting from the legislation.

  2. Coastal ocean research programs justified on the basis of improving policy, decision making, and management should involve active managers of coastal ocean resource management programs in all of the processes related to project selection, funding, and oversight.

  3. Agencies implementing coastal ocean resource management programs containing new and relatively untested concepts should adopt implementation strategies that acknowledge the experimental nature of such programs.

  4. Coastal and ocean resource management programs should regularly collaborate to (a) develop and maintain a list of the most critical scientific and technical needs facing such programs and (b) ensure that these research needs are regularly forwarded to agencies funding research in this area. My suggestions for an initial list of candidate items are given below.

Topics Deserving Additional Research Emphasis

A number of topics should be the focus of additional research, including:

  • development of appropriate mitigation and restoration strategies based on a full understanding of the natural functioning of wetlands,

  • improved understanding of eutrophication and algal blooms,

  • effective management measures for non-point source pollution control,

  • determination of coastal erosion rates,

  • methodologies for handling cumulative impacts,

  • methodologies for multiple use coastal ocean management,

  • methodologies for valuation of natural resources (and the uses of such resources),

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
  • use of innovative approaches for managing shoreline use in the face of accelerating sea level rise,

  • formulation of better integrated coastal zone management program,

  • use of market-based approaches in natural resources and environmental management,

  • operationalizing the ethical concepts of intergenerational equity and stewardship,

  • operationalizing the legal concepts underlying the public trust doctrine, and

  • development and testing of innovative approaches to shared governance (federal-state) approaches in the expanded territorial sea and in the Exclusive Economic Zone.

Figure 3 Ways in which science can assist coastal ocean policymaking at different stages of the policy process.

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

Others will, of course, have their own candidate items for this list. In any event, it is hoped that agencies funding coastal ocean science and research will find listings such as this one useful as they formulate their funding priorities.

Suggestions Regarding the Integration of Science and Policy in Coastal Ecosystem Management

Good science and good policy are fundamental to the rational management of coastal ecosystems. Clearly, unless at least the general outlines of the behavior of a particular ecosystem are known, effective management of that system is virtually impossible. Indeed, it is reasonable to suppose that as our knowledge increases and becomes more complete, our ability to manage also increases. Bringing this knowledge to the policy-making table in a timely fashion requires that natural scientists have been able to find support for studies of sufficient duration and appropriate design to produce the necessary answers.

Social scientists also bring necessary expertise to the policy-making table. Policy making, especially policy making that is a part of the ecosystem management process, obviously requires more than a good scientific understanding of the ecosystem to be managed. Also required for policy making are the skills of lawyers, political scientists, and economists, among others. Just as the natural sciences may show the kind of options that exist relative to the management of the ecosystem, so the social sciences can show the policy options that exist relative to the human interaction with the ecosystem and the resources associated with it. In short, the natural sciences can develop options on what could be done in terms of the scientific realities of the ecosystem, the social sciences can develop options on what could be done in terms of the human/social systems that interact with the ecosystem. Ideally, the policymaker then seeks to make the best decision on what will be done by integrating these two sets of options together with the value preferences of the public.

In practice, as we all know, this seldom happens. This failure is often blamed on one of two causes:

  1. that scientists, preferring curiosity-motivated research, prefer not to deal with applied problems, or

  2. that policymakers are too busy reacting to the political pressures of the day to seek and use good scientific information.

Plainly, these explanations neither adequately describe the situation nor provide any real help in addressing it.

I would like to suggest that there are at least two alternative explanations, both of which offer some suggestions as to possible remedies. They are (1) the inflexible nature of

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

the present management system and (2) the lack of incentives for meaningful scientific involvement.

The Nature of the Present Management System—Most management systems, even those directed at important resources of coastal ecosystems, are not science-driven in any fundamental sense. Their characteristics are often the result of political compromise in the legislative process and not of scientific standards. Management measures are often adopted by policy bodies because these groups need to be seen as acting—and acting, now—to solve the problem. The adoption of management measures does not necessarily await a full scientific understanding of the processes or the natural system that is involved.

Indeed, design and implementation of a management approach typically involves a number of non-scientific needs and constraints:

  • the need to act consistently with the legal jurisdiction of the policy body

  • the perceived need for universal application

  • the need for equity and fairness in the management regime

  • the need for simplicity and administrative workability

  • the need for political acceptability and public support of the proposed management regime

Too often, the question of scientific soundness of the management process simply becomes one among several factors to be weighed in devising a management strategy rather than the essential underpinning of such a strategy.

Several other characteristics of the management process also reduce the opportunities for scientific rigor in this process. First, the management process is almost always linear with little or no significant feedback. Relatively little attention is paid to monitoring the results of the management process and using this information to revise and/or adjust the management approach. This lack of feedback is a serious shortcoming in many of today's management schemes. It may be associated with a reluctance on the part of managers and policymakers to set (and be bound by) clearly articulated, measurable goals for their management efforts. And, without such specific, quantitative goals, effective “outcome” monitoring is impossible.

A second reason why existing management systems may seem impervious to new scientific information involves timing and the question of priorities. Once a management process is put in place, little time seems to exist for analysis, modification, or assessment. The time available seems taken up with the formal processes such as public notice, public

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

hearing procedures, and other activities related to the operation of the ongoing regulatory system, and not with retrospective studies or analyses. We are used to performing periodic maintenance on our automobiles as a necessary step to keep them performing properly. That our social systems need a similar kind of periodic assessment and maintenance, is not yet well understood.

In summary, then, we tend to have management systems in place that are not especially science-friendly. They are seen to be preoccupied with processes and constraints related to legal and administrative considerations. Given the current approach to management, little time, inclination, or incentive exists to seek the relevant science and apply it. Similarly, those on the science side have little reason to believe that they would be welcomed at the policy-making table even if they were aware of the need, the timing, and the expertise required.

The Lack of Incentives for Meaningful Scientific Involvement—At any given time, most of our scientific expertise is being applied to one line of research or another. For the most part, scientific talent does not tend to be unengaged and awaiting new assignments. Hence, the task is to motivate scientists to shift from their present preoccupations into the areas where policymakers feel their expertise is needed.

It is germane, then, to ask what attracts scientists to particular problems. Most of us would agree that factors such as those below are important in this respect:

  • the inherent challenge represented by the problem

  • the belief that a person may have talents/techniques/or expertise that are uniquely suitable to the problem in question

  • the availability of relatively flexible funding support

  • the perception that it is an important problem (to society, to the nation, or to humanity, etc.)

I think that it is fair to say that the scientist, from the laboratory bench, does not automatically associate these factors with the kind of policy-related applied research that is required in the science-policy partnership. But, in my view, applied research having a clear social purpose, should be able to attract scientific attention if the importance of the problems and the availability of funds are adequately communicated to the right parts of the scientific community.

Securing funding for such research is always an issue. It should, in principle, be easier to obtain funding support for applied research clearly tied to important policy or management problems, than for the typical, more basic studies. Yet this does not necessarily

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

seem to be the case. It is my impression that funding offices are inclined to support more basic research even if they are part of a mission-oriented agency. Perhaps they believe that more fundamental kinds of inquiry are more likely to pay off in the long run.

A Few Suggestions—I have several suggestions that I feel might be helpful in moving toward the improved integration of science and policy in ecosystem management. These suggestions deal with changes in the management approach and with issues having to do with funding applied research proposals. I believe that a relatively small number of changes in the management approach would significantly improve the prospects for a more effective integration of “science” into that process.

In particular, I believe that adding greater specificity and accountability to the management process is a way to begin. Regulatory regimes, under this suggestion, would be called upon to be specific with regard to their goals and to specify those goals in measurable outcome-oriented terms. For example, a program to manage a given estuary might set its goals as follows:

“by the end of year two, to have the abundance of a given fish stock increase by 20 percent; to reduce the areas of closed shellfish beds by 50 percent; and to lower the annual swimming beach closings from an average of four per year to no more than two per year.”

In my view, it is important that the goals be expressed in terms of the real bottom line—that is, what the public expects to see as a result of a successful, publicly funded, management effort for the estuary in question.

I emphasize this point because of the current tendency to avoid the setting of specific goals. Many of our present management systems seem to operate on a kind of “faith”—faith that if certain meritorious policies are followed in the regulatory systems, that desirable outcomes will result (or, at the least, that the chances of poor outcomes will be reduced). In this process-oriented approach, the goal of a given management program becomes the more or less systematic application of a set of policies, rules, and/or procedures in the operation of the regulatory permitting process. The extent to which this approach actually produces “desirable outcomes” is rarely, if ever, formally determined.

Clearly, several problems exist with the present approach. First, it is not easy to determine how well the management system is doing or to find out how much it is costing to achieve certain real benefits because specific outcomes are rarely expressed as goals and equally rarely monitored. Second, it is difficult to make improvements since we are not generally employing a causal model in the management process.

My suggestions, then, are twofold. First, require policymakers and managers to shift their focus away from process-related outcomes or intermediate surrogates, (for example, a

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×

reduction of 60 percent in the phosphates entering an estuary), to bottom-line, outcome-oriented goals and require systematic monitoring and reporting of those goals. This shift will soon make clear to all concerned that we probably do not know how to achieve the desired goals because of gaps in our understanding of the targeted ecosystems. Policymakers and managers will see that, one way or the other, funds must be found to close these gaps and to begin to manage in a more informed way. Once the policymakers and managers see that they must avail themselves of more and better (more relevant) “science,” ways will be found to fund such work. I suggest that among CZM grants, Sea Grant grants, NOAA Coastal Ocean Program funding, and funding for research through the National Estuarine Research Reserve System, a rather sizable amount of money exists that could potentially be directed toward these needs. Perhaps some funds could be set aside in the Coastal Ocean Program or in the Sea Grant Program to match funding made available by field-level coastal zone managers to confront specific, critically important research needs. This kind of leverage is needed given the limited funding that field program managers tend to have to support their needs for management-oriented applied science.

The suggestions made here are not complex, nor do they require new scientific breakthroughs. Rather, these suggestions represent a return to basics. Ask the interested public what they want from a “restored ” Chesapeake Bay, Puget Sound, or Gulf of Maine and then ask establish a management system to achieve it and a monitoring system to measure progress along the way. The pressure for relevant science to be applied will be, I feel, strong and immediate, and money will be found to fund it.

References

Brewer, G.D., and P. deLeon. 1983. The Foundations of Policy Analysis, Dorset Press, Homewood, Ill.

Cicin-Sain, B. 1986. Ocean resources and intergovernmental relations: An analysis of patterns. In Ocean Resources and U.S. Intergovernmental Relations in the 1980s, Maynard Silva, ed. Westview Press, Boulder, Colo.

Lowry, K. 1985. Assessing the implementation of federal consistency policy. American Planning Association Journal 51:288-298.

National Research Council. 1993. Assessment of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Studies Program: IV Lessons and Opportunities. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"Stage-Setting Papers." National Research Council. 1995. Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9151.
×
Page 62
Next: Responding to the Cumulative Impacts on Land and Water Activities in the Region's Estuaries and Near-Coastal Environments »
Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Symposium Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
  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!