Creating a Dialogue for Effective Collaborative Decision-making: A Case Study with Michigan Stakeholders

ABSTRACT Although widely promoted, the importance of science as the basis of natural resources policy-making has proven difficult to both implement and evaluate compared to the many other inputs to creating public policy. Our goals were to bring together a diverse group of stakeholders in Michigan and develop means to create a dialogue on the use of water science in policy-making and to address the disconnect between the science and water policy at the state and regional levels. To achieve these goals, we developed a series of workshops and facilitated discussions to encourage active, productive discussion with a group of 35 Water Resource Fellows (Fellows). The discussions examined the role of science in Michigan water policy. The Fellows were representatives from academia, local governments, state agencies, environmental groups, industry, agriculture, and business. We surveyed the Fellows about their views on the role of science and water issues in Michigan. Nearly half (45%) of the Fellows stated that not enough science is currently being used in water policy decisions. Several themes emerged from the facilitated discussions. The Fellows recommended a recursive decision-making approach to using science in policy making. The Fellows also expressed the need for science to be accessible, relevant to the policy community, and communicated to regulators and the general public on an ongoing basis. The workshop series process for encouraging discussion among stakeholders can be used in other collaborative decision-making efforts.

[1]  Matthias Ruth,et al.  Using Dynamic Modeling to Scope Environmental Problems and Build Consensus , 1998, Environmental management.

[2]  Dale S. Rothman,et al.  Participatory scenario construction in land use analysis: An insight into the experiences created by stakeholder involvement in the Northern Mediterranean , 2007 .

[3]  Mark Sagoff,et al.  Environmental Economics and the Conflation of Value and Benefit , 2000 .

[4]  A. Mitchell,et al.  Sustainable Groundwater Allocation in the Great Lakes Basin , 2006 .

[5]  Graham T. F. Horn,et al.  Using Expert Judgment and Stakeholder Values to Evaluate Adaptive Management Options , 2004 .

[6]  S. Hrudey,et al.  A fatal waterborne disease epidemic in Walkerton, Ontario: comparison with other waterborne outbreaks in the developed world. , 2003, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[7]  Lynn A. Maguire Interplay of Science and Stakeholder Values in Neuse River Total Maximum Daily Load Process , 2003 .

[8]  John D. Hall,et al.  Progress Toward Delisting a Great Lakes Area of Concern: The Role of Integrated Research and Monitoring in the Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan , 2006, Environmental monitoring and assessment.

[9]  Melissa L. Finucane,et al.  Science in the public process of ecosystem management: lessons from Hawaii, Southeast Asia, Africa and the US Mainland. , 2005, Journal of environmental management.

[10]  Baron,et al.  Protected Values , 1997, Virology.

[11]  M. Morris Understanding Risk - Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society , 1997 .

[12]  Gail Krantzberg Science Must Inform Great Lakes Policy , 2004 .

[13]  Naomi Oreskes,et al.  Science and public policy: what's proof got to do with it? , 2004 .

[14]  Alexander Conley,et al.  Evaluating Collaborative Natural ResourceManagement , 2003 .

[15]  A. Oxman,et al.  Health policy-makers' perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review , 2002, Journal of health services research & policy.

[16]  V. Shandas,et al.  Incorporating Science into the Environmental Policy Process: a Case Study from Washington State , 2005 .

[17]  O. Houck Tales from a Troubled Marriage: Science and Law in Environmental Policy , 2003, Science.

[18]  G. Bentrup,et al.  Evaluation of a Collaborative Model: A Case Study Analysis of Watershed Planning in theIntermountain West , 2001, Environmental management.

[19]  C. Halbert,et al.  How adaptive is adaptive management? Implementing adaptive management in Washington State and British Columbia , 1993 .

[20]  T. Pereira Science policy‐making, democracy, and changing knowledge institutions , 2004 .

[21]  Bernard C. K. Choi,et al.  Can scientists and policy makers work together? , 2005, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

[22]  C. Walters Challenges in adaptive management of riparian and coastal ecosystems , 1997 .

[23]  Claudia Pahl-Wostl,et al.  Social Learning in Public Participation in River Basin Management - Early findings from HarmoniCOP European Case Studies , 2005 .

[24]  K. Stave Using system dynamics to improve public participation in environmental decisions , 2002 .

[25]  R. Hobbs,et al.  Resilience, Adaptive Capacity, and the “Lock-in Trap” of the Western Australian Agricultural Region , 2004 .

[26]  W. Ascher Scientific information and uncertainty: Challenges for the use of science in policymaking , 2004, Science and engineering ethics.