Post- Normal Science in Action-Climate Example from Pielke

I always think it’s fun to hop back and forth between climate change discussions and planning discussions. Especially since we need to think about how to handle climate change in forest plans. Which I would address by using general scenarios (another post) and relatively few general, qualitative predictions.

Conveniently, Roger Pielke just posted an example of a scientific paper, response by reviewers, his responses, and blog comments here.

I also noted this quote

An assessment built upon questions provided by policymakers would create a close tie between the information demanded by decision makers and that being produced in assessments . .

Relating back to forest planning, wouldn’t it be more efficient and effective to analyze specific questions posed by land managers and the public than to attempt to do a more or less comprehensive assessment in a plan revision?

2 Comments

  1. Sharon asks,

    wouldn’t it be more efficient and effective to analyze specific questions posed by land managers and the public than to attempt to do a more or less comprehensive assessment in a plan revision?

    Yes, of course. But I still believe that the Forest Service needs to change from “event-mentality assessment and planning” (i.e. revise the forest plan once every 10 to 15 years) to relatively continuous assessment and planning decision-making in a adaptive co-management frame. Maybe that is exactly what Sharon is getting at.

    Under an adaptive co-management approach, particularly using Web 2.0 technology (blogs and wikis, etc.) forest managers would address ALL, in context, and in timely assessments and decision forums tailor-made to fit the wicked problems in play at any time. Here is a link to Bruce Shepard and Lori Cramer that I put on my Eco-Watch forum in 1999: Shifting Public Values for Forest Management: Making Sense of Wicked Problems. Shepard and Cramer ideas support ideas of really listening to the public and developing both assessment forums and decision-making forums to help regain public trust.

    Shepard and Cramer ask that

    agency personnel carefully think through and agree on a strategy for involving citizens. This includes addressing questions such as:

    How will decisions be made?

    What do we hope to accomplish by involving the public?

    What is the public’s “decision space?

    “What does the public need to know in order to participate effectively?

    Who is “the public” for this issue?

  2. Pingback: Adaptive Governance and Forest Planning « A New Century of Forest Planning

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *