Considering science needs to deliver actionable science

Identifying Priority Science Information Needs for Managing Public Lands

Public lands worldwide provide diverse resources, uses, and values, ranging from wilderness to extractive uses. Decision-making on public lands is complex as a result and is required by law to be informed by science. However, public land managers may not always have the science they need. We developed a methodology for identifying priority science needs for public land management agencies. We relied on two core data sources: environmental effects analyses conducted for agency decisions and legal challenges to those decisions. We considered needs in four categories: data, science, methods, and mitigation measures. We classified topics as primary science needs when (1) the topic was analyzed frequently in agency environmental analyses, (2) our metric of quality/defensibility was low or mitigation measures were frequently included for the topic, and (3) the agency was challenged on its use of science for the topic. We applied our methodology to the Bureau of Land Management-the largest public land manager in the United States-in Colorado, a state with abundant and diverse public lands. Primary identified needs were data on vegetation; science about effects of oil and gas development and livestock grazing on multiple resources, including terrestrial wildlife; methods for analyzing environmental effects for many topics; and mitigation measures for protecting vegetation, soils, water quality, and archaeological and historic resources. Science needs often reflect needs for facilitating and supporting the use of existing science in agency decision-making. Our method can be applied across agencies, geographies, and timeframes to help strengthen science use in public lands decision-making.

The Importance of Capacity-Building in Watershed Groups: Lessons from the Hudson River Watershed, USA

Municipalities face challenges meeting environmental protection and conservation goals due to a lack of resources, capacity, and political will. As a result, grassroots environmental organizations often emerge to help meet these challenges by filling gaps in governmental operation and structure. At the watershed scale, environmental organizations and groups are critical for effective watershed governance, often helping with collaboration as well as providing municipalities with additional support and resources. Despite the vital role environmental organizations and groups can play, they continue to face challenges such as insufficient resources, inconsistent leadership, and lack of organizational structure, thus limiting the contributions they can deliver. In this manuscript, we present case study research on watershed groups exploring their capacity to meet their mission and goals. Drawing from a needs assessment study conducted in the Hudson River watershed in 2019-2021, we found that while watershed groups are generally in need of technical resources, participation, and funding, our research suggests capacity (such as internal structure, strategic planning, and leadership) is most important for successful and sustainable groups. Therefore, we argue that support for capacity is more likely to help sustain groups and their long-term beneficial impact. To make this argument we present qualitative interview and focus group data to articulate watershed group goals, challenges, and needs, with an emphasis on capacity-related themes that emerged around expertise, leadership, structure, and planning. We then conclude with recommendations that can be applied to other watershed groups in the United States, and likely beyond.

The decision maker's lament: If I only had some science!

Environmental decision makers lament instances in which the lack of actionable science limits confident decision-making. Their reaction when the needed scientific information is of poor quality, uninformative, unintelligible, or altogether absent is often to criticize scientists, their work, or science in general. The considerations offered here encourage decision makers to explore alternative approaches to alleviate their disappointment. Ironically, many researchers lament the lack of support for the science they wish to deliver and accuse decision makers of failing to realize the value of the scientific studies they propose. Both communities would benefit by remembering that producing actionable science for a pending decision requires knowing the context for that decision beforehand. They may also look inward. Only then will they find answers to the question: What can I do within my own capacity to ensure that the necessary actionable science becomes available and facilitate its use to inform decisions?