|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 27
~2
Challenges to Effective Use of Science in
Malting and Implementing Coastal Policy
THE ROLE AND LIMITATIONS OF
SCIENCE AND POLICYMAKING
At the very heart of the issue of the use of science for policymaking is the
fact that science is concerned with inquiry, description, and explanation, whereas
policymaking is concerned with governance of human behavior. Science is
supposed to be value-free, whereas policymaking is normative, reflecting societal
values, by definition. Although it is clear that there is no value-free science,
every attempt is made by responsible scientists to identify their assumptions and
biases and try to minimize the latter. The policymaking process must identify
value orientations and then work toward addressing community values
(Hammond and Adelman, 1976~.
Science should hold to the standards of objectivity, reliability, and validity.
Policymaking should reflect human values, advocacy, and leadership. In this
sense, scientific results can only answer policy questions of the form: What will
happen to (X) if human behavior is changed in the manner (Y)? Science can
never answer policy questions of the form: What should happen to (X)? Science
can sometimes answer questions of the form: If we wish to have (X), what
different values of (Y) will yield (X)?, but only after applications of the theories,
methodologies, resources, time frames, and analytical capabilities available to
the scientist for the particular question at hand. Social science can help us
understand the distribution of beliefs, perceptions, and norms among a constitu-
ency against which various objectives, alternatives, and their impacts can be
27
OCR for page 28
28
SCIENCE, POLICY, AND THE COAST
measured, but even social science cannot be normative in and of itself (Weiss,
1987).
So, for example, in the case of coastal environmental mitigation strategies in
California, a scientist may predict what mitigation techniques will lead to a
certain outcome but not whether or how much of that mitigation or particular
outcome is appropriate. A scientist in the Gulf of Maine region may identify a
reliable, cost-effective indicator of a certain condition in the environment but not
whether the condition identified is acceptable. A scientist in the Gulf of Mexico
region can describe the relationship between coastal development and closed
shellfish waters but not how much development or shellfish closure is appropri-
ate.
Questions that science cannot answer fall into the category of policymaking,
or governance. Policymaking is the process of identifying objectives, alterna-
tives for achieving those objectives, and their relative costs and benefits and
measuring these relative costs and benefits within the context of human values.
Policymaking answers questions of the form: Given that we have an objective
and we know that the costs and benefits of alternative (A) will be (X) and the
costs and benefits of alternative (B) will be (Y), should we do (A) or (B)? It is the
governance process, with all of its requirements for planning, analysis, and public
input, through which public policy decisions are made. Political processes are
important considerations and are often one of the most uncontrolled and unpre-
dictable variables in science-policy interactions.
In the case of mitigation strategies in California, if scientists communicate
what strategies are available and their relative costs and benefits, the policymaking
process can proceed to identify the human values against which the alternatives
and their various costs and benefits may be judged. In the case of an environmen-
tal indicator in the Gulf of Maine region, if a scientist identifies a condition in the
environment from a given indicator, then the policymaking process may proceed
to a decision as to whether the condition indicated is desirable or undesirable, if
it should be changed, and in what manner. If a scientist in the Gulf of Mexico
region can describe which land and water uses result in shellfish closures, the
policymaking process can then proceed to a decision concerning how much de-
velopment, and how much shellfish closure, is acceptable.
The difference between science and governance is extremely important but
is often ignored or confused. Scientists often feel so strongly about a particular
normative position that they claim the science indicates the best way to behave.
Because coastal environmental policymaking is often contentious and occurs in
the midst of a complex mixture of human values and preferences, such claims are
likely to confuse the discussion further, and to lead to a diminution of the cred-
ibility of the scientist (Caldwell, 1990; Jasanoff, 19904.
Science and policymaking are different from one another but complemen-
tary. The conduct of each requires different sets of expertise. The scientist must
know theory, methodology, and techniques. The policymaker must know con
OCR for page 29
CHALLENGES IN MAKING AND IMPLEMENTING COASTAL POLICY
Modification/
Initiation Formulation Implementation Evaluation Termination
~1
1
29
-1 -1
Figure 2 Stages in He policy process (Knecht, 1995).
stituencies, governance processes, and value orientations expressed as legal man-
dates. It is, of course, useful for each to know something of the other's trade as
well, although it is unreasonable (as a general rule) to expect one to do the work
of the other.
The policymaking process is composed of a number of stages (see Figure 2~.
In the policy initiation phase, a problem is recognized by federal, state, or local
governments. In the policy formulation stage, a policy response to the problem is
developed by agencies or the legislature. Policy implementation is the stage in
which mechanisms planned in the policy formulation stage are made operational.
In the policy evaluation stage, the results of the new mechanisms are compared
with the desired outcomets) of the policy.
Finally, policy modification/termination is the phase in which the results of
the evaluation are acted on and the policy is either adapted or eliminated. Scien-
tific input is more applicable to some stages than to others but can play an
important role in each.
The policymaking process can also be viewed as a system of cultural ecology
(see Figure 3), as described by Orbach (1995~: "The cultural ecology of coastal
environments has two broad subcomponents: (1) human constituencies of the
coastal environment itself, for example, people who live on, use, or otherwise are
concerned in their beliefs or behaviors with the coastal environment; and (2)
humans who constitute the policy and management structures whose decisions
and actions affect the behavior of the coastal constituencies defined in (1~." The
cultural ecology of coastal systems is determined by the set of cultures involved
in the policy process, as described in the next section.
CULTURAL DIFFERENCES
Human Culture as a Variable in the Science-Policy Interaction
All human behavior is a result of a complex interaction between culture and
environment, where culture is defined as the beliefs, perceptions, and normative
rules of behavior of a group of people, and environment is the total set of objects
and processes with which those people interact (Harris, 1968~. Culture in this
sense is shared differentially among human groups not everyone has the same
OCR for page 30
30
SCIENCE, POLICY, AND THE COAST
Coastal Environment
-
-
Human constituents
Direct
Coastal industries
Coastal residents
Interest groups
Indirect
Non-coastal residents
Interest groups
(Social
science)
Policy and management organizations
International
Federal
Regional
State
Local
Private sector
(Natural
science)
Scientific community
Figure 3 The cultural ecology of coastal public policymaking (Orbach, 1995).
beliefs, perceives or interprets things in the same way, or has the same normative
rules of behavior. Although culture ultimately resides in the individual, certain
groups share more of their culture than others, forming subcultures around lin-
guistic, ethnic, national, professional, community, religious, and other variables.
These cultural differences contribute significantly to the development of environ-
mental policy (Caldwell, 1990~.
We learn our culture, although some personality characteristics, tastes, or
preferences are evidently a product of our individual genetic makeup. Most of
our normative rules are taught to or internalized by us in various acculturation or
socialization processes. Beliefs and perceptions are formed through a combina-
tion of the above processes in addition to our individual life experiences.
Through the acculturation process some of us become scientists, some of us
become administrators, some of us become politicians, some of us become busi-
ness persons, and some of us become advocates of various causes. We tend to
live and work around those who have beliefs, perceptions, and norms similar to
OCR for page 31
CHALLENGES IN MAKING AND IMPLEMENTING COASTAL POLICY
31
our own-hence the existence of subcultures. With respect to coastal environ-
mental issues, all of our subcultures arid behaviors interact in a complex cultural,
or human, ecology that determines our societal rules of behavior, or policies
(Fortman, 1990; Orbach, 1995~. When we speak of the interaction between
science and policy, we mean interactions among a number of subcultures, includ-
ing scientists of different disciplines and employment, elected officials, legisla-
tors, administrators, business people, coastal arid noncoastal residents, interest
and advocacy groups, and many others (Jasanoff, 1990~.
The Genesis of Cultural Differences in Coastal Policy
People acquire their professional cultures through education and training,
institutional affiliation, and rewards and incentives. These lead to differences in
behavior and points of view associated with the cultures of science and policy
described by Boesch and Macke (1995) and shown in Table 3. Cultural differ-
ences can impede the interactions of scientists with policymalcers and, conse-
quently, the use of science in coastal policymaking. Although many individuals
and groups are involved in the cultural ecology of coastal policy, we focus on two
subcultures of that cultural ecology scientists and public policymakers (defined
here as legislators or administrative agency personnel).
TABLE 3 Behaviors and Points of View Typically Associated With the
Cultures of Science and Policy
Factor
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 Focus on details, contradictions Focus on broad outline
World view Primacy of biological, physical,
chemical mechanisms
Primacy of political, social,
interpersonal, economic
mechanisms
SOURCE: 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.
OCR for page 32
32
SCIENCE, POLICY, AND THE COAST
Education and Training-Scientists are professionals who obtain advanced de-
grees, most often the Ph.D., in a specific single- or interdisciplinary training
program at a college or university, thereby acquiring scientific credentials, usu-
ally in some very specific scientific domain. Scientists generally stay in school
longer than the average citizen in an atmosphere that emphasizes the value of
knowledge, objectivity, reliability, validity, and the scientific method. Their
training institutions are somewhat insulated from society through the mecha-
nisms designed to promote the quest for knowledge and academic freedom. Uni-
versity faculty instill in their students a belief in the high status of scientists and
the scientific enterprise and scientists come to assume that policy must be based
on science. Most problem solving in science takes the form of hypothesis testing
as opposed to behavioral change.
Policymakers, although they come from a variety of backgrounds and educa-
tions, may lack scientific disciplinary focus or much education in the sciences.
For example, law school, in contrast to scientific postgraduate programs, empha-
sizes behavioral change over hypothesis testing (Millsap, 19844. Policymakers
may be people who choose to work in a world of human interaction where every
new law or policy has the potential to create consensus or conflict. Rational
planning, public involvement, and balanced responsiveness to constituencies and
to the public trust are the hallmarks of the policymaker (Anderson, 1984~.
Institutional Affiliation There are, of course, people trained as scientists who
work as policymakers. Over time, however, individuals who receive the same
scientific training and more especially others whose background and training
differ often diverge into separate subcultures based on their institutional affili-
ations (Fortman, 1990~.
A person with scientific training who works as an administrator in a federal
regulatory agency will acquire a different set of beliefs, perceptions, and norms
of behavior than would a research scientist at a university because of the different
requirements, contexts, and processes of their work. Individuals working in
different regulatory agencies will diverge from each other for the same reasons.
In the coastal area, for example, professionals at the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) or the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
(OCRM) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
will diverge from those in the Mineral Management Service (MMS) or the U.S.
Anny Corps of Engineers (Corps) because of the widely varying mandates, struc-
tures, and processes of those agencies. The mandate of the university is to
investigate and educate; of NMFS, OCRM, FWS, and EPA to plan for the conser-
vation of fishery and coastal resources; of MMS and the CorDs to clan for the.
development of mineral and infrastructure resources
Time Frame For a university scientist, time frames tend to be drawn out owing
OCR for page 33
CHALLENGES IN MAKING AND IMPLEMENTING COASTAL POLICY
33
to institutional factors and the infrequency of some natural events that are stud-
ied. Addressing most significant coastal issues requires long-term data and moni-
toring to provide information sufficient for the scientific process. Time is mea-
sured in contract and grant submission deadlines, hour-long lectures and
semester-long courses, two-year article publication schedules, and decade-long
research programs.
In policymaking, on the other hand, time frames and deadlines tend to be
short and frequent. Regulatory development is a constant process under any
given set of legislative mandates, and those mandates themselves are constantly
changing. Information, power, and decisionmaking are much more hierarchical
than at the university, and the policymaker will most often need to obtain data
and analysis in a matter of days, weeks, or months rather than years. Thirty-day
comment and response periods, controlled congressional correspondence, regula-
tory decisions with the best of planning all of these are short time frame issues
compared to those of the scientist.
Product Forrn The products of the scientist are the results of research and the
training of students. The premier product of the scientist is new knowledge, peer
reviewed and disseminated to colleagues. There are, of course, many scientists
who care very much about applied work-that is, science with some identifiable
application to a problem or issue outside the scientific or university community-
and how science is applied. Traditional academic scientific products do not, in
the main, cause changes in behavior; they are not intended to.
The purpose of policymaking is behavioral change. It is our common cul-
tural norms, as expressed through the representative democratic process and
written down as laws, policies, and regulations, that constitute public policy
(Nader, 19691. It is the creation of such behavioral change that is the product of
the policymaker, in the form of laws, policies, regulations, and the materials,
events, and processes that accompany the policy development and implementa-
tion process. An important part of the product for the policymaker is that which
is communicated to the private sector constituencies and the public about the
policy and policymaking process. Public involvement, for example, is an impor-
tant product of the policymaking process. Public involvement is not a phrase one
traditionally hears in the discussions of most scientists in their scientific work,
certain social scientists excepted (Peterson, 1984~. However, scientists and the
public are interacting with increasing frequency, regarding the conduct of field
experiments and the interpretation and application of research results to contro-
versial environmental issues.
Cultural Conflict in Coastal Policymaking
What are the results of the existence of the different cultures and subcultures
of people involved in coastal policymaking? The existence of different points of
OCR for page 34
34
SCIENCE, POLICY, AND THE COAST
view and different interests is a major strength of the U.S. governance system,
which has the structure and organization to achieve consensus among those points
of view and interests. However, different cultures and subcultures also have
negative effects on the use of science for policymaking. The negative effects fall
into four general categories: (1) lack of understanding, (2) lack of communica-
tion, (3) lack of or misuse of each other's products, and (4) conflictual or com-
petitive rather than cooperative interaction.
Lack of Understanding-Human ego is a powerful thing, and few things offend
us and make us react in negative ways as much as the knowledge that another
person does not value, respect, or understand what we are as individuals or what
we do professionally. Whether it is an interaction between a fishermen and a
marine biologist, an oil worker and an environmentalist, a land-use planner and a
private property advocate, a social scientist and a natural scientist, or a scientist
and a politician, if we interact with others with an attitude of superiority or
contempt, conflict is likely. Understanding does not have to mean admiration or
agreement, but simply an acceptance of the fact that the other party has a legiti-
mate status and role in the human ecology of the policymaking process and views
that must be understood in the context of that status and role.
Lack of Communication-Cultural differences, whether they stem from language,
occupation, or advocacy position tend to make communication more difficult.
Not only are we less likely to communicate at all with different cultures or
subcultures, but communication that does occur tends to be fraught with misinter-
pretation or lack of understanding. The use of scientific jargon in a public
presentation is one such example of this problem. A scientist and a fisherman
interpreting differently the results of a trend or cycle in fish landings is another.
A shellf~sher and a marina owner discussing water quality is a third. Sometimes
the message is not received at all; sometimes it is perceived or interpreted differ-
ently than intended (see Lampl, 1995~. It is difficult, but possible and desirable,
to expend the effort to open a line of communication and to be aware of the
different possibilities for perception and interpretation.
Lack of ~ or Misuse of, Each Other's Products-It is often the case that an admin-
istrator will not know how to use the contents of a scientific report. It is often the
case that a scientist will not understand the genesis or rationale for a particular
public policymaking process. Private citizens will often be confused by both a
scientific report and a policy process. The unfortunate response is for individuals
to disengage- that is, to withdraw from the interaction or process-or simply to
ignore the activity or viewpoint of others. Citizens stop attending public meet-
ings or hearings. Scientists stop seeking funding from applied research pro-
grams. Policymakers carry out their responsibilities as best they can, assuming
that the best scientific information available is that which they can interpret and
OCR for page 35
CHALLENGES IN MAKING AND IMPLEMENTING COASTAL POLICY
35
use, which may be a small portion of that which scientists have produced and
which may be meaningless outside the larger context. The alternative is to take
the product and use it inappropriately-a scientist advocates a value position
rather than simply presenting the science, a policymaker lists a report in the
bibliography and uses it by reference to justify a predetermined course of action,
or a citizen uses a public meeting to advance a particular constituency's advocacy
agenda in the name of the public.
Conflict and Competition Instead of Cooperation-All of the above effects lead
to conflict and competition in place of cooperation. They are all dimensions of
the potentially negative public policy outcomes that can result from cultural
differences, when those differences are not recognized, understood, and ad
dressed.
The next section focuses on the manner in which these phenomena apply
particularly to scientists in agencies, academia, industry, and nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs).
SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY AND REVIEW MECHANISMS
Mechanisms for Providing Advice
Scientific information is provided to policymakers through a variety of chan-
nels, including formal reports, interactions with individual scientists, and via the
public and news media. Important mechanisms also include the formal rendering
of advice by scientists internal or external to the responsible agency or critical
review of reports and proposals, so-called peer review. Peer review is a mecha-
nism within the scientific community by which scientists review the work of their
colleagues, usually as a step supporting a research project or publication of jour-
nal articles. This procedure serves as a check on the validity of the methods,
interpretation of the data, and applicability of the conclusions drawn. While this
process is not specifically directed to science-policy interactions, it provides an
important quality control step in the dissemination of science and thus has an
impact on public policy. For example, research on cold fusion was not subjected
to peer review before the discovery was announced in a press conference and was
adopted by some policymakers as a solution to the nation' s energy problem. This
recent example illustrates how policymaking can be affected deleteriously by the
omission of peer review. Scientific advice can be obtained through at least four
different mechanisms:
1. Internal Advice The first line of scientific advice often available for
designing agency programs and forming policy is from scientists who are agency
employees or whose services are obtained through contracts. Internal advice may
be available more quickly and tailored to answer agency questions more directly
OCR for page 36
36
SCIENCE, POLICY, AND THE COAST
than can many forms of external advice, because internal scientists are acquainted
with the agency culture and procedures. Internal advice can take the form of
research findings as well as deliberative internal advisory groups. The committee
did not evaluate specific means of improving the use of internal scientific advice,
but most mechanisms recommended in the final chapter are applicable to both
internal and external sources of advice.
2. Advisory groups external to policymaking agencies. External advisors
can be useful to agencies and policymakers for situations in which an indepen-
dent evaluation of information is needed, agencies desire to review their internal
scientific mechanisms, and when it would be more cost-effective to obtain the
information from outside the governmental organization. These groups may be
convened by an agency from among scientists not employed by them or con-
vened by another organization such as the National Research Council (NRC) or a
professional society at the request of the agency. In the latter case, the group is
typically asked to review how an agency is handling some aspect of its
policymaking. There are examples at all levels of government of such external
advisory functions. MMS offers a good example of the use of external commit-
tees. MMS was required by the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act
Amendments of 1978 to establish an external Scientific Committee of its OCS
Advisory Board. Members are selected from academia, technical service firms,
the oil and gas industry, and government. They meet on a regular basis to help
the agency set its scientific agenda and, to a limited extent, interpret the results of
the MMS Environmental Studies Program. Twice, MMS has requested the NRC
to review the Environmental Studies Program, which resulted in two reports
(NRC, 1978, 1990c). EPA, NOAA, the National Science Foundation, and other
federal agencies have one or more scientific advisory committees at different
levels of the agency.
3. Workshops. A workshop may be convened to offer advice to an agency
on a specific issue. The attendees may all be scientists, but typically the group
also includes policymakers and stakeholders.
4. Informal policy advisory groups. The published results of scientific
research performed outside an agency can provide information that is directly
applicable to an agency policy decision. The information may come to the
agency's attention via its own scientific professionals, outside scientists, or mem-
bers of the public. With electronic mail and on-line workshops, it has become
much easier to be aware of the range of information on a subject.
Why Do Scientists Participate?
If we wish to encourage cooperation between scientists and policymakers
through advisory mechanisms, it helps to understand why scientists participate in
such endeavors. The personality of the scientist plays a considerable role. Scien-
tists are trained problem solvers, so they tend to be challenged by the idea that
OCR for page 37
CHALLENGES IN MAKING AND IMPLEMENTING COASTAL POLICY
37
they can contribute to solving problems connected with public policy. Although
not all scientists are motivated to this service, those who respond most often to
such a challenge are likely to see contributions to policymaking as a stimulating
extension of their professions. If they have confidence in their knowledge and its
applicability to the policy questions to be addressed, they will be more willing to
participate. Finally, if they believe the problems that need scientific input are
significant to society, they will feel their commitment of time and effort is worth-
while.
Another reason for participation can be funding. Many research scientists
fund much of their time and effort, and that of their assistants, through grants and
contracts. There is a considerable lead time involved in obtaining funding, and
sometimes there are gaps between funded projects. Advisory committees pro-
vide scientists with the opportunity to expand their networks and update their
information on existing funding sources and fundable research. Furthermore, the
possibility of funding some of a scientist' s time to work on an advisory commit-
tee, recognizing that the time commitment may be great and money in relatively
small units, could be a motive for serving as an adviser.
The final criterion must be that the scientist has time available and feels that
she or he can afford to devote it to the purpose at hand, realizing that advisory
committee work is not usually judged to be of equal value to publishing research
papers in the reward structure of most scientific institutions. This situation con-
tinues to persist even though universities and agencies assert that public service is
a valuable part of a scientist' s career.
Impediments to Participation and Success
A number of impediments must be overcome to elicit help from scientists
and to ensure that their advice can be used effectively.
Time constraints As pointed out earlier, by the time managers realize that a
policy decision must be made, there is frequently little time remaining in which to
investigate the scientific bases for a decision. Under these circumstances, it is
very difficult to find scientists whose schedule permits them to respond immedi-
ately. Even those within an agency may find it difficult to locate the necessary
information quickly, evaluate it adequately, and respond to a request for scientific
input to the decision. The case is more difficult for scientists external to an
agency, if only because they must be located and recruited to the purpose before
their input can be obtained.
Many of the scientific advisory bodies in government rely on volunteers, the
scientists giving their time and expertise without compensation. The bigger the
issues that must be addressed, the more consideration and, therefore, time that
must be devoted to the matter. The more background material there is to be
considered, the more time it takes to locate, obtain, and assimilate it. In most
OCR for page 52
52
SCIENCE, POLICY, AND THE COAST
tific knowledge could help resolve poorly understood problems, management
operations, restoration, or policy development should be considered. Some poli-
cies may reflect firm social or political attitudes and may not be very susceptible
to influence by new scientific information. Other policies may only be influ-
enced by the long-term accumulation of knowledge rather than by research fo-
cused on a particular question. In one attempt to include such considerations in
an assessment of science priorities, Boesch and Rabalais (1987) compared issues
regarding the long-term environmental effects of offshore oil and gas develop-
ment based not only on severity, duration, and reversibility of effects but also the
likelihood that scientific knowledge could be improved significantly such that it
would affect policy and management. Several of the highest-priority issues
identified in that process were not, at that time, receiving much research support.
Other recent assessments of priorities for coastal science (NRC, 1994a; National
Ocean Service, 1995) have also, at least implicitly, included such considerations
of how new knowledge could help resolve environmental problems.
Once priorities are established among the various problem areas, there still
remains the challenge of defining the research or monitoring activities that will
provide the appropriate scientific knowledge. Because of the complex interac-
tions within coastal ecosystems and between these ecosystems and human soci-
ety, this is not an easy task. Here, the roles of the research manager interfacing
between the policymakers and implementers and the scientific practitioners and
scientific advisory committees become very important. They need to bridge the
gap between scientists, who provide innovation but may be primarily interested
in advancing knowledge, and managers, who need answers quickly but may be
wary of taking risks on innovative science. This gap was described as "What's
the answer? What's the question?" by the issue group that addressed issues
related to changes in freshwater inflows at the Gulf of Mexico symposium (NRC,
1995c).
Factors That Should Be Considered in Setting the Science Agenda
The pressures of population growth, the needs of economic development,
demographic change, competing and conflicting uses, judicial decisions, politics,
competition for scarce public fiscal resources, the demands of a diverse and
fragmented society, and the increasing complexity of the issues raised (e.g.,
addressing cumulative impacts) will inevitably drive agenda formulation and
implementation. Many of these factors are discussed in greater detail elsewhere
in this report and involve the following dynamics, principles, and assumptions:
· the importance of timely and effective interaction between science and
policy in all phases of policy formulation and implementation;
· the differing needs and dynamics of the science and policy cultures (see
pp. 29-33~;
OCR for page 53
CHALLENGES IN MAKING AND IMPLEMENTING COASTAL POLICY
53
· the importance of ingenuity, innovation, and peer review;
· the relative value of fundamental and applied research and of reactive
(e.g., damage assessment) versus proactive (e.g., predictive modeling) scientific
activities;
· the meaningful and appropriate involvement of stakeholders in the devel-
opment and support of the science agenda;
· the compelling need to achieve programmatic and logistical efficiencies
and effectiveness; and
· emerging approaches such as "integrated" and "adaptive" management
(see pp. 59-62) and strategic thinking relative to "place-based" policymaking
(e.g., ecosystem and watershed planning).
With these factors in mind, a science agenda can be developed and imple-
mented. Obviously, the principles involved in "setting" the agenda will differ
from those that determine the degree to which the science that emerges influences
policymaking. The scientific and policy communities and, in appropriate cases,
the public must be involved in setting the agenda. In turn, each community will
be influenced by its respective constituencies or motivational forces, such as the
expectations of academic institutions; pressure from those who will benefit eco-
nomically from the outcome; personal interests, goals, and objectives; the ex-
pressed desires of influential interest groups; and the perceived need to address
contemporary environmental and societal problems.
Role of Fundamental Research
Although the focus here is on setting the agenda for policy-relevant science,
it should be recognized that advances in policy-relevant knowledge also depend
on advances in understanding derived from fundamental or basic research (NRC,
1992b). By definition, such research is not focused on solving an immediate
practical problem and thus it is difficult to predict if and how the research results
might eventually be useful. Nonetheless, our understanding of the effects of
human activities on coastal ecosystems and societies has advanced considerably
as a result of fundamental research, from advances in measurement capabilities,
studies of basic biology and geochemistry, and theoretical studies. Fundamental
research efforts organized to pursue a specific theme, such as the Land Margin
Ecosystem Research and Coastal Ocean Processes programs funded primarily by
the National Science Foundation, are now making major contributions to our
understanding of estuaries and continental shelves.
More effort is needed in the interpretation of fundamental science results for
use in policymaking. Perhaps the most effective means of such integration is by
coastal scientists who are engaged in both fundamental research and policy-
relevant scientific activities, although such individuals are a rarity. They are able
to extend the results of more applied, and often more descriptive, research by
OCR for page 54
54
SCIENCE, POLICY, AND THE COAST
bringing in the understanding of processes resulting from fundamental research.
Furthermore, the availability of large amounts of descriptive information from
monitoring studies provides a context for the formulation of hypotheses and the
interpretation of fundamental research results. For example, neither monitoring
measurements nor research experiments alone was sufficient to answer the ques-
tion posed by managers in the Chesapeake Bay: "If water column nutrient inputs
were reduced by 40 percent, how long would it take for the nutrient levels in the
bay to respond, considering that there are large amounts of nutrients stored in
bottom sediments that would continue to leach out?" But with the plentiful
background information provided by 10 years of monitoring, appropriately de-
signed research experiments were able to demonstrate that this "sediment
memory" effect would last only about two years (Boynton et al., 1995~.
National and Regional Needs and Roles
Although national policies may set the general management framework or
establish certain standards, the policies that most affect coastal ecosystems, re-
sources, and societies are implemented at the regional, state, and local levels. For
example, coastal construction, land development in the watershed, agricultural
practices, harvesting of most resources in territorial waters, and discharge per-
mits are managed primarily from state capitals, county seats, and city halls rather
than from Washington, D.C. Furthermore, the increased emphasis on integrated,
place-based management raises additional responsibilities for state and local gov-
ernments and multijurisdictional regional programs. Yet it is the federal govern-
ment that bears the primary burden for supporting coastal science. How can it be
assured that this science is relevant to scales ranging from regional to local while
at the same time avoiding unnecessary duplication of these efforts, which the
nation cannot afford?
Some national scientific efforts are undertaken to guide national strategies
for environmental protection or coastal management. For example, NOAA's
National Status and Trends monitoring program includes chemical and biological
measurements made with standard techniques at a relatively sparse array of sites
around the country. This program has identified regions of the country that have
high concentrations of certain chemical contaminants or a high incidence of
maladies of marine organisms and has demonstrated certain trends. However,
these results are not used much in environmental management at the regional
scale, in large part because the sampling density is too sparse to assist in manage-
ment on these smaller scales. EPA has also undertaken an estuarine component
of its Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) in the Mid-
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions. Again, because this program was not
designed with more local-scale management in mind and frequently is not coor-
dinated with existing local or regional monitoring programs, EMAP results have
not been used much by management programs that focus on a particular estuary
OCR for page 55
CHALLENGES IN MAKING AND IMPLEMENTING COASTAL POLICY
55
or state. An earlier NRC report (NRC, 1990b) recommended integration of these
national monitoring programs and the inclusion of existing or new regional moni-
toring programs of greater intensity within the national network as a way to meet
the needs for environmental management on both national and local scales, but
this has not been accomplished. Similarly, NOAA's strategic assessments of
coastal data around the nation have produced reports that are very useful in
revealing national patterns and trends but that are not seen as particularly useful
by state and local coastal managers, who require more detailed information. An
exception is in relatively unstudied areas, such as the Barataria-Terrebonne estu-
ary (Rabalais et al., 1995), where such data may constitute the only information
related to chemical contaminants.
This problem of monitoring at appropriate scales presents a difficult chal-
lenge. To meet this challenge will require federal involvement in selected re-
gional scientific programs and improved synthetic understanding by both scien-
tists and managers so that knowledge can be better extended from one region to
another. Another improvement needed is better availability of state and federal
data.
DEALING WITH COMPLEXITIES IN THE COASTAL
DECISIONMAKING PROCESS
The traditional paradigm for managing coastal and ocean resources is sector-
by-sector management of specific resources like fisheries, oil, and gas through
relatively well-delineated authority by state or federal governments and involv-
ing a limited number of participants, primarily those most directly affected. An
important exception to this approach is the Coastal Zone Management Act, which
integrates management of resources to some extent.
There has been a growing realization nationally and internationally, particu-
larly in the past decade, that such an approach is no longer applicable in many
cases. Many of the issues facing coastal areas are transboundary in nature and
involve multiple jurisdictions and multiple participants with diverse interests and
perspectives. Examples include management of estuaries bordered by several
states and management of nonpoint sources of pollution. In such examples we
have seen the involvement of a wide array of participants, some of them relative
newcomers to decisions about natural resources state, federal, and local agen-
cies; nongovernmental organizations whose numbers have grown in size and
complexity in recent years; user and industry representatives not only from the
ranks of the most affected use/industry but also from other related uses and
industries; scientists (primarily from the natural sciences, but increasingly from
the social sciences as well); and members of the public. These interactions are
often adversarial, and typically there are not well-established fore or mechanisms
for conflict resolution.
Such examples have drawn attention to the need to consider the effects of
OCR for page 56
56
SCIENCE, POLICY, AND THE COAST
activities of one sector (such as agriculture) on other sectors (such as fisheries)
and on the environment (fisheries habitat), to find new ways of resolving con-
flicts in multiple-actor and multiplejurisdiction situations, and to adopt manage-
ment approaches that are adaptive-that anticipate problems and issues and in-
corporate "learning" about the natural and socioeconomic environments and the
performance of government programs into the management process (see pp. 61-
62~. As eloquently stated at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environ-
ment and Development, achieving sustainable development of oceans and coasts
will require new management approaches, that are "integrated in content and
anticipatory in ambit" (UNCED, 1992~.
To devise more integrated and adaptive approaches to management that
incorporate a strong interface between science and policy, we must first under-
stand the complexity of perspectives that are typically present in multiplejuris-
diction, multiple-actor situations.
Policymakers and Policy Implementers at
Different Levels of Government
Policymakers, including Congress, state legislatures, regional bodies, county
boards, and city councils, are responsible for responding to environmental prob-
lems by designing policies and programs, generally in the form of legislation.
Policy implementers include federal agency officials, state agency officials, and
regional, county, and city officials. Implementers are responsible for putting
legislation into practice by developing regulations and monitoring and enforce-
ment programs, also with public input.
Scientists
Scientists are employed in academia, government, industry, and nongovern-
mental organizations. Scientists may play different roles-as purveyors of objec-
tive information, authority figures, advocates and antagonists, and/or cooperators
(Boesch and Macke, 1995; Sabatier, 1995~. Policymakers and the public can
become confused when scientists oppose each other because of differing interpre-
tations of their own and others' research results. This situation leaves
Policymakers in a quandary, may paralyze decisionmaking, and may consider-
ably diminish the role that science plays in the policy process. Solid data and
analysis may be dismissed because of criticism of individuals unqualified in the
scientific field in question (NRC, 1995c). The academic peer review system has
as its major goal the maintenance of "good" science, but it is not always apparent
to individuals not familiar with the issue (including other scientists) how to
compare the quality of science and statements associated with opposing scien-
tists.
OCR for page 57
CHALLENGES IN MAKING AND IMPLEMENTING COASTAL POUCY
Users/Industry
57
Expansion in the scope of coastal issues has meant an expansion in the
number of users affected by and involved in the policy process. Users have
become increasingly organized and active. Many coastal industries and user
groups support regional and/or national coordinating entities such as associations
or institutes. Examples include the American Petroleum Institute for oil and gas
issues, the National Fisheries Institute for commercial fishing issues, and the
American Sportsfishing Association for recreational fishing issues.
Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs)
The number of NGOs active in coastal decisionmaking has grown signiDl-
cantly in recent years. NGOs play an important role in bringing new issues to
light, educating the public, contributing to the policy development process, and
acting to monitor the process. NGOs may pursue different interests (e.g., envi-
ronmental, business) and vary in the extent of their interactions with the public,
scientists, and policymakers. NGOs increasingly enlist scientists in their work,
and their impact has increased. Examples of national and international NGOs
that focus on coastal issues include the American Oceans Campaign, the Center
for Marine Conservation, the Environmental Defense Fund, Greenpeace, and the
National Coalition for Marine Conservation.
The Public
Members of the public participate in the decisionmaking process either as
members of organized interests (users, NGOs) or as individuals taking advantage
of the many opportunities for public participation provided by U.S. environmen-
tal laws. It is public values and perceptions, in an aggregate sense, that provide
policymakers with direction and goals. The public has opportunities to influence
policymaking through contact with legislators and by providing input during
comment periods associated with new legislation.
There is a tendency for scientists and managers to believe that complete
knowledge and understanding on the part of the public will be followed by
agreement with the scientific and management decisions. Therefore, scientists
and managers may believe that if a community is not happy with a management
regime or decision it is because community members do not understand the
issues. However, agreement and compliance do not necessarily follow under-
standing. The incorrect assumption is that an educated public is an agreeabl
public.~°
iORobert Bowen, University of Massachusetts. Remarks given at the Gulf of Maine Symposium
on Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy, Kennebunkport, Maine, November
2-4, 1994.
OCR for page 58
58
SCIENCE, POLICY, AND THE COAST
It is not enough simply to inform the public about all the information used in
the policy process. The public must have the opportunity to analyze the informa-
tion and to voice its concerns and desires.
In recent years, public understanding of science has been increasing and
there are many instances where citizens, individually and through organized
efforts (such as citizen advisory committees), have played important roles in
defining and overseeing the conduct of scientific studies aimed at resolving prob-
lematic coastal issues. For example, each National Estuary Program includes
citizen advisory groups, and those groups, in addition to more general public
input, are integral to the development of comprehensive conservation and man-
agement plans (e.g., see Albermarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study, 1995~.
The News Media
One of the most important conduits to policymakers and implementors is the
popular and semipopular print and electronic news media. These media provide
information directly, help shape public opinion, and affect policymakers' impres-
sions of public opinion. For example, both in the case of ocean dumping in the
New York Bight and offshore oil and gas development off California, Florida,
and New England, the news media helped develop public fear that exceeded
scientific assessment of the risks (Freudenberg and Gramling, 1994), leading to
congressional bans or moratoria. If certain aspects of the issues are reported out
of context or without full media understanding, those reports will play on the
public's fears and emotions. Sensationalistic reporting tends to create much
public sympathy over emotional issues, such as wildlife management, and may
lead to clouded perspectives and calls for unreasonable, inefficient action.
On the other hand, the media can also be very effective in educating the
public and policymakers about rather complex environmental issues and mar-
shalling support for action against more insidious threats. A good example
concerns nutrient overenrichment and oxygen depletion in the Chesapeake Bay.
The media need to be targeted as an important participant in coastal management
that needs better access to scientific information, so that it will not sensationalize
environmental issues. The scientific community has a responsibility to commu-
nicate with the media and to encourage the reporting of issues in the proper
context and with the correct amount of neutrality. With understandable scientific
information, the media will have a basis on which to build a responsible role as an
information provider to the public and to policymakers and implementers.
One instance where media access to scientific data has been important is in
the management issues surrounding Boston Harbor (Connor, 1995~. The Massa-
chusetts Water Resources Authority published a State of the Harbor report that
put issues and scientific information into lay terms, and this has led to increased
media coverage of the issues. Similarly, the tabloid-style Bay Journal (see Fig-
ure 5) presents scientific information about the Chesapeake Bay and its water-
shed to the public and news media in an approachable and understandable form.
OCR for page 59
CHALLENGES IN MAKING AND IMPLEMENTING COASTAL POLICY
B~ _
AY ~
Ad,
~0~1
so
1
-
Vol. 4 No. 10 A public education service of the Chesapeake Bay Program January-February 1995
Virginia ponders
withdrawal from
coastal fish pane!
By Knurl Ship
BARELY a year after Conl;rcss breasted a law requir-
ing Atlantic Coast states to comply with jointly developed
fish management plans, Virginia officials are eonsiderio~
a tebeDion.
Under a bill soon to be considered by the state General
Assembly, Virginia would quit the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries CotnmissioD, which sets arch lirruts for fish
that migrate across state borders.
The bill, sponsored by Dcl. W. Tayloe Murphy Jr., D-
Westmoreland County, was favorably reported out of
committee last fall
Its supporters object to the commission's ability to im-
pose fishing restrictions on individual states. Until Con-
gress passed a law ire 1993 providing federal eoforeemeot
power for the commission's plans, states could ignore
ASMFC catch limits. Proponents of the federal law
argued that by ignoring the plans, states were allowing
coastal fish species to be ovcrharvested.
The issue become more heated last year when the
ASMFC refused a request from Maryland and Virginia to
increase the arDount of striped bass they could harvest, a
move that angered some commercial fishermen.
Some have argued that the Bay states, where almost all
striped ban. are spawned, were being unfairly outvoted by
Northern states who were bound by~even more restrictive
catch limits.
Virginia Gov. George Allen raised the issue at the Oct.
14 meetir~; of the Bay Program's Executive Council, say-
ing, 4'We feel that we have competent expertise to manage
our fisheries wisely. We do not need intrusive federal
mandates that are based on polities rather than science.
"We're going to fight for our rights-if we feel we arc
right with our science and our evidence-when we think
that others are trying to prescribe unbalanced fishery man-
agement pleas that are inappropriate for our particular
needs arid e~ret~Dstanees," AIICD said.
A spokeswoman for Virginia Natural Resources Scetc-
tarv Beckv Norton Dunlop said the Allen administration
does riot have a position on Mt~rphy's specific legislation.
but said that in principle it is "unhappy" about federal
mandates on the state.
If Virginia decides to withdrew from the eornmission. it
still would have to follow restrictions set by the eommis-
S,on.
Phase Me AShIFC-page in
_ .
f ~
~ _
r ~
Biologists use a seine Nat to collect a fish sa~npkfrorn the Ma~wonurn Creck
Rating Chesapeake rivers
Screniists seek 'index' that will let fish to speak for ecosystem
By ICar] Blanker~ship
spoeies, measured the largest and smallest among
therm, and divided them by age or~year cuss." obey
shouted the results to a record keeper. "White perch
-25 so far." "Minirnurn white perch. zero year
class, S5." "Maxirnttrn while pereb, zero year eLass,
80."
The counted fish were tossed into a cooler of river
water so they could later be returned to the Matta-
woman.
Ibis would to On for ready half ;rn hotter. Mien it
Noted be done again. And then, the whole process
would be repeated at four more sites in Mattawoman.
& tidal fresh water river that enters the Potomac River
about 20 miles south of Washington, D.C.
Off~horc at each site, a boat hauled a tr&wl Det
along the bottom for five m~outeS..lhen. biologists
would inventory wb&tever turned up-always far
AFIRE bauling a 100-foot seine net around a
semi-eirele from the beach, two biologists dragged
the net out of the M;lttswoman Creek arid onto dry
land.
Inside the net. more than a tbousaDd fish-rar~-
iDg from {ingernail-size to several inches in length _
flailed about.
A balf dozen biobg~sts swarmed around and began
dividing up the eateh.
Iincs of bluegills, piles of striped bass, and groups
of bay ~nehovy been to forth on the sandy beach.
"Anyone doing write perch?" one sorter called out,
boldiD& a few SpCCimCDs in her hand.
They counted the total number present for each P,_ ~ INDEX-pow 8
Figure 5 Cover page of January-February 1995 issue of the Bay Journal.
INTEGRATED AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
As discussed in preceding sections, coastal environmental and resource poli-
cies and management approaches have frequently focused on specific activities,
resources, or environmental media and thus have failed to adequately reflect the
linkages among them. Moreover, environmental and resource policies have, in
part because of the failure to take into account this complexity, often not achieved
the desired objectives or have had unanticipated outcomes. To address these twin
problems of complexity and unpredictability, two important management con-
cepts have emerged: integrated management and adaptive management.
OCR for page 60
60
SCIENCE, POLICY, AND THE COAST
Integrated management attempts to encompass the complex scope of mul-
tiple sectors, jurisdictions, and actors to achieve management that cuts across
users, agencies, geography, resources, and disciplines. Adaptive management,
aimed at the temporal dynamic aspect of management, is an approach that incor-
porates, on a continuous basis, learning about natural and social environments
and about the performance of government programs in the management process.
Meaning and Approaches to Integrated Management
There has been considerable work in recent years in defining the major
characteristics of integrated management in the context of coastal areas; see, for
example, Sorensen and McCreary (1990), OECD (1991), Bower (1992), Chua
(1993), NRC (1993), and Van der Wiede (1993~. Although different authors
emphasize somewhat different aspects of integrated coastal management (partly
as a result of diverse disciplinary backgrounds and partly as a reflection of the
authors' varying experiences acquired in work on integrated coastal management
in different parts of the world), there appears to be growing consensus on the
outlines of a general model of integrated coastal management. This is evident in
recent work by the World Bank, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Orga-
nization, and the United Nations Environment Programme in the preparation of
international guidelines for integrated coastal management.
There appears to be clear consensus that integrated coastal management
represents a continuous and dynamic decisionmaking process. Integrated coastal
management is a process by which decisions are made regarding the use, devel-
opment, and protection of coastal areas and resources. It recognizes the distinc-
tive character of the coastal zone itself a valuable resource for current and
future generations. The goals of integrated coastal management are to attain
sustainable development of coastal areas, to reduce vulnerability of coastal areas
to natural hazards, and to maintain essential ecological processes, life support
systems, and biological diversity in coastal areas. Integrated coastal management
has multiple purposes in that it analyzes implications of development, conflicting
uses, and interrelationships between physical processes and human activities and
promotes linkages and harmonization between coastal activities among different
sectors.
Authors differ in terms of what areas, resources, and activities they include
under the aegis of integrated coastal management. In terms of areas, integrated
coastal management generally must include both coastal lands and coastal waters
because of the important reciprocal effects of processes and activities in these
two areas.
Compared to sectoral entities and processes that tend to be concerned only
with one use or resource of the coastal environment, a well-functioning inte-
grated coastal management process is expected to perform three important roles:
(1) as an area-based (rather than a single-use or single-resource-based) process,
OCR for page 61
CHALLENGES IN MAKING AND IMPLEMENTING COASTAL POLICY
61
integrated coastal management has a special role in planning for the uses of a
coastal area in the present and into the future, in harmonizing and balancing
existing and potential uses, and in providing a long-term vision; (2) in promoting
particular appropriate uses of the coastal zone that may need some special en-
couragement (e.g., marine aquaculture); and (3) stewardship of the ecological
base of coastal areas and the promotion of public safety in areas typically prone to
significant natural, as well as man-made, hazards.
Achieving integrated management in the coastal context is especially com-
plex because several major dimensions of integration need to be addressed: (1)
integration among sectors (among coastal sectors, for example, fisheries, and
tourism) and between coastal sectors and other land-based sectors such as agri-
culture (intersectoral integration); (2) integration between the land and water
sides of the coastal zone (spatial integration); (3) integration among levels of
government (local, state, regional, and national) (intergovernmental integration)
and among agencies within each level of government (interagency integration);
and (4) integration among disciplines (natural sciences, social sciences, and engi-
neering) and policymaking/implementation (science/policy integration).
Efforts to achieve policy integration are often most successful when incen-
tives are utilized to entice government agencies to cooperate. Becoming in-
volved in interagency relationships implies that an agency may lose some of its
freedom to act independently and must devote scarce staff and financial resources
for cooperative activities. Purposeful interagency cooperation, it would seem,
will tend to take place when positive incentives to begin and maintain the inter-
agency relationships are present. Vanous factors that can work as incentives for
interagency cooperation are analyzed by Weiss (1987~: (1) perception of a com-
mon problem that cuts across various agencies, (2) monetary incentives, (3) legal
mandates, (4) sharing of norms and values among agencies on the need for
integration, (5) the possibility of gaining political advantage, and (6) the possibil-
ity of reducing uncertainty.
Meaning and Approaches to Adaptive Management
Adaptive management may be defined as management systems that have the
capacity to learn from their surroundings by incorporating timely information
from appropriately designed sensing systems and, thus, being able to adapt to
changing circumstances (see, generally, Lee, 1993~. Adaptive management ap-
proaches are suggested when a capacity to cope with uncertainty and complexity
is required, as is often the case in the management of natural resource systems.
The conventional approach to planning and management requires a level of infor-
mation "up front" that is not generally available in these cases.
Adaptive management involves the concept of learning by doing. The con-
duct of governance programs should be seen as opportunities to test and improve
the scientific basis for action. As a strategy of implementation, adaptive manage
OCR for page 62
62
SCIENCE, POLICY, AND THE COAST
ment provides a framework within which management measures can be evalu-
ated systematically as they are carried out.
A governance system that is fully "adaptive" would, in the committee's
view, be one that is continuously learning from its ongoing management activi-
ties and systematically applying that learning in such a way as to make the best
possible decisions. One of the keys to success, of course, will be to conduct the
requisite learning ("sensing") in the right areas so as to anticipate emerging
management needs. This learning must extend beyond the physical environment
targeted for management attention (e.g., erosion rates or rates of sea-level rise) to
include changes in the institutional, political, social, and economic environment
that could affect the behavior of the governance system.
Implications for Science-Policy Interactions
Both natural and social sciences must participate significantly in efforts to
achieve integrated management-the former in understanding the nature and
dynamics of the natural ecosystems in question, and the latter in understanding
the socioeconomic factors involved as well as the full array of players, issues, and
perspectives that must be reconciled and the range of incentives and tools that can
be utilized to achieve such integration. Adaptive management generally requires
that scientists participate in the management process on a more intimate and
frequent basis than is comfortable and in roles that are nontraditional.
Natural and social sciences are centrally involved in adaptive management:
· in the collection and analysis of systematic data regarding natural and
social systems and changes in these systems and on the performance and out-
comes of governance programs, and
· in developing recommendations for adaptations (changes) in management
programs on the basis of the above analyses.
The information presented in this chapter sets the context for understanding
the present use of science in policymaking. The factors described can either
hinder or encourage effective use of science. From this background can be drawn
findings and recommendations for developing improved means of using science
for coastal policymaking presented in the next chapter. By identifying con-
straints, the committee determined that specific actions could be taken to over-
come them.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
implementing coastal
