22. Synthesis: Developing the Institutions to Coordinate Science, Politics, and Communities for Action to Restore and Sustain Lands

“It is a tempting and safe academic device to approach any problem from a traditional viewpoint. By so doing we assume that the twenty or so civilizations of man and the few thousand years of recorded history are sufficient to have faced all problems and devised all solutions. Society now seems to be facing problems of resources and environment, however, more intensive and extensive than those experienced in the past” (Holling and Chambers 1973, 13). This was written almost 40 years ago. In this book, we endeavor to present unconventional approaches to dealing with the ever-increasing problems of resources and environment.

John Hagan, president of the Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, stated, “we need to listen, learn, and apply,” at a panel session on Science in the Age of Sound Bites co-sponsored by MIT and Manomet spring 2010. The audience and the rest of the panel, comprising MIT professors, a newspaper reporter, and filmmakers, essentially overlooked his statement; the panel focused on their own messages.

Shelia Jasanoff, Pforzheimer Professor of Science and Technology Studies, Harvard Kennedy School.

Interdisciplinary research to us includes the combination and integration of biophysical science, social science, political science, and engineering applied to problem solving, environmental policy formulation, natural resource management, and planning. But in general usage “science” means physical science – the so-called hard sciences – and it is by this definition that we discuss science in this section.

Papers published 30 and 40 years ago make this same statement.

We would suggest there is a wide chasm between being wise and smart. Scientists are often wrong, perhaps, more often than they are right; this is how science advances. Wisdom is rare and is never easy to attain. However, it might be more likely to be attained through a collective process that involves many diverse voices than by a monolithic block of few ideological voices (see Surowiecki 2004, The Wisdom of Crowds). The same might be said of actions shaped solely by those with technical and scientific knowledge. Such actions may reflect knowledge of the physical properties and system dynamics of ecosystems, but they may not represent outcomes that reflect the multiple values of those affected by resource and land management choices nor practices that embody the experiential knowledge of those living on these lands and in their surrounding communities.

A number of USGS scientists early in their careers have told Herman Karl that they would like to do the research he is doing on the role of science in collaborative processes, but know they would not get promoted. Indeed, when Karl shifted his career focus toward this research, his promotions were slowed because he was no longer publishing in the conventional journals of his discipline (marine geology). During one promotion cycle, a friend on the evaluation panel told him that his colleagues on the panel thought “you [Karl] had gone crazy because you are working with an economist” and publishing in ocean management journals. For Karl to continue to do so meant that he would not be promotable; he eventually transferred to another division where he was encouraged to continue his research.

Leadership of both academic and governmental institutions may dispute this characterization. It is based on the experience of some of the authors. And all one needs to do is to ask scientists in the field and laboratories how easy it is to break down the barriers to interdisciplinary research within their organizations. We acknowledge that some progress has been made to encourage interdisciplinary research. But the very fact that publication after publication continues to assert the need for interdisciplinary research argues that it still is not routine. The few exceptions do not invalidate the assertion that interdisciplinary research is not common nor facilitated by most academic and governmental institutions.

Karl was a member of the USGS Strategic Planning Team in 1994 and 1995. At that time USGS had about 30 programs distributed among three divisions (Geologic, Water Resources, and National Mapping) The team interviewed each program coordinator and learned that none of them had talked to one another; in other words there was no communication or coordination among programs. Yet, even at that time USGS considered itself an integrated science agency. Since then USGS has undergone several reorganizations.

This statement is based on Karl’s 33-year career with USGS; he and many other USGS colleagues will argue that there is no easy way to conduct interdisciplinary research within USGS.

Ibid., p. 8.

“Green, Clean, and Dollar Smart: Ecosystem Restoration in Cities and Countryside,” Lynn Scarlett, forthcoming, Environmental Defense Fund, Washington, D.C.

This section was influenced and benefitted by discussions with Gary McVicker and Richard Whitely.

These are a genre of civil society organizations (CSO).

Will Hopkins, director of the Cobscook Bay Resource Center, made this statement July 2010 at a retreat in Maine to discuss the role of collaborative groups in resource management and ecosystem restoration.

http://​cooperativeconse​rvation.​gov/​conference805hom​e.​html

Political parties perversely understand the importance of boundaries. Both gerrymander congressional districts that cut across jurisdictional boundaries of counties and municipalities.

We do not consider specific issue conflicts of short duration (1 year or less), which are appropriate for environmental mediation, as relevant for the approach we develop herein. Ongoing stewardship situations of which the Tomales Bay Watershed Council is an example are the types under consideration here.

NB: Consensus does not equate to unanimity.

At MIT we developed a role-play simulation called the Owl Game about the spotted owl/timber harvest controversy. The game is to be played within 90 min. The first order of business is to define the problem, which initially seems obvious. Often the participants spend almost the full ninety minutes on reaching consensus on the problem definition. A Bureau of Land Management natural resource manager said it was the most realistic game he had played.

Kania and Kramer (2011) do not talk about wicked problems. They talk about adaptive problems, which by the way they define them are wicked problems.

http://​www.​manomet.​org/​

Eric Walberg is the project manager; http://​www.​manomet.​org/​node/​220

See Chap.​ 6 for a discussion of models as boundary objects and Chap.​ 10 for a discussion of boundary organizations.

If there is disagreement that this is not typically the case, why then do so many editorials, reports, and scholarly articles continue to urge the changes discussed in this book? Small steps have been taken, but not the giant leaps necessary to tackle effectively wicked problems.

San Francisquito Creek is a small creek in northern California (Rofougaran and Karl 2005). It is the boundary between two counties and flows through five municipalities. It is the last remaining riparian creek in that area of the San Francisco Bay. A Joint Powers Authority (JPA) was established to manage the land in the San Francisquito Creek basin. Management of the ecosystem was very contentious with some municipalities wanting the land preserved as the last remaining riparian creek and others wanting it developed for an increased tax base. The upper reaches of the creek are inhabited by some of the wealthiest people in the world and the lower by many people near or below the poverty level. These economic disparities mirror racial differences as well. Because of the conflict, an environmental mediator and the National Park Service suggested that the JPA meet around the table with residents of the watershed to have a conversation about the creek facilitated by a neutral. All agreed, particularly the JPA (who had difficulty talking with each other), this was the most productive and constructive meeting they had ever had. They never held another collaborative meeting after it. All subsequent meetings were the conventional format of JPA members sitting on a raised platform with citizens being allowed a limited time to speak. The conflict continued unabated.