Challenges and strategies for better use of scientific information in the management of coastal...

Estuaries Vol. 26, No. 4B, p. 1189-1204 August 2003

Challenges and Strategies for Better Use

in the Management of Coastal Estuaries

of Scientific Information

THOMAS M. LESCHINE*, t~RIDGET E. FERRISS 1, KATHLEEN P. t~ELL 2, KRISTA K. P>ARTZ, SARAH

MAcWILLIAMS s, MIGHELLE PICO 4, a n d ANDREW K. P>ENNETT b

University of Washington, School of Marine Affairs, 3707 Brooklyn Avenue NE, &attle, Washington 98105

ABSTRACT: Numerous studies have concluded that better use of scientific information could improve the quality of coastal and estuarine enviromnental nlanagenlent. Approaches fo r effeeting such a change include ecosystem-based, integrateG and adaptive managenlent, but such basic re-orientation of estnarine and coastal nlanagement has proved difficult to achieve. Even environmental indicators, seemingly straightforward ways of injecting scientific information into decision nlaking~ have achieved broad on-the-ground_ use in relatively few iustanees--prineipally the largest estuary management programs. A conceptual f ramework useful for exanlining enviromnental nlanagenlent systems affecting the five PNCERS (Pacific Northwest Coastal Ecosystems Regional Study) estuaries conceives of environmental managers, researchers~ and interested and affected parties in the public as interacting through the muhi-layered institutional ar- rangements that currently p romote the utilization, management, or protection of coastal and estuarine resources. Con- siderable variation exists in the approach and effectiveness of the region's environmental management organizations. Interaction between science and managenlent in the region appears to be limited to an extent by high transaction costs; a cultural divide between enviromnental scientists and enviromnental managers is perceived by members of both groups who work with the PNCERS estuaries as inhibiting conlmunicatioi~s between them. Mechanisms that both groups identify as useful fo r improving tile flow of ixffornlation between science and nlanagement are little used~ perhaps as a result. The two groups have very different patterns of infornlation dissenlination and acquisition, and though both chose agency archives and databases as their top methods for disseminating information, neither group relies much on these vehicles fo r information they seek. Both residents' and practitioners' percept ions of threats to the PNCERS estuaries show pat terns of estuary-to-estuary variation. One theme that emerges is that problems associated with poo r land management in adjacent uplands are common to most of these estuaries, potentially providing a sense of commonality through which a nlore regional approach to estuary managenlent could enlerge. A conlnlon set of estuarine environnlental indicators implemented for all estuaries could help instigate such a regional approach~ but resource constraints, especially at the local leve L will have to be overcome for that to occur. There is currently substantial lack of eomnlon vision among coastal practitioners as to the purpose and desirability of indicators, and relatively litde experience or knowledge of their use~ particularly at the local level. Use of estuarine science in the nlallagenlent of these estuaries appears to be greatest during per iods in which the largest programmatic shifts in environmental management approaches occur, an observation consistent with other studies that have concluded that the use of environmental science in environmental management tends to be episodic.

In t roduct ion

Scientific informat ion rarely enters an environmental managemen t arena free of nonscientific in-

* Corresponding author; tele: 206/548-0117; fax: 206/548- 1417; e-mail: [email protected].

Cur ren t address: U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Sci- ence and Transportation, 425 Hart Building, Washington, DC 20510.

2 Cur ren t address: University of Maine, Depar tment of Re- som-ce Economics and Policy, 5782 Winslow Hall, Room 206, University of Maine, Orono, Maine 04469.

s Cur ren t address: Channel Islands National Marine Sanctu- ary, 113 Harbor Way, Suite 150, Santa garbara, California 93109.

4Curt-cut address: National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, 1120 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20056.

Curren t address: Art Anderson Associates, 810 Third Ave- nue, Suite 700, Seattle, Waslfington 98104-1618.

fluence, nor would most people want environmental m a n a g e m e n t decisions to be based purely on the results of scientific and technical studies or ad- vice (Nelkin 1979; Jasanoff 1990). N u m e r o u s com- menta tors have pointed to inadequacies in the way scientific informat ion is currently applied to coastal or estuarine managemen t decisions (Lee 199S; Knecht 1995; National Research Council [NRC] 1995; goesch 1999). Many see ignoring the dictates of sound science as a recipe for m a n a g e m e n t decisions that fail to achieve sustainability in use of the affected resources (Ghristensen et al. 1996; gotsford et al. 1997). The need for fundamenta l change in the approach societies a round the world take to the use and m a n a g e m e n t of marine and coastal areas is now widely recognized, perhaps most prominent ly in Agenda 91 of the United Na-

�9 2003 Estuarine Research Federation 1199

1 1 9 0 T.M. Leschine et al.

tions Confe rence on Env i ronmen t and Develop- men t ' s (1992) Rio Declarat ion, which calls on all coastal nat ions to s t reng then m a n a g e m e n t systems and institutions in order to achieve h igher levels of sustainability in h u m a n use of mar ine and coastal resources.

T h e biophysical complexi ty of estuarine systems is high, with m a n y in te rconnec ted c o m p o n e n t s whose interact ions may be poorly unders tood . I t is also the case that c o m m o n suites of env i ronmenta l p rob l ems plague many if no t mos t coastal estuaries in developed parts of the world. E m m e t t et al. (2000), in a recent comprehens ive characteriza- tion of Nor th Amer ican west coast estuaries, found that habi ta t al terat ion, degradat ion, and loss, freshwater flow diversions, mar ine sed iment contami- nat ion, and exotic species in t roduct ions are problems c o m m o n to most. U.S. Envi ronmenta l Protec- tion Agency 's Nat ional Coastal Condi t ion Repor t (2001), an a t t empt to assess comprehens ive ly the quality of the na t ion ' s estuaries wa a c o m m o n set of indicators, found the overall condi t ion to be only on the low side of fair. A suite of seven indicators (water clarity, dissolved oxygen, wetlands loss, eu t rophic condit ion, s ed imen t contamina t ion , benthic condit ion, and con taminan t accumula t ion in fish tissue) was employed (USEPA 2001). Poli- cies f requent ly target p rob l ems in isolation, lack in tegra t ion with policies directed at o ther similar problems, or lack the flexibility to adapt easily to surprise (Leschine 1990; Lee 1998; Healey and Hennessey 1994; NRC 1995). T h e p rob l em of ef- fectively m a n a g i n g the cumulat ive impacts of coastal d e v e l o p m e n t - - t o the NRC panel , " t he tyranny of small decisions" (NRC 1995, p. 15) has proved especially ref rac tory to analysis and control (Spal- ing and Smit 1998; Good 1994).

In terac t ions be tween soc ioeconomic and biophysical systems also typically fail to get m o r e than cursory a t ten t ion as env i ronmenta l decisions are m a d e ( O r b a c h 1995; C o s t a n z a 1996; H o l l i n g 2001). C o m m o n complaints are that scientists and policy makers fail to in teract or communica t e suf- ficiently, or that the resources al located to applying scientific under s t and ing to p r o b l e m solving are few c o m p a r e d to those invested in o ther aspects of the policy-making process (NRC 1995). At the most basic level, f undamen ta l differences in the cultures of science and policy mak ing have been identified as imped imen t s to bet ter use of science in environ- menta l decisions (Caldwell 1990; Fo r tman 1990; Boesch and Macke 1995).

N u m e r o u s remedies to these imped imen t s have been p roposed , part icularly over the past decade as the sense has grown that h u m a n inf luence on the ear th ' s env i ronmenta l s3,stems is now capable of expressing itself at global scales (Parson and

Fisher-Vanden 1995). Adaptive m a n a g e m e n t (Holl- ing 1978; Walters 1986; Lee 1993; Ludwig et al. 199S; G u n d e r s o n et al. 1995; H i lbo rn et al. 1995; NRC 1995), in tegra ted m a n a g e m e n t (NRC 1995), and ecosystem-based, or ecosystem, m a n a g e m e n t (Apollonio 1994; G r u m b i n e 1994; Chr is tensen et al. 1996; Yaffee 1996; Botsford et al. 1997; Gislason et al. 2000; Pajak 2000) have all been p rop o sed as ways to change the basic app roach to env i ronmen- tal and mar ine resource m a n a g e m e n t . Each is potentially a vehicle for a m a n a g e m e n t a p p r o a c h m o r e al igned with scientific p recep t s than cur ren t approaches . As these and o ther c o m m e n t a t o r s have observed however, such re-or ienta t ion of en- v i ronmenta l m a n a g e m e n t systems is not easily achieved.

Some observers f rom both natural and social scientific communi t i e s now argue that in o rder for m o r e i n t eg ra t i ve s c i e n c e - b a s e d e n v i r o n m e n t a l m a n a g e m e n t to occur, b roade r and m o r e multidis- ciplinary scientific research designs than have be- come s tandard are n e c e s s a r y - - t h e mode l some- times re fe r red to as in tegra ted assessment (Holl ing 199S; Parson and Fisher-Vanden 1995). T h e integrated assessment mode l has recently given rise to the no t ion of sustainability science (Kates et al. 2001), an app roach whereby scientific research quest ions are explicitly f r amed in ways d e e m e d relevant to the ability of policy makers and manage r s to enhance the sustainability of env i ronmenta l resource systems.

Standing at the opposi te end of the spec t rum of ways to improve the use of science in env i ronmen- tal p rob l em solving, env i ronmenta l indicators have been p roposed as relatively s t ra ightforward and in- expensive ways of translating cur ren t scientific in- fo rma t ion into fo rms readily usable by environ- menta l manage r s (Organizat ion for Economic Co- opera t ion and D e v e l o p m e n t 1994; Pajak 2000; Ward 2000). T h e env i ronmenta l r epo r t card ap- p roach has been p r o m o t e d by USEPA as a tool for judg ing the effectiveness of its Nat ional Estuary P rogram (USEPA 1994, 2001).

This article uses the results of several re lated institutional and m a n a g e m e n t studies conduc ted as par t of the PNCERS research p r o g r a m (Pacific Northwest Coastal Ecosystems Regional Study). T h e genera l aim of these studies was assessment of the cur ren t status of estuarine env i ronmenta l man- a g e m e n t in the region. Each addressed science- m a n a g e m e n t interact ions within the PNCERS region f rom a perspect ive in fo rmed by themes out- lined above. The principal topics addressed concern: r e g i o n a l capac i ty fo r e n v i r o n m e n t a l m a n a g e m e n t ; commun ica t i on be tween scientists and manage r s in the region; compar i son between pract i t ioners ' and residents ' pe rcep t ions of envi-

r o n m e n t a l threats to the reg ion ' s estuaries; and potential roles for indicators in estuarine environmen ta l m a n a g e m e n t .

T h e b r o a d e r context for this work is that estua- r ine env i ronmenta l m a n a g e m e n t is conceived as an on-going series of interact ions a m o n g managers, researchers , and the public (a g roup com- prised of coastal residents and o ther in teres ted and affected parties, including n o n g o v e r n m e n t a l organizations), med ia t ed by social institutions. Fol- lowing Elinor Os t rom and others, insti tutions are def ined broadly, and cons idered to consist simply of groups of actors governed by agreed rules and n o r m s (Os t rom 1990; Imper ia l 1999). Inst i tut ions can be fo rmal or informal f rom this perspective; formally const i tuted env i ronmenta l m a n a g e m e n t organizat ions such as state agencies are special cas- es. Each g roup within the env i ronmenta l manage- m e n t system directly perceives, affects, or is affected by coastal and estuarine env i ronmenta l problems, and each g roup ' s actions, percept ions , and resources combine to media te its interact ions with the o ther g roups represen ted , largely th rough the vehicle of institutions. O u r perspect ive is that while these interact ions and inf luences consti tute de fac- to env i ronmenta l m a n a g e m e n t for the region, the net effect is that the inves tment m a d e in applying coastal and estuarine science to env i ronmenta l p rob l em solving is subopt imal (NRC 1995, p. g; Boesch 1999). The relevant actors and insti tutions are arrayed in a hierarchical structure, what Hup- pe r t et al. (9008) and others (see also Smith 2009) call an insti tutional map.

As has been observed by others, m u c h of the ability to m a n a g e h u m a n inf luence on coastal and nea r shore inarn~.e env i ronmenta l resources ex- presses itself th rough land or land-based activities m a n a g e m e n t . Regional and local organizat ions and institutional a r r a n g e m e n t s b e c o m e especially i m p o r t a n t in assessments of env i ronmenta l man- a g e m e n t capacity (NRC 1995). For this reason our work focused principally on regional and local m a n a g e m e n t of the five PINCERS estuaries, with an emphasis on institutional, social, and manager ia l aspects.

Methods

T h e principal data collection m e t h o d s used in these studies were elite interviews and surveys. In- terviews were primari ly semi-structured, conduc ted in pe r son using s tandard open -ended interview strategies (Pat ton 1990). Elite interviewing is a s tandard app roach to tapping into the specialized knowledge, experiences , and percep t ions of exper ts and others well p laced within a governance or o ther organizat ional s t ructure (Burgess 1988). Two surveys were u n d e r t a k e n over the course of

Scientific Information and Estuary Management 1 191

these studies, the first via mail dur ing 2000 and directed at bo th researchers and pract i t ioners and manage r s working in or with the estuaries in the PNCERS study region (Coos Bay, Ti l lamook Bay, and Yaquina Bay in Oregon , and Grays H a r b o r and Willapa Bay in Washington) , the second via onl ine post ing dur ing 9001 and focusing on a similar, over lapping popula t ion consisting mainly of practitioners. These activities were s u p p l e m e n t e d with reviews of historical and p lann ing d o c u m e n t s de- scribing m a n a g e m e n t processes for each bay, and in some instances with a t t endance at public meet - ings. Extensive l i terature reviews were also con- ducted, with principal emphas is on ecosystem and systems m a n a g e m e n t , insti tutional analysis, and the deve lopmen t and use of env i ronmenta l indicators. Supp lemen ta l in format iona l or explora tory interviews were conduc ted with local manage r s and researchers , whose pu rpose was to aid design or pilot-testing of the survey and interview ques- tionnaires.

Survey design and adminis t ra t ion general ly followed the me thods of Dil lman (1978, 2000). Fol- lowing in format iona l interviews with local managers and researchers , a mail survey was developed dur ing late 1999 and distr ibuted to g0g manage r s and researchers in or familiar with the five-estuary PNCERS study region early in 2000 (Pico 9001). The Dil lman (1978) Total Design Method was employed. Two h u n d r e d thirty one surveys were re- turned, for a response rate of 76%. The purpose of this survey was to de t e rmine whe the r cultural differences be tween researchers and manage r s similar to those described by Fo r tman (1990), Boesch and Macke (1995), and others were perceived to exist by manage r s and researchers in the PNCERS region, and whe ther such differences were perceived to be consequent ia l for the t ransfer of in fo rmat ion be tween the two groups. O t h e r quest ions sought to establish p re fe r r ed sources of in fo rmat ion and routes of disseminat ion used by each group, and app roaches for improving the use of science in estuarine env i ronmenta l management . A version of cultural theory developed by Crosby (1995) for use in a study of research and m a n a g e m e n t in the Nat ional Estuarine Research Reserve system was utilized for survey quest ions de- s igned to test for perceived cultural differences between manager s and researchers (Pico 2001).

O u r second survey, the coastal pract i t ioners survey, was conduc ted online dur ing J u n e and July of 2001 following the fo rma t and imp lemen ta t i on strategy of the Tai lored Design Me thod (Dil lman 9000). T h e survey targeted 242 coastal practi t ioners knowledgeable with or responsible for at least one of the five case study estuaries. These survey par t ic ipants were considered an elite sample fol-

1192 T.M. Leschine et al.

lowing Burgess ' defini t ion (1988, p. 114). This survey served mult iple purposes . It provided the means to compa re pract i t ioners ' pe rcep t ions of en- v i ronmenta l threats with those obta ined in earlier surveys of coastal residents ( H u p p e r t et al. 2003). It also pe rmi t t ed a m o r e detailed character izat ion of the manage r s - r e s ea r che r s con t inuum developed in the earlier survey work of Pico (described above). It became our principal means for gener- ating in fo rmat ion on the perceived roles of envi- r onmen ta l indicators in estuarine m a n a g e m e n t (Ferriss 2002; Ferriss and Leschine 2003). Practi- t ioners (n - 148) comple ted the survey quest ions addressing env i ronmenta l threats, result ing in a response rate of 59% for that section. Pract i t ioners (n - 118--144) r e s p o n d e d to a series of quest ions addressing their pe rcep t ions of env i ronmenta l indicators as estuary m a n a g e m e n t tools, for a response rate of 49-60% (depend ing on the question).

Because most quest ions in bo th surveys pro- duced ei ther nomina l or ordinal data, oppor tun i - ties for s tandard paramet r ic analyses were limited. N o n p a r a m e t r i c c o r r e l a t i o n ana lyses were per - f o rmed using a quest ion p resen ted in bo th the residents ' survey ( H u p p e r t et al. 2003) and the online survey descr ibed above. This quest ion involved rating potent ia l threats to the e n v i r o n m e n t on a Lik- ert-type scale, in which 1 - not a threat at all and 5 - very severe threat. Kendal l ' s corre la t ion coefficient, ~r-b, was used to measure the association between a threa t ra t ing and the estuary for which the rat ing was specified (Leach 1979; Daniel 1990). This followed the me thods described by Wright and Shindler (2001) in a recen t study of the perceived use of various in fo rmat ion sources in watershed m a n a g e m e n t .

X e tests were p e r f o r m e d with data result ing f rom several quest ions in the online survey. These questions c o n c e r n e d indicator use and limitation, j ob function, and e m p l o y m e n t institution. Prior to testing, data for each quest ion were r ecoded in b inary format. Then , X ~ tests were run with two binary variables at a t ime (e.g., research [versus all o ther j ob functions] and mon i to r ing [versus all o ther indicator uses]). Because the degrees of f r e edom for each test was 1, Coch ran ' s continuity cor rec t ion was appl ied (Cochran 1942).

Results

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CAPACITY ASSESSMENT

Benne t t (2000) conduc ted a compara t ive evalu- at ion of two local env i ronmenta l m a n a g e m e n t organizations whose activities affect Grays Harbor , Washington. T h e study's f indings underscore the

great variability that exists in goals, approach , and organizat ional design for estuarine env i ronmenta l m a n a g e m e n t at the local level, and how weak in- terorganizat ional col laborat ion can be, even when the geographica l loci of m a n a g e m e n t or interest are over lapping and strongly coupled biophysically. At the same time, this work leads to the conclusion that even though the local capacity for ecosystem- based m a n a g e m e n t is l imited, recent shifts in emphasis and incentives in Washington State 's ap- p roach to watershed m a n a g e m e n t , driven largely by the needs of sa lmon recovery, have led to an env i ronmenta l m a n a g e m e n t app roach m o r e in tune with the precepts of ecosystem m a n a g e m e n t than with tradit ional m a n a g e m e n t models .

T h e Grays H a r b o r Estuary M a n a g e m e n t Task Force is one of the oldest estuary m a n a g e m e n t organizations in the region and one of the oldest such organizat ions in the Uni ted States, having been established in 1975. Fo rmed originally to help i m p l e m e n t and s t reamline a pe rmi t process that was becoming increasingly complex, and, to some local consti tuencies, bu rdensome , its respon- sibilities revolve a round i m p l e m e n t a t i o n and peri- odic revision of the Grays H a r b o r Estuary Manage- m e n t Plan (GHEMP). Al though the purpose of the Plan has been b r o a d e n e d over the years, the emphasis r ema ins on the permi t t ing process. With the su r round ing region caught up in the genera l economic decline b rough t abou t by declines in the logging and commerc ia l fishing industr ies that have long been the reg ion ' s economic mainstays (Mapes and Mayo 2002), the Task Force has be- come the principal a r ena in which the conflict between the r equ i r emen t s of env i ronmenta l protection and the needs of economic deve lopmen t has played out in the Grays H a r b o r region. T h e organizat ion 's focus, as revealed th rough documen t s and interviews with principals, is on process ra ther than on ou tcome-or ien ted goals for the environ- ment . The Task Force tends to be reactive in its app roach to problems, typically becoming engaged when economic deve lopmen t proposals with potential to adversely affect the Grays H a r b o r envi- r o n m e n t conf ron t pe rmi t r equ i r emen t s imposed by federal and state governments .

T h e Gheha l i s Basin P a r t n e r s h i p (CBP) was fo rmed in 1998 to p r o m o t e local gove rnmen ta l in- f luence in env i ronmenta l m a n a g e m e n t of the Che- halls River Basin, the major por t ion of the catch- m e n t for Grays Harbor . It soon became the lead entity for the Water Resources Inven tory Areas (WRIA) that comprise the Chehal is Basin. Al- though the WRIA system was created as a watershed p lann ing mechan i sm by state legislation in 1971, for the mos t par t it languished until passage in 1998 of the Sa lmon Recovery Planning Act. In-

t ended to p r o m o t e a bo t tom-up a p p r o a c h to salmon recovery, the act requires designat ion of a lead entity for each watershed used by salmon. Lead en- tities are pe rmi t t ed to compe te for funding on an annual basis for projects related to sa lmon recovery, a factor that has proved to be a major incentive in their creation. The CBP has been fairly success- ful in obtaining funds unde r the related Sa lmon Recovery Funding Act. Its organizat ional goals focus on watershed env i ronmenta l restorat ion. Part- nership representat ives view the organizat ion as proactive in or ienta t ion and consider the process of seeking competi t ive funding as en t rep reneur ia l activity that has as its reward improvemen t s in en- v i ronmen ta l quality and the tourism and recrea- tional benefi ts they believe will a c c o m p a n y higher levels of env i ronmenta l quality (Bennet t 2000).

Criteria for compar i son of the two organizat ions were genera ted f rom a review of the ecosystem m a n a g e m e n t l i terature and principles of systems analysis, and summar ized in an ecosystem manage- m e n t ideal that served as a b e n c h m a r k (Bennet t 2000; Table 1). This ideal was const ructed by map- p ing principles of ecosystem m a n a g e m e n t (especially the character izat ions by G r u m b i n e [1994] and Yaffee [1996]) against pr inciples of systems theory (especially as ex tended to h u m a n organi- zational systems by Banathy [1996] and Laszlo [1997]). We also drew u p o n aspects of organiza- tional and collective choice theory (Allison 1971; Lee 1998) in developing this ideal.

T h o u g h ne i ther organizat ion is representat ive of the ecosystem m a n a g e m e n t ideal, the en t repre- neurial r e inven ted -governmen t a p p r o a c h of the newer CBP results in m o r e emphasis on environmen ta l mon i to r ing and grea ter l ikelihood that feedback f rom the env i ronmen t will lead to ad- jus tmen t s in approach . By contrast, the Task Force in charge of the GHEMP focuses its mon i to r ing on higher-level gove rnmen ta l organizat ions and ap- p ropr ia te responses. Taken together, the differences be tween the two seem indicative of the variability that exists in regional and local env i ronmenta l m a n a g e m e n t institutions within the PNCERS study area.

COMMUNICATION BETWEEN SCIENTISTS AND MANAGERS

As the Ocean Studies Board ' s r epo r t Science, Policy and the Coast notes, " T h e existence of different points of view and different interests is a major s t rength of the U.S. ocean governance system . . . " (NRC 1995, p. 33-84; see also Lee 1998). As the r epor t goes on to po in t out, these differences can have n u m e r o u s negative implicat ions for the use of science in m a n a g e m e n t and policy, effects that s tem f rom a variety of b reakdowns be-

Scientific Information and Estuary Management 1193

tween scientists and manage r s or within the institutional env i ronmen t that suppor ts their interaction. These include the lack of mutua l unders tanding, lack of commun ica t i on be tween scientists and managers , lack of or misuse of each o ther ' s prod- ucts, and conflicting or competi t ive ra ther than co- operat ive in teract ion (NRC 1995). Several studies have found researchers and policy makers to differ in the types of personal act ions they most value, their goals and p re fe r r ed t ime f rames for action, their expecta t ions abou t the comple teness of an- swers to quest ions they pose and the types of in- fo rma t ion mos t valued as the basis for decisions, the level of detail they find most desirable, and ultimately, their world views (gerns te in et al. 1991; Boesch and Macke 1995, as summar ized in NRC 1995).

A survey ques t ionnai re deve loped by Pico and Leschine (Pico 2001) a imed at establishing the extent to which such cultural differences be tween scient is ts and m a n a g e r s we re p e r c e i v e d to exis t a m o n g those whose work focused at least in par t on one or m o r e of the five PNCERS estuaries. We also wanted to know whether these differences were seen as inhibi t ing commun ica t i on be tween the two groups, and, to the extent that they were, what remedies were seen as able to improve informa t ion flow between them.

Each survey par t ic ipant was asked to classify h im or herse l f on a 5-point r e s e a r c h e r - m a n a g e r scale, p resen ted as a con t inuum of the values be tween 1 and 5. Defini t ions were provided to help respondents decide where they best fit given their day-today job responsibil i t ies and functions. Those mark- ing 2 or lower on the scale were classified as researchers (n - 47), and those selecting 4 or h igher were classified as manager s (n - 97). An inter- media te group of 55 individuals, classified on the basis of follow-up survey quest ions developed by Bell and Leschine (unpubl i shed data) as technical specialists without specific administrat ive responsi- bilities, are not considered in the analysis presented here. The larger g roup of 2S1 r e sponden t s to the survey sorted fairly evenly by state affiliation (42% Washington, 55% Oregon , with g% no response) . Abou t 62% repor t ed that they spent at least half of their t ime working on coastal issues, and abou t g8% repo r t ed that they spent at least hal f of their t ime working on p rob l ems specific to one or m o r e of the five PNCERS estuaries. Sixteen pe rcen t of r e sponden t s r epor t ed spending m o r e than s/4 of their t ime working on p rob l ems specific to one or m o r e of the PNCERS study-site estuaries.

O u r strategy for identifying cultural differences was to p resen t all survey r e sponden t s with the same four sets of pa i red questions. T h e A par t of each pair was in tended to evoke a g r e e m e n t or disagree-

1194 T . M . Leschine et al.

#

�9 v

Y

~ Y

o ~

o

o

~ 0

m

~.~

N ~

~ , u o ,...a

~ o X ~ o ~ "~ ~ ~ ' ~

~ .~ ~- o ,~ ~ 0 ~ ~

o | r~ ~ ~

0 ~ ' ~ ~ . b.o ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ "'d ~ ~ -- "~

~-~ ~o.~ ~ �9 ~ ~ ~ '~ "~ 0 ~ " ~ o

~ ~ ~oO

~ g

bO o ~ ~ ~ ~ o o ~ ~ . ~ S ~ o ~ ~ ~ "

b.O

o, ~ ~.~ ~ ~ .~

boO

.8o

o~

~o= o

o ~.~ ~,.a

",~ ~ 0 ~l ~ ~. ~ . ~

;~ ~ . ~ , ~

o

o

o

~ . ~

o

~d

0

0 " ~

0

0

"'d

ment with a s tatement about the attitudes or work patterns of scientists, and the B part in tended to evoke agreement or disagreement with a corresponding proposi t ion about policy makers. The four areas covered were objectives and methods (ends and means of researchers and policy makers), time scale and scope of issues (time and attention spans of the work of the two groups) , accountability and rewards, and modes of communicating and interacting. As an example, the questions aimed at objectives and methods were: A) "Scientists work to unders tand and explain by using impersonal and unbiased methods to seek the truth. Scientists base conclusions on data and are mistrustful of personal opinions." B) "Policy makers strive to act and make decisions to resolve problems by using power and influence to serve the public welfare. Policy makers must use their personal j udgmen t , as they often need to act before complete informat ion is available." These questions represent a reorganizat ion and streamlining of questions used by Crosby (1995) in a similar study.

These statements were phrased so as to evoke agreement (i.e., our hypothesis, based on results of the other studies cited above, was that most members of both groups would agree with all eight of the proposi t ions presented) . For the most part, that is what we found. For example, more than 80% of each group agreed or strongly agreed with the A proposi t ion above and more than 80% of scientists and more than 75% of managers agreed or strongly agreed with the B proposition. Such differences as appeared were also as might be ex- pected; for example, scientists were more likely to strongly agree with proposi t ion A above than managers, and to disagree with the statement we offered about the accountability and rewards system in science (that it was, "mainly to their peers and to the norms of science, with relatively low accountability to policy developments or public concerns"). Such disagreement as exists among scientists likely reflects the applied orientation of the particular researcher communi ty we contacted in this survey, most members of which were employed by government agencies, either as professional consultants, as university researchers unde r grants and contracts, or as direct employees of the agencies.

A second series of questions aimed to establish the extent to which these cultural differences were seen as inhibiting communica t ion between the two groups. Each of the four paired sets of questions just described was followed by a question present- ing five potential effects of the cultural difference represented by the pair: "(1) a positive outcome from seeing multiple sides of an issue; (2) a dis-


connect that makes research less useful to managers; (3) a breakdown in communica t ion between scientists and managers; (4) this difference has no effect on communica t ion between scientists and managers; and (5) there is not a significant difference between scientists and managers as a whole." Respondents were permit ted to check as many as they felt applied as consequences of the scientist- manager difference presented in each pair.

Choice 9 (makes research less useful) was the selection receiving the most votes overall and was the top choice, or tied for top choice, by both groups for each of the four issue areas. Choice g (breakdown in communicat ion) was the second most popular choice overall, and second or tied for first or second for both groups for each issue area. In considering the effects of differences in accountability and rewards systems, managers selected choice 4 (no effect on communica t ion) as frequently as they picked choice 3. But not so for the scientists, for whom choice 4 figured in only about 10% of all selections they made. In considering the effects of differences in modes of communicat ing and interacting, choice 1 (positive outcome) tied for first among managers (with no statistically significant differences across choices 1, 2, and g); but not so for the researchers, for whom choice 1 figured in less than 10% of the total selections (but with no statistically significant differences between choices 2 and 3 in a tie for first). That cultural differences between researchers and managers might, as the Ocean Studies Board panel suggested, represent a positive ou tcome (choice 1) finds some suppor t in these results, since that proposi t ion was consistently selected by at least some members of both groups in response to these questions, in addit ion to its tie for first among managers in their selections of effects of differences in modes of communica t ion and interaction between researchers and managers.

The last part of this work concerned preferred mechanisms of informat ion acquisition and dissemination, and suggestions for improving informat ion transfer between scientists and managers. A comparison of Figs. 1 and 2 reveals both similarities and differences in the modes of information acquisition and dissemination used by scientists and managers in the PNCERS study region. Scientists rely heavily on professional journa ls for both gaining and distributing information. They are relatively more reliant on journals as a means to gain informat ion (Fig. 1) than as a means to distribute informat ion (Fig. 2), where they, like managers, rely on multiple informat ion channels. Managers differ from scientists in their pr imary source for gaining information, with agency scientists garner ing the highest percentage of re-

1 196 T.M. Leschine et al.

�9 Personal knowledge [] University contacts [ ] Site specific studies []Targete~ werksheps

[] Scientific journals r-1 Agency scientists Et Professional meet ings

251 20"

Iz

o l

15 .

..r

~0.

8 O.

5.

g .

iiiiiiiiiiiil ::::::::::::::

!~ii!!!!!!!!!

Scientists Managers

Fig. 1. Results f rom the coastal pract i t ioners ' survey com- p a ~ n g m e t h o d s used by scientists and m a n a g e r s to acquire scientific in format ion . Bars r e p r e s e n t pe rcen tages o f the total n u m b e r o f m e t h o d s selected by each group.

�9 Scientific journals [ ] University contacts r-lAgency re~3orts ~10itizen work. group mC~ntact managers difeclly [] Targete~ workshops ~] Age n cy archive s/~'ataba se8 ~ Books

1 0

,_=

4

:.:, ..:.. ..:.,:,.:.:.~

n:.<~.:x ..,,+ ,.. .::u~x:::, .,..,, ....

g m

Scient is ts M a n a g e r s

Fig . 2. R e s u l t s f r o m d i e c o a s t a l p r a c t i t i o n e r s ' s u r v e y c o m - p a r i n g m e t h o d s u s e d b y s c i e n t i s t s a n d m a n a g e r s t o d i s s e m i n a t e

s c i e n t i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n . A s i n Fig . 1, b a r s r e p r e s e n t p e r c e n t a g e s

o f t h e t o t a l n u m b e r o f m e t h o d s s e l e c t e d b y e a c h g r o u p .

sponses (18%; Fig. 1). Managers also differ in their l imited use of scientific journa l s to distribute informat ion , as j ou rna l s receive the lowest percent - age of responses (1%; Fig. 2).

Both groups value agency archives and databases as a m o d e of in fo rmat ion disseminat ion (Fig. 2), though ne i ther g roup ' s reliance is sufficient to place agency archives and databases in the top seven modes of in fo rmat ion acquisition. Similarly, professional meet ings are the second mos t frequent ly m e n t i o n e d source of in fo rmat ion by bo th groups (Fig. 1), but ne i ther g roup selects this fo- r u m frequent ly enough for it to a p p e a r a m o n g the top eight m o d e s of in fo rmat ion dissemination. T h e impor t ance bo th groups at tach to professional meet ings as a source of in fo rmat ion suggests a potentially valuable m o d e of in fo rmat ion exchange between the two groups, even though, paradoxi- cally, ne i the r g roup seems to recognize the value of meet ings as a vehicle for in fo rmat ion dissemination.

Survey r e sponden t s offered a n u m b e r of suggestions for improving commun ica t i on between researchers and manager s (Fig. 3). Interestingly, bo th groups showed strong pre fe rences for some ins t ruments that ne i ther g roup current ly uses very much. Topical workshops and in tegra ted scientis t / m a n a g e r teams were the top two choices of bo th groups, with science advisory boards and p rog rams

to place scientists in t raining in agencies also receiving relatively high ratings.

PRACTITIONERS' AND RESIDENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF

ENVIRONMENTAL THREATS

T h a t experts and laypersons can differ in their percept ions of the impor t ance of env i ronmenta l p rob l ems or their potent ia l sources has been unders tood for quite some t ime (e.g., Nelkin 1979). Moreover, the ability to resolve such differences

Integrated mgr./sci.

Workshops

Scientists in training

Employ facilitators

Mgmt. training

Extensions services

ScL advisory' boards

Scientists in regret,

NGO/Advocacy

Sci. rewards system

Science agendas

Mgmt. rewards system

I I I I I I I I I IIII I . . . . . . . . . . J

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :" I

Iii Managers (n=95) [] Scientists {n=45)

0 5 10 15 20

Percent within each group

i

25

Fig. 5. Results f rom die coastal pract i t ioners ' survey compar ing the op in ions of scientists and m a n a g e r s with respec t to br idging the c o m m u n i c a t i o n gap be tween the two groups.

th rough the public policy process can spell the dif- fe rence between success and failure in efforts to develop effective policy responses (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1993; Cor tne r and Moore 1999).

An estuary-by-estuary survey of res idents ' percept ions of the severity of various env i ronmenta l threats is described elsewhere in this issue (Hup- pe r t et al. 2003). We developed an onl ine survey directed at pract i t ioners to examine the view of pract i t ioners on these same questions. As in the res idents ' survey, r e sponden t s were asked to rate the severity of each i tem in a p r e -de t e rmined list of potent ia l threats on a five-point scale (com- pressed in Fig. 4 by combin ing the two topmos t and two b o t t o m m o s t scale points, respectively). Also like the residents ' survey, r e sponden t s were given the opt ion of answering no t sure for each threat.

T h e survey popu la t ion was drawn f rom the g roup that par t ic ipated in the initial mail survey described above, with some augmen ta t i on to account for changes in the status of some original part icipants. We also el iminated the PNCERS investigators and a few o ther researchers who responded to the mail survey f rom the in t ended pop- ulat ion for the online survey, so that the focus would be as m u c h as possible on the manager s and scientific and technical suppor t staff of environmen ta l and p lann ing agencies whose work focused on the PNCERS estuaries, hence the te rm practi- t ioners to describe this popula t ion .

To facilitate estuary-by-estuary compar i sons and compar i son with the results of the residents ' survey, r e sponden t s were asked to rate the severity of threats for the one or two estuaries with which they felt most familiar. T h a t many r e sponden t s chose to rate p rob l ems for mult iple estuaries accounts for the sample sizes in Table 9 being h igher than the actual popu la t ion of par t ic ipat ing pract i t ioners (n

- 14B). Differences be tween estuaries domina te the per-

cept ions of pract i t ioners of the most severe envi- r o n m e n t a l threats (Fig. 4). A different top threa t is n a m e d for each estuary. In each case the top threat identified seems consistent with results f rom discussions with exper ts familiar with the bays. T h e relative geograph ic isolation of the five pr incipal estuaries of the PNCERS study area may account for the fact that what is exper ienced and perceived by pract i t ioners to be a serious threat in one estuary is not necessarily perceived as a threat for the others (in particular, ,Spartirza invasion in Willapa Bay, fa rm runof f in Ti l lamook Bay, and oil spills in Coos Bay, the site closest to the 1999 New Ca'rissa oil spill).

Beyond the env i ronmenta l p rob l ems that domi- nate the concerns of the pract i t ioners on an estu-


ary-specific basis, there are threats of somewhat lesser conce rn that are perceived as p rob l ems in all estuaries, and other threats that evoke consistently high percen tages of uncertainty. For example, up land logging is n a m e d a m o n g the top three threats in all five estuaries, and decline in fish or oyster-rearing habi ta t appears a m o n g the top three threats for all bays except Yaquina. Green crabs receive the highest pe rcen tage of " n o t sure" responses in all bays except Yaquina and Coos, where they are second to •artina, the o ther threat concern ing invasive specms.

From a slightly different perspective, if the responses are c o m b i n e d across estuaries and then analyzed accord ing to the managers-versus-scientists d icho tomy used in the discussion of the pre- vious section, then no statistically significant differences be tween the two groups emerge in their percept ions of threats (data no t shown). T h e situation with respect to pract i t ioners versus residents is m o r e complex.

Kendall 's "r is a measure of corre la t ion for rank- o rdered data similar to the S p e a r m a n rank correlation coefficient (Daniel 1990). In the context of the presen t study, -r can serve as a measure of the extent to which views on the severity of par t icular threats (coded as 1-5) are associated with a particular estuary (coded as 1, with o ther estuaries coded as 0). For each individual threat and estuary, corre la t ion statistics ( ranging f rom 1 to +1) are compu ted by compar ing the responses for that threat and that estuary to the responses for all other estuaries for the same threat. A conclusion of nonsignif icance suggests that the threat ratings for the subject estuary do not differ f rom the rat ings for the same threa t in the o ther estuaries. A significant positive corre la t ion is in te rp re ted to m e a n that the perceived ex t reme severity is relatively unique to the subject estuary. Conversely, a significant negative corre la t ion is in te rp re ted to m e a n that the perceived min imal severity is relatively unique to the subject estuary. In te rpre ta t ions of values in Table 2 are aided considerably by compar ison with Fig. 4. Finally, the views of res idents and pract i t ioners are subjected to the same analysis independen t ly (Tables 9 and B). C o m p a r i s o n of the pa t te rns of association across the two groups can reveal similarities and differences in their world views, with potential ly impor t an t implica- tions for p lann ing and m a n a g e m e n t .

A compar i son of Table 2 and Fig. 4 suggests that three of the es tuar ies--Wil lapa, Ti l lamook, and Coos have what migh t be though t of as singular domina t ing threats, while for the o ther two- -Grays H a r b o r and Yaqu ina - - the pic ture is m o r e mixed. Mult iple threats compe t e for a t tent ion or, alter- natively, severe ratings assigned by some practi t ion-

1 1 98 T.M. Leschine et al.

Channel dredging

Upland logging

Fish hab. decline

Industrial pollution

Oysler hab. decline

Shore development

Sparlina

Municipal sewage

Fa~-n runoff

G~een crabs

Oil spills

City runoff

Farm runoff

Upland logging

Fish hab, decline

Oyster hab. decline

Charmel dredging

City runoff

Shore development

Green crabs

Municipal sewage

Spartina

industrial pollution

Oil spills

Oil spills

Fish hab. decline

Upland logging

Channel dredging

Shore development

~qdustrial pollution -

Green crabs

City runoff

Farm runoff -

Municipal sewage

Spartina

Oyster hab, decline

A Grays Harbor (n=54)

. ' / " . .

~.:i~:., I

I

20 40 60 80 100

c Ti t lamook Bay (n=41)

It

20 40 60 80

E Coos Bay (n=28)

i

1 O0

Sparlina

Upland logging

Oyster hab, decline

Green crabs

Fish hab. decline

Shore development

Farm runoff

City runoff

Oil spills

Channel dredging

Municipal sewage

Industrial pollution

Upland logging

Shore development

City runoff

Green crabs

Oil spills

Channel dredging

Induskial pollution

Fish hab. decline

Municipal sewage

Farm runoff

Spartina

Oyster hab. decline

B W i l t a p a Bay (n=57)

K.~ ;:~.!r .!:~:41

I

0 20 40 60 80 100

D Yaqu ina Bay (n=38)

I C C C C C N

II I In II m ' : ~ =':5. ~- s~m

I 1 | =

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of respondents

!=:"

,~.,.i.": ,;-,:: ".:...

~.?,...

ECE3

0 20 40 60 80 t 00

Percent of respondents

�9 More of a threat

[] Moderate threat

[] Less of a threat

Fig. 4. Results from the online survey of coastal practitioners regarding their perceptions of environmental threats in Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay, Tillamook Bay, Yaquina Bay, and Coos Bay. Bars indicate percentages of practitioners rating individual threats at 3 levels of seventy. Where bars do not reach 100%, the difference indicates percentages of practitioners who responded not sure.


T A B L E 2. Resu l t s f r o m a ser ies o f K e n d a l l ' s c o r r e l a t i o n tests u s i n g t h e d a t a f r o m t h e o n l i n e c o a s t a l p r a c t i t i o n e r s ' survey. E a c h t e s t m e a s u r e s t h e a s s o c i a t i o n b e t w e e n a t h r e a t r a t i n g ( c o d e d as 1 - 5 , w h e r e 1 n o t h r e a t a n d 5 seve re t h r e a t ) a n d t h e es tum-y s p e c i f i e d f o r t h a t r a t i n g ( c o d e d as 1 o r 0, w h e r e 1 = t h e s p e c i f i e d e s t u a r y a n d 0 = t h e o t h e r f o u r e s t u a r i e s ) . C o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s a r e s h o w n , f o l l o w e d b y a s t m i s k s w h e r e t h e c o r r e l a t i o n is s i gn i f i c an t . * p < 0 .05 (2- ta i led) a n d ** p < 0.01 (2 - ta i l ed) .

Estuary

Threat n Grays Wlllapa Tillamook Yaquina Coos

Industrial pollution 205 0.811"* 0.889** 0.151" 0.059 0.207** Municipal sex*~ge 192 0.183"* -0.274** 0.105 -0.077 0.085 Shore development 212 0.015 0.092 0.045 0.084 0.115 Oil spills 201 -0.054 -0.195"* -0.222** 0.192"* 0.647** Spartina 168 0.087 0.616"* 0.222** 0.848** 0.187"* Green crabs 156 -0.191"* 0.086 0.036 -0.012 0.122 Channel dredging 206 0.185"* 0.316"* 0.024 0.022 0.165"* City runoff 204 -0.012 -0.299** 0.135" 0.081 0.162" Oyster habitat dedine 188 0.016 0.112 0.195"* 0.291"* 0.082 Fish habitat decline 193 0.011 -0.145" 0.266** -0.202** 0.097 Farm runoff 206 0.125" 0.068 0.492** 0.828** 0.027 Upland logging 206 -0.055 -0.051 0.191"* -0.127" 0.053

ers are offset by m o d e r a t e or low ratings assigned by others. T h e relatively high p l a c e m e n t of up land logging as a serious threat to mos t estuaries, coupled with the relative lack of statistical significance in the cross-estuary compar i sons (last line of Table 9), suggests that it is a p rob l em of true regional significance, pe rhaps m o r e so than any of the other threats listed in the survey. In contrast, the threat posed by the invasive European g reen crab, while showing a similar pa t t e rn of nonsignif icance in cross-estuary compar i sons (line 6 of Table 2), also shows less certainty a m o n g pract i t ioners as to the p rob l em actually posed on an estuary-by-estuary basis (Fig. 4). High rates of not sure responses are characteristic (shown in Fig. 4 by the spaces to the r ight of the bars). Yaquina Bay and Willapa Bay seemingly em erge as th rea tened by fewer environmen ta l p rob l ems than o ther estuaries in the view of practi t ioners, with many potential ly i m p o r t a n t p rob l ems viewed as distinctly n o n t h r e a t e n i n g compared to how they are viewed for the o ther estuaries. This is evident bo th in Fig. 4 and Table 2, which depicts significant negative correlat ions for 5 of the 19 threats in Yaquina and 6 of the 12 threats in Willapa.

A compar i son of Tables 2 and g reveals striking differences in the pa t te rns of pract i t ioners ' and residents ' pe rcep t ions of env i ronmenta l threats, even though the two groups of r e sponden t s gen- erate abou t the same n u m b e r of significant correlat ions overall (81 for practi t ioners, 35 for residents). While we migh t expect pract i t ioners to show sharper discr iminat ion in their pe rcep t ions of what does and does no t consti tute a serious threat than residents, there is no clear evidence for this in these results. The m o r e ex t reme (+ or - ) values of the pract i t ioners ' corre la t ion coefficients ( compared to those of the residents) could consti-

tute such evidence, but the differences are likely due to disparities in sample size.

Residents of Coos Bay are striking in their dis- incl inat ion to see any of the i tems presen ted as p rob l ems for their estuary in compar i son to the views expressed by o ther residents regard ing the same p rob l ems in their own bays (see last co lumn of Table 3, where 11 of the 12 threats quest ions p roduce statistically significant negative correla- tions). Pract i t ioners familiar with Coos Bay see several threats however, especially that posed by oil spills, a likely result of the considerable t ime spent by m a n y of them in dealing with the a f t e rmath of the 1999 New Carissa spill. T h e estuary where practit ioners and residents appea r to be in greatest a l ignment on the significance of an env i ronmenta l threat is that posed by the Spartina invasion in Wil- lapa Bay, where a commercia l ly i m p o r t a n t oyster culture industry is widely perceived to be at risk f rom invasive cordgrass that colonizes the mudf la ts used for oyster rearing. T h e suggest ion is that substantial efforts by manage r s to attack this p ro b l em would be readily welcomed by residents, a po in t b o r n e out by an earlier study documen t ing extensive local efforts to eradicate Spartina f rom the bay (Wing 1996).

This analysis suggests that relatively few environmen ta l p rob l ems of the five estuaries show the same resonances in bo th the views of pract i t ioners and residents. Care is needed in in terpre t ing the mean ing of bo th significance and non-signif icance of course. Where lack of statistical significance in responses of the public s tems f rom unshaped attitudes due to lack of knowledge, or f rom genu ine d i sagreement as to the significance of the threats posed, the terr i tory is in theory ripe for approaches like ecosystem-based m a n a g e m e n t that rely heavily on public par t ic ipat ion to develop agreed

1 2 0 0 T.M. Lesehine et al.

TABLE 3. Results from a series of Kendall's correlation tests using the data from the residents' survey. Each test measures the assodation between a threat rating and a specific estuary, as in Table 2. Correlation coefficients are shown, followed by asterisks where the correlation is significant. * p < 0.05 (2-tailed) and ** p < 0.01 (2-tailed).

Estuary

Thre at n Grays Wlllapa Tillamoo k Y~.quina Coo s

Industrial pollution 1,708 0.073"* - 0.053" 0.019 0.113"* - 0.137"* Municipal sewage 1,658 0.028 0.051" 0.027 0.111"* 0.097** Shore development 1,724 0.024 0.009 0.048* 0.116"* -0.181"* Oil spills 1,728 0.009 0.024 0.060** 0.087** 0.013 Spartina 1,342 0.002 0.354** -0.108"* -0.094** -0.214"* Green crabs 1,359 0.015 0.156"* 0.072** 0.034 0.087** Channel dredging 1,576 0.087** 0.062** -0.114"* 0.075** -0.106"* City runoff 1,673 0.048* 0.032 0.042 0.081"* 0.112"* Oyster habitat decline 1,487 0.036 0.050* -0.042 0.027 -0.068** Fish habitat decline 1,624 0.016 0.013 0.003 0.027 0.055* Farm run off 1,664 0.034 - 0.024 0.112** 0.045* - 0.149** Upland logging 1,684 0.004 0.032 0.002 0.103** 0.121"*

views on the i m p o r t a n c e a n d causes of p r o b l e m s a n d s t r a t eg ies fo r t he i r r e s o l u t i o n ( C o r t n e r a n d M o o t e 1999).

T H E R O L E O F E N V I R O N M E N T A L I N D I C A T O R S IN

E S T U A R I N E E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T

E n v i r o n m e n t a l i n d i c a t o r s a re f r e q u e n t l y p o i n t e d to as re la t ive ly s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d a v e n u e s fo r a l i g n i n g e n v i r o n m e n t a l m a n a g e m e n t m o r e s q u a r e l y with the p r o b l e m s a n d p r o b l e m causes tha t env i ron - m e n t a l r e s e a r c h sugges t s a r e m o s t s ign i f i can t (Pa- j a k 2000; W a r d 2000) , T h e O r e g o n P r o g r e s s B o a r d a n d the P u g e t S o u n d W a t e r Qua l i t y A c t i o n T e a m each p u b l i s h r e p o r t s on the h e a l t h of the s ta te a n d the s o u n d , respect ively , i n c l u d i n g the s ta tus o f se- l e c t ed e n v i r o n m e n t a l i n d i c a t o r s ( G o o d 2000; Pu- ge t S o u n d W a t e r Qua l i t y A c t i o n T e a m 2002) . F o r e x a m p l e , f i -eshwater in f low in to O r e g o n es tua r i e s is u sed to i n d i c a t e the i n t eg r i t y o f e s t u a r i n e m i x i n g p rocesses , a n d c o n t a m i n a n t s in musse l s a n d har - b o r seals in P u g e t S o u n d a re i n d i c a t o r s o f t he levels of pe s t i c i de s a n d meta l s , T h e l i m i t e d use ind i - ca to r s have seen to da t e sugges ts t ha t f ac to rs tha t may l imi t the e x t e n t a n d n a t u r e of the i r use have n o t b e e n fully i d e n t i f i e d o r a d d r e s s e d . A c o m b i - n a t i o n of the o n l i n e survey d e s c r i b e d above a n d el i te i n t e rv i ews with coas ta l p r a c t i t i o n e r s c o n d u c t - ed by Fer r i s s (2002) was e m p l o y e d to d e t e r m i n e the p e r c e i v e d ut i l i ty o f i n d i c a t o r s as e n v i r o n m e n t a l m a n a g e m e n t tools , t he i r c u r r e n t uses by p rac t i - t i one r s w o r k i n g in t he PNCERS es tuar ies , a n d per - ce ived l i m i t a t i o n s to the i r use. I n g e n e r a l , i nd ica - tors a r e n o t b e i n g u sed to t h e i r full p o t e n t i a l in PNCERS es tuar ies .

Perce~ived Utility and Familiarity of Indicators to Practitioners

O f 147 o n l i n e su rvey r e s p o n d e n t s , 53% s e l e c t e d yes, i n d i c a t o r s a r e n e e d e d , b u t 39% s k i p p e d the ques t ion . I n t e rv i ews p r o d u c e d s imi l a r r e sponse s .

W h e n a sked w h e t h e r e n v i r o n m e n t a l i n d i c a t o r s a re w o r t h w h i l e , t h e r e was a pos i t ive r e s p o n s e (59% yes) b u t q u i t e a few who were u n s u r e (22%), a n d 11% d id n o t p r o v i d e a n answer. T h e s u g g e s t i o n is t ha t u n f a m i l i a r i t y with i n d i c a t o r s m a y be t e m p e r - ing o p i n i o n s a b o u t h o w v a l u a b l e they are.

Current Use of Indicators in Estuarine Management

O f the 144 su rvey r e s p o n d e n t s who a n s w e r e d the q u e s t i o n , " A r e i n d i c a t o r s ( eco log ica l , phys ica l , o r social) b e i n g u s e d in t he a r e a tha t y o u m a n a g e a n d / o r r e s e a r c h ? " 63% a n s w e r e d yes whi le 29% were u n s u r e . T h e survey a n d in te rv iews also a s k e d h o w i n d i c a t o r s were b e i n g used in the p r a c t i t i o n - e r ' s a r e a of work, M o n i t o r i n g (survey, 20%; in te r - views, 19%) a n d d e c i s i o n m a k i n g (survey, 24%; interviews, 11%) were two of the m o s t c o m m o n uses n a m e d . T h e i n t e r v i e w e e s also l i s ted focus a t t e n t i o n as a p r i m a r y use (14%) . In te res t ing ly , 19% of the survey r e s p o n d e n t s s k i p p e d this q u e s t i o n , t h o u g h a n o n e o f the a b o v e c h o i c e was o f f e r e d (6% se- l e c t ed this o p t i o n ) . Th i s suggests , in l ine wi th ob- s e rva t i ons on p e r c e i v e d ut i l i ty above , tha t t hose who a r e f ami l i a r with i n d i c a t o r s be l i eve they a re usefu l a n d can n a m e the uses to wh ich they a re c u r r e n t l y put , b u t a l a rge n u m b e r of coas ta l p rac- t i t i one r s a re re la t ive ly u n f a m i l i a r wi th de ta i l s o f in- d i c a t o r use.

W h e n r e s p o n s e s a re s o r t e d by j o b f u n c t i o n a n d i n s t i t u t i o n of e m p l o y m e n t o f the i nd iv idua l , d i f fer- e n c e s ac ross g r o u p s e m e r g e in the p r i m a r y uses s een for i nd i ca to r s . C o m p a r e d to o t h e r j o b func- t ions, a s ign i f i can t n u m b e r o f t hose e n g a g e d in re- s e a r c h s e l e c t e d r e s e a r c h as t h e i r p r i m a r y i n d i c a t o r use (X ~ - 4.359, p - 0 . 0 3 7 ) , whi le e d u c a t i o n a n d o u t r e a c h spec ia l i s t s chose m e a s u r i n g success statis- t ical ly m o r e f r e q u e n t l y t h a n the o t h e r s (X 2 - 6.314, p - 0.012). F e d e r a l e m p l o y e e s s e l e c t e d m o n i t o r - ing s ign i f i can t ly less f r e q u e n t l y (X: - 5.322, p - 0.021) a n d m e a s u r i n g success s ign i f i can t ly m o r e

Monitonng,

Research

Communicating with mgr./sci.

Communicating with public

Measuring success

Making der

None of the above ., : : . , . . ,

No answer

Fig. 5.

�9 Federal [] State

I ' ' I

5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Percent within each group

Results f rom the onl ine survey of coastal pract i t ioners r egard ing the p r imary pu rpose of indicators in their area of work�9 Only the responses o f gove rnmen t - employed pract i t ioners are shown.

frequently (X ~ - 4.956, p - 0.026) than did local and state government employees. These differences in views on indicator use are evident in Fig. 5, as are other disparities (e.g., that no local government employees selected research or communicating with managers and researchers). While these many different visions of the uses of indicators can be seen as indicative of their multi-faceted utility, the lack of a c o m m o n vision th rough levels of gov- e rnmen t and across administrative functions that play key roles in estuarine m a n a g e m e n t is likely indicative of how little systematic attention has to date been given to the development and deploy- ment of estuarine indicators.

Factors Limiting Indicator Use

When asked to identify the pr imary limiting factor for indicator use, 44% of survey respondents chose lack of resources. This response was followed in frequency by those who skipped the question (20%) and the lack of data selection (14%). Un- familiarity with indicators was next in rank with 10% of the responses. Fur ther analyses of limiting factors revealed uneven distributions across job functions and levels of government , particularly with regard to the unfamiliarity with indicators response. For example, communi ty development specialists chose unfamil iar i ty m o r e f r equen t ly than did those with other job functions (X z - 4.183, p - 0.041), while natural resource managers chose this response less frequently (X 2 - 4.901, p - 0.027). Likewise, local gove rnmen t employees chose unfamiliarity more frequently than did other gove rnmen t employees (X 2 - 9.599, p - 0.002), while state government employees chose unfamiliarity less frequently (X ~ - 5.766, p - 0.016).

A p rominen t concern among interviewees was

Scientific Information and Estuary Management 1 201

the reliability and validity of environmental indicators. Their most f requent responses concern ing the limiting factors of indicators were: choosing the wrong indicator (15%), the requi rement of a good unders tanding of the ecosystem (10%), and that people can focus on indicators too m u c h (9%). Parenthetically, we observe that the results in the preceding section suggest that practit ioners view the environmental problems of estuaries in very site-specific terms, and the results here suggest that they may also see indicators as p romot ing a view that problems and appropria te measures of managemen t success are similar across estuaries, a view they do not necessarily share. Other issues were dangers of misuse and misinterpretation, un- reliability, and not knowing how to properly apply indicators. These responses suggest that data limi- tations and development costs are potentially significant barriers to fur ther development of indicators by agencies at all levels of government , particularly as many currently struggle with budge t c u t s .

Summary and C o n c l u s i o n s

Environmental managemen t for estuaries like those in the PNGERS study region can be seen as the produc t of an on-going interaction among a constellation of actors--pr incipal ly managers, researchers, coastal residents and other members of the pub l i c - - suppor t ed by an institutional appara- tus that can take many forms and that undergoes continual change. This study aimed at elucidating the nature of that interaction.

As in other policy-making arenas, legislative action, judicial interpretation, and many other influ- ences, including the interest and involvement of the public, work constantly to shape and reshape the institutional envi ronment in which environ- m e n t a l m a n a g e m e n t occurs . The ins t i tu t iona l structure that delivers environmental m a n a g e m e n t for coastal estuaries has received a fair amoun t of at tention from scholars who analyze its organiza- tional or social attributes. One general conclusion of those whose work takes a normative orientation is that science is not receiving the at tention it should. One general conclusion of those whose aim is empirical description of how science influ- ences the direction of policy is that results are highly context -dependent and seldom is it the case that the quality or significance of the science itself determines its ultimate utility to policy makers.

The PNCERS estuaries have not followed any simple c o m m o n path in their environmental management histories, just as their economic lives have followed divergent paths. Today some of the coastal communit ies sur rounding these estuaries con- tinue to struggle with the decline of traditional re-


source -dependen t industr ies (especially Coos Bay and Grays Harbor , bo th strongly t imber-dependent) while others (u Bay) seem to funct ion successfully with an e c o n o m y based as m u c h on tourism, recreat ion, and leisure r e t i r emen t as on tradit ional industries like commerc ia l fishing. Still o thers (Willapa and Ti l lamook Bays) seemingly ex- hibit app roaches to env i ronmenta l m a n a g e m e n t that or ient strongly toward the preserva t ion of still viable local economic s t rengths (oyster growing in Willapa and dairy fa rming in the Ti l lamook low- lands). These realities seem m i r ro r ed in our results, part icularly in the pract i t ioners ' and residents ' views of env i ronmenta l threats.

Healey and Hennessey ' s (1994) observat ion that science appea r s episodically and most often in the p lann ing stage in estuarine env i ronmenta l man- a g e m e n t is pe rhaps b o r n e out by these results. In- terviews conduc ted as par t of this research suggest that locally mean ingfu l scientific activity mos t often takes the fo rm of resource inventories and map- ping, moni tor ing , and studies in suppor t of miti- gation for pe rm i t activities. The CBP for example is current ly conduc t ing resource inventor ies in suppor t of relatively new watershed and sa lmonid res torat ion efforts. Yet the resource inventory in- fo rma t ion that was compi led for deve lopmen t of the G H E M P dur ing the 1970s has not been appre- ciably upda ted since then, despite Grays H a r b o r compris ing the receiving waters of the Chehal is River. T h e mos t significant recent evolution in es- tuar ine m a n a g e m e n t in the region, the entry in 1993 of Ti l lamook Bay into the Nat ional Estuary Program, has instigated bo th scientific activity and significant local effort to define the pa rame te r s of collaborative env i ronmenta l m a n a g e m e n t for the es tuary--poss ib ly the reason why bo th residents and pract i t ioners there agree that fa rm r u n o f f con- stitutes a serious threa t to the estuary.

More general ly though, the level of a t ten t ion to env i ronmenta l p rob l ems varies over t ime and with geography, and has general ly no t been very systematic or sustained. Residents of places like Coos Bay, where the economic dislocations caused by a failed t imber and failing fishing industr ies have been severe, classify few env i ronmenta l p rob l ems as threat- ening, implying a desire to see public resources invested in ways o ther than env i ronmenta l protection. More general ly still, day-to-day m a n a g e m e n t decisions may be m a d e with little awareness of their env i ronmenta l consequences , a p h e n o m e - non d o c u m e n t e d by Good (1994) in his study of shore-pro tec t ion policies in O r e g o n ( though not observable by us, given the or ienta t ion of our study).

It is likely that regional env i ronmenta l quality will mat te r m o r e and m o r e as tourism, recreat ion,

and r e t i r emen t living play increasingly larger roles in the regional economy. At tent ion to such questions is already emerg ing in disparate locations and th rough diverse avenues, despite the lack of an overall regional or ienta t ion toward estuarine envi- r onmen ta l m a n a g e m e n t as an activity unto itself, or m u c h a t ten t ion to m a n a g e m e n t app roaches that, like ecosystem-based m a n a g e m e n t , take a highly activist and adaptive app roach to environ- menta l p r o b l e m identif icat ion and resolution.

T h e manager s and researchers we interviewed or surveyed seemed interested in f inding be t te r ways to bring estuarine science into m a n a g e m e n t , and saw such concrete tools as workshops, integrated sc i ence -managemen t teams, and scientists in t raining in env i ronmenta l agencies as ways in which that migh t be done. But cultural differences that bo th groups acknowledge may inhibi t many of these steps f rom being taken. One informal observat ion we m a d e over the course of the PNGERS p r o g r a m is that PNCERS investigators by and large did no t seem to regard themselves as playing in- herent ly different roles vis-5-vis their PNCERS research than in o ther areas of their professional work. Al though there were notable exceptions, for the mos t par t they relied on out reach specialists with whom they had little direct contact to identify the significance of their work for m a n a g e m e n t and to carry that message to decision makers in the region. A m o n g examples of PNCERS-supported col laborat ive , p r o b l e m - f o c u s e d r e sea rch s tudies that migh t not have occur red had PNCERS not ex- isted is the work r epo r t ed on by Fe ldman et al. (2000).

Survey work with residents and pract i t ioners pro- vides a picture that a s t ronger regional environ- menta l identity than exists at p resen t could be forged. T h e core idea could be that the p rob l ems associated with the effects on estuarine environ- ments of decades of poorly regula ted logging practices in the adjacent up lands are c o m m o n to the entire region and in need of systematic at tention. T h e a t t endan t degrada t ion of estuarine habi ta t in- cludes effects f rom related industrial uses like saw- mills and log terminals that were located within the estuaries themselves. Building such a p r o g r a m in a way that also pays a t ten t ion to estuary-specific en- v i ronmenta l threats like alien species invasions might provide incentives for suppor t and partici- pat ion by communi t ies up and down the coast that might otherwise not be for thcoming. Such an ap- p roach would not be dissimilar in its b road out- lines f rom Washington State 's app roach to sa lmon recovery, described briefly in an earlier section of this paper.

From a n o t h e r perspective, Haas (1997) has suggested that the cont inu ing evolution of regional

e n v i r o n m e n t a l m a n a g e m e n t s y s t e m s , f o r w h a t e v e r

t h e r e a s o n , c r e a t e s n u m e r o u s o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r e n - v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e to ca ta lyze ac t iv i ty i n t h e m a n - a g e m e n t a n d p o l i c y a r e n a s , p a r t i c u l a r l y w h e n re - s e a r c h e r s a n d o t h e r s c o a l e s c e i n t o w h a t h e cal ls a n

e p i s t e m i c c o m m u n i t y . As g o e s c h (1999) o b s e r v e s i n c i t i n g t h e c o n t r a s t i n g c a s e s o f t h e G u l f o f M e x - ico a n d C h e s a p e a k e gay , w h e t h e r a c o h e s i v e ep i - s t e m i c c o m m u n i t y in w h i c h r e s e a r c h e r s c o m e to w i d e l y s h a r e d b e l i e f s a b o u t c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s c a n

evo lve , r e m a i n s p r o b l e m a t i c . T h e l ack o f c u r r e n t a t t e n t i o n to e n v i r o n m e n t a l

i n d i c a t o r s i n t h e P N C E R S s t u d y r e g i o n is n o t sur - p r i s i n g , g i v e n t h e p a u c i t y o f a v a i l a b l e r e s o u r c e s a n d d a t a , t h e p e r c e p t i o n t h a t b o t h a r e n e e d e d f o r i n d i c a t o r s to b e e f f e c t i v e l y u s e d , a n d t h e g e n e r a l

l ack o f s y s t e m a t i c a t t e n t i o n to e s t u a r i n e e n v i r o n - m e n t a l p r o t e c t i o n a n d e n h a n c e m e n t i n t h e r e g i o n . M a n y o f t h e o t h e r p r o b l e m s i d e n t i f i e d With t h e i r

u se , s u c h as t h e n e e d to e n s u r e t h a t i n d i c a t o r s a r e s e n s i t i v e to t h e r i g h t s i g n a l s a b o u t t h e s t a t e o f es- t u a r i n e e n v i r o n m e n t a l h e a l t h , a r e a r e a s w h e r e m u l t i - d i s c i p l i n a r y g r o u p s o f i n v e s t i g a t o r s l ike t h a t

put together by the PNCERS program could play valuable roles.

ACKNOWLED GMENTS

This paper is a result of research funded by the National Oce- anic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Ocean Program under award #NA96OP0238 to the University of Washington (or subcontxact to other named institution).

LITERATURE CITED

AxJ_~oN, G. 22 1971. Essence of Decision; Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Little, Brown and Company, Boston, Massachu- setts.

APoI~ONIO, S. 1994. The use of ecosystem characteristics in fisheries management. Reviews in Fisheries Science 2:157-180.

BANAWHY, B. H. 1996. Designing Social Systems in a Changing World. Plentma, New York.

B E ~ w r , A. K. 2000. Regional management systems: A systems analysis of environmental planning in Grays Harbor, Wash- ington. Master's Thesis, School of Marine Science, University of Wastfington, Seatfle, Waslfington.

BEF, NSTelN, B. B., B. E. THOMPSON, AND R. W. SMITH. 1991. A combined science and management fl-amework for developing regional monimting objectives. Coastal Management 21: 185-195.

BOESCH, D. F. 1999. The role of science in ocean governance. Ecological Economics 31:189-198.

BOESCH, D. E AND S.-A. MACXE. 1995. Bridging the gap: What natm-al scientists and pohcymakers need to know about each other, p. 33-48. In Improving Interactions Between Coastal Science and Policy, Proceedings of the California Symposium. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

BOTSFORD, L. W.,J. C. CAs AND C. H. PETERNON. 1997. The management of fisheries and marine ecosystems. Science 277: 509-515.

BURGESS, R. G. 1988. Studies in Qualitative Methodology: Con- ducting Qualitative Research. Jai Press, Greenwich, Connect- icut.

CALDWELL, L. 1990. Between Two Worlds: Science, the Environ-

Scientific Information and Estuary Management 1 2 0 3

mental Movement, and Pohcy Choice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

CHmSTV~SEN, N. L., A. M. BAI~TUSKA,J. H. BI~OWN, S. CAm'ENTFX, C. D'ANToNIO, R. FRANCm, J. F. FRA~CUN, J. A. MAcMAHoN, R. F. Noss, D.J. PARSONS, C. H. PETERSON, M. G. ~sam,r~, AND R. G. WOOI)MANSKE. 1996. The report of the Ecological Soci- ety of America committee on the sdenfific basis for ecosystem management. Ecdog@al Applications 6:665-691.

COCHP, AN, W. G. 1942. The 2 X 2 correction for continuity. Ioam State Cbllege Journal of Science 16:421-436.

CORTNF~, H. AND M. MOOTS. 1999. The Politics of Ecosystem Management. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

COSTANZ~, R. 1996. Ecological economics: Reintegrating the study of humans and nature. Ecological Applications 6:978-90.

C~osBY, M. R 1995. Moving towards a new paradigm: Interac- tions among scientists, managers and the public in the management of marine and coastal protected areas, p. 10--25. /:a The Second International Symposium and Workshop on Ma- rine and Coastal Protected Areas: Integrating Science and Management (10--24). NOAA and U.S. Man and Biosphere Program, Silver Spring, Maryland.

DANmL, W. W. 1990. Applied NonparameUic Statistics. PWS- Kent Publishing Company, Boston, Massachusetts.

DmLMAN, D. A. 1978. Marl and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.

DmLMAN, D. A. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.

EMMZTr, R., R. LtXNS6, J. NE~wroN, R. THOM, M. HOI~,rBFa~G~, C. MORGAN, C. LEVINGS, A. COPPING, AND R F I S t . 2000. Geographic signatures of North American west coast estum~ ies. Eae~aries 23:765-792.

~I~MAN, K., D. ARMSTRONG, B. DU~BAULD, T. DEWrrr, AND D. DOTY. 2000. Oysters, crabs, and bun-owing shrimp: Review of an environmental conflict over aquatic resources and pesti- cide use in Washington State's (USA) coastal esmaties. Estu aries 23:141-176.

~ , g. E. 2002. Environmental indicators for estuaries: Per- ceptions of practitioners in coastal estuaries of the Pacific Northwest, U.S.A. Master's Thesis, School of Marine Affairs, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

~,l~ISS, B. E. AND rE M. LESCHINE. 2003. Assessing coastal practitioners' views on envh'onmental indicators: Case studies in U.S. Pacific Northwest esmaties. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 6:139-146.

FO~T~aAN, L. 1990. The role of professional norms and beliefs in the agency-client relations of natural science bureaucracies. Natural ResogrcesJ~urnal 30:361-380.

GISLASON, H., M. SlNCffJkIR, K. SAINSBURY, AND R. O'BOYEE. 2000. Symposium overview: Incorporating ecosystem objectives within fisheries management. IgESJournal of Marine Science 57: 468-475.

GooD, J. W. 1994. Shore protection policies and practices in Oregon: An evaluation of implementation success. Coastal Management 22:325-352.

GooD, J. W. 2000. Summary and current status of Oregon's estuarine ecosystems, p. 33-36. In Oregon State of the Environ- ment Report. Oregon Progress Board, Oregon Economic and Community Development Department, Salem, Oregon.

G~UMBINE, R. E. 1994. What is ecosystem management? Cbnse~ ration Biolog 7 8:27-38.

GUNDERSON, L. H., C. S. HOLLING, AND S. S. LIGHT. 1995. Ba> tiers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institu- tions. Columbia University Press, New York.

HA~, R M. 1997. Sdentific communities and multiple paths to environmental management, p. 193-228. In L. A. Brooks and S. D. VanDeveer (eds.), Saving the Seas. Values, Scientists and Intenaational Governance. Maryland Sea Grant, College Park, Maryland.

HF~U~u M. AND 22 M. HF~',NESS~ 1994. The utilization of sci-


entific in format ion in the m a n a g e m e n t o f es tuar ine ecosystems. Ocean and Cbastal Management 23:167-191.

HIImORN, R., C. J. WALTERS, AND D. LUDWIO. 1995. Sustainable exploitat ion of renew-able resources. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 26:45-67.

HOI~XNO, C. S. 1978. Adaptive Env i ronmenta l Assessmen t a n d Managemen t . J o h n Wiley a n d Sons, Inc., L ondon , U.K.

HOI~XNO, C. S. 1993. Invest ing in resea rch for sustainability.Eco- logical Applications 3:552-555.

HOIXXNG, C. S. 2001. U n d e r s t a n d i n g the complexi ty of economic, ecological, a n d social systems. Ecosystems 4:390-405.

HUPPERT, D. D., R. L. JOHNSON, J. LEAHY, AND K. B. BFJ-L. 2003. Interact ions be tween h u m a n c o m m u n i t i e s and estuaries in the Pacific Nortllwest: T rends and impl ica t ions for manage - men t . Est*zaries 26:994-1009.

IMP~J3m, M. 1999. Ins t i tu t ional analysis and ecosystem-based m a n a g e m e n t : T he inst i tut ional analysis and deve lopmen t framework. Environmental Management 24:449-465.

JASANOFF, S. 1990. T he Fifth Branch: S t a n c e Advisors as Policy Makers. Harva rd University Press, Cambridge , Massachusetts .

KATES, R. W., W. C. CLARK, R. COtmLL, J. M. HALL, C. C. JAEOFa~, I. L. LowE, j . j . McCArTHY, H.J . ScI~V.T~.~,lHtmE1~, B. BOLIN, N. M. DlCttSON, S. FAucnxux, G. C. GAX,LOPIN, A. GI~OBLEI~, B. HUNTLEu J. JAoFx, N. S. JODHA, R. E. KASPERSON, A. MABo- O N , E MATSON, H. MOONEY, B. MOORE, III, rE O'RIoRDAN, AND U. SVeI)IN. 2001. Sustainability Sdence . Science 292:641- 642.

KNECHT, R. W. 1995. On the role of s d e n c e in the i m p l e m e n - tation of na t iona l coastal m a n a g e m e n t p rograms , p. 39-62. In Improving Interact ions between Coastal Science and Pohcy, Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Sympositml. Nat iona lAcad- emy Press, Wash ing ton , D.C.

LASZLO, E. 1997. T he Systems View- of the World: A Hohst ic Vision for O u r Time. H a m p t o n Press, Cresskill, New Jersey.

LEACH, C. 1979. In t roduc t ion to Statistics: A N o n p a r a m e l r i c A p - p roach for the Social Sciences. J o h n WHey a n d Sons, New York.

LEE, K. N. 1993. Compass and Gyroscope. In tegra t ing Science and Pohtics for the Envi ronment . Island Press, Wash ing ton , D.C.

LESCH~r 22 M. 1990. Sett ing the A g e n d a for es tuar ine water quality m a n a g e m e n t : Lessons f rom Puge t Sound. Ocean and Shoreline Management 13:295-313.

LUDWIG, D., R. H m B o l ~ , AND C. Wm~wel~. 1993. Uncertainty, resource exploitat ion, and conservat ion: Lessons f rom tfisto- ry. Science 260:17-36.

MACES, L. V. AND J. MA,ao. 2002. T h e economic divide: Most o f state missed ou t on b o o m t imes of '90s. The Seattle Times Sec- tion A1, A16.

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (NRC). 1995. Science, Policy, a n d the Coast: Improving Decision-making. National Academies Press, Wash ing ton , D.C.

NFJYaN, D. (F~.). 1979. Controversy: T he Politics of Technical Decisions. Sage Publicat ions, Beverly Hills, California.

ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC COOPERATION AND DEVELOPIVIENT (OECD). 1994. Env i ronmenta l Indicators: OECD Core Set. Organizat ion for Economic Coopera t ion a n d Deve lopment , Paris, France.

OI~ACH, M. 1995. Social scientific con t r ibu t ions to coastal policy making , p. 49-59. In Improving Interact ions Between Coastal

Science and Pohcy, Proceedings of the California Symposium. National Academy Press, Wash ing ton , D.C.

OST~OM, E. 1990. Govern ing the C o m m o n s : T h e Evolution o f Inst i tut ions for Cdlect ive Action. Cambr idge University Press, New York.

PAJAK, R 2000. Sustainabifity, ecosystem m a n a g e m e n t , an d indicators: Th ink ing globally and act ing locally in tile 21st cen- tury. Fisheries 25:16-29.

PARSON, E. A. AND K. FISHER-VANDEN. 1995. Searching for inte- gra ted assessment: A p re l iminary investigation o f m e t h o d s , models , and projects in the in tegra ted assessment o f global d ima t i c change. Conso r t i um for In te rna t iona l Earth Science Informat ion Network (CIESIN). University Center , Michigan.

PATRON, m. {~. ]990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Meth- ods. Sage Pubhcat ions , Newbm'y Park, Cahfornia .

Plco, M. 2001. Analysis of c o m m u n i c a t i o n between scientists and m a n a g e r s in the PNCERS study region. Master ' s Thesis , School o f Marine Affairs, University o f Washington , Seattle, Waslfington.

PUGET SOUND WATER QUALnWAcTIoN TEAM. 2002. Puge t S o u n d Heal th 2002: Status and Trends of Key Indicators of Puge t Sound ' s Heal th . Office o f the Governor, Olympia, Washing- ton.

SABATmR, R AND H. JEZ,mXNS-SIvn'IH. 1998. Policy Change a n d Learning: An Advocacy Coali t ion Approach . West-view Press, Boulder, Colorado.

SMITH, C. L. 2002. Inst i tut ional m a p p i n g of Oregon coastal wa- t e r shed m a n a g e m e n t options. Ocean and 6bastal Management 45:357-375.

SPALINO, H. AND B. SMIT. 1993. Ctmaulative env i ronmen ta l change: Conceptua l framew-orks, evaluation approaches , a n d inst i tut ional perspectives. Environmental Management 17:587- 600.

UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON ENV11~ONMENT AND DEVELOP- lVmNT. 1992. Repor t o f tile Uni ted Nat ions Commiss ion on E n v i r o n m e n t a n d Deve lopment . Uni ted Nat ions Division for Sustainable Deve lopment , New- York.

U.S. ElVVmOI'eaENTAL PROTECTION AOENCY (U.S. EPA). 1994. Measur ing Progress of Estuary Programs: Highhghts . U.S. En- v i ronmenta l Protection Agency, Washington , D.C.

U.S. ENVn~ONZVmNTAL PROTECTIONAOENCY (U.S. EPA). 2001. Na- t ional Coastal Condi t ion Report . Office o f Research an d De- ve lopmen t /Off ice o f Water EPA-620/R-01/005. U.S. Environ- m e n t a l Protect ion Agency, Wash ing ton , D.C.

WALTEP, S, C . J . 1986. Adaptive M a n a g e m e n t of Renewable Re- sources. MacMillan Publ ishing Co., New York.

WARD, T. J. 2000. Indicators for assessing the sustainabili ty o f Austral ia 's ma r ine ecosystems. Marine and Freshwater Research 51:435-46.

WINO, K. 1996. Using science to make policy: A study of the Spartina invasion in Wash ing ton State. Master ' s Thesis, School of Marine Affairs, University of Wash ing ton , Seattle, Washing- ton.

WRIGHT, A. S. AND B. SI~NDLER. 2001. T h e role of in format ion sources in w-atershed m a n a g e m e n t . Fisheries 26:16-23.

YAF~E, S. L. 1996. Ecosystem m a n a g e m e n t in practice: Th e impor tance of h u m a n insti tutions. Ecolog'ical Applications 6:724- 727.

Received for consideration, July 19, 2002 Revised, May 30, 2003

Accepted for p*zblication, June 9, 2003

Challenges and strategies for better use of scientific information in the management of coastal...

Documents

Transcript of Challenges and strategies for better use of scientific information in the management of coastal...