Disparate Stakeholder Management: Disparate Stakeholder Management: Disparate Stakeholder Management: Disparate Stakeholder Management: A case A case A case A case study on how to avoid being buffaloed by study on how to avoid being buffaloed by study on how to avoid being buffaloed by study on how to avoid being buffaloed by competing interests. competing interests. competing interests. competing interests. Lynne Koontz Lynne Koontz Lynne Koontz Lynne Koontz USGS Fort Collins Science Center USGS Fort Collins Science Center USGS Fort Collins Science Center USGS Fort Collins Science Center Policy Analysis & Science Assistance Branch Policy Analysis & Science Assistance Branch Policy Analysis & Science Assistance Branch Policy Analysis & Science Assistance Branch
Presentation Points Presentation Points � Case Study Case Study � � Research Objectives Research Objectives � � Methodology Methodology � � Key Results Key Results � � Implications for managers Implications for managers �
Case Study Case Study Elk & Bison Management Planning Process Elk & Bison Management Planning Process Grand Teton National Park and the National Elk Refuge Grand Teton National Park and the National Elk Refuge
Winter Feeding on the National Elk Refuge Initiated to mitigate for the loss of winter range. Currently there are 13,500 elk in the Jackson herd, with half wintering on the Refuge.
Need for the Elk and Bison Management Need for the Elk and Bison Management Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Bison Population in Jackson Hole 600 500 400 LAWSUIT LAWSUIT 300 200 Introduced to Discovered Wildlife Park Supplemental 100 Escaped Feed 0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Challenges with the Elk & Bison Decision Making Challenges with the Elk & Bison Decision Making Process Process Soliciting public input for an Environmental Impact Soliciting public input for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Statement (EIS) Diverse preferences for each issue Diverse preferences for each issue - - Discussion quickly becomes polarized Discussion quickly becomes polarized - - Impossible to look at how important each issue is in Impossible to look at how important each issue is in - - the overall decision the overall decision Looking at the overall context Looking at the overall context - - - Makes it easier to find common ground among stakeholders Makes it easier to find common ground among stakeholders - - Develop compromised solutions Develop compromised solutions - - Reduce litigation Reduce litigation -
Research Objective Research Objective Develop an approach, called Disparate Stakeholder Develop an approach, called Disparate Stakeholder Management (DSM) that helps decision makers helps decision makers better better Management (DSM) that describe, measure, communicate and resolve describe, measure, communicate and resolve management issues with disparate stakeholders. management issues with disparate stakeholders. Predict the level of support and conflict for all relevant Predict the level of support and conflict for all relevant policy decisions, and identify who would support or policy decisions, and identify who would support or oppose each decision. oppose each decision.
Methods: Constructing the DSM Methods: Constructing the DSM 1) Used Decision Analysis Decision Analysis (Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)) (Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)) 1) Used • organize and describe the management problem organize and describe the management problem • • measure stakeholder preferences for elk and bison issues measure stakeholder preferences for elk and bison issues • 2) Used Economic Public Choice Theory to understand the level of 2) Used Economic Public Choice Theory to understand the level of conviction each stakeholder group holds for a particular conviction each stakeholder group holds for a particular management issue to determine possible compromised compromised management issue to determine possible solutions. . solutions 3) An Institutional Analysis model was incorporated to account for or 3) An Institutional Analysis model was incorporated to account f stakeholders’ ’ political influence political influence in the decision making process. in the decision making process. stakeholders
Stakeholder Interviews Stakeholder Interviews Interviewed 47 individuals representing 30 organizations: : Interviewed 47 individuals representing 30 organizations Local, State, & Federal government agencies; Local, State, & Federal government agencies; Native American tribes; Native American tribes; Local businesses; Local businesses; Agricultural and ranching interests; Agricultural and ranching interests; Hunting and outfitting; Hunting and outfitting; Environmental and wildlife conservation; Environmental and wildlife conservation; Animal rights. Animal rights. To collect the information we needed for the DSM each stakeholder To collect the information we needed for the DSM each stakeholde r representative completed three surveys (one on stakeholder preferences (one on stakeholder preferences representative completed three surveys & two on political influence). & two on political influence).
Benefits of using Decision Analysis (AHP) Benefits of using Decision Analysis (AHP) � Organizes and describes the management � Organizes and describes the management problem in a hierarchy framework problem in a hierarchy framework � Allows for the weighting of factors influencing � Allows for the weighting of factors influencing the decision (decision makers & other stakeholders) the decision (decision makers & other stakeholders) � Provides � Provides traceability traceability for every management for every management issue in the overall context issue in the overall context
Constructing the AHP Hierarchy Constructing the AHP Hierarchy Main Management Issues Main Management Issues � Disease Management � Disease Management ( dispersal, vaccination, or test & slaughter) dispersal, vaccination, or test & slaughter) ( � Forage Management � Forage Management � Winter Feeding � Winter Feeding (no feeding, emergency basis, or annually) (no feeding, emergency basis, or annually) � Restore Historic Migration Corridor � Restore Historic Migration Corridor � Hunting � Hunting (no hunting, on NER only, both GTNP/NER) (no hunting, on NER only, both GTNP/NER) Separate hierarchies due to different preferences for elk and bison son Separate hierarchies due to different preferences for elk and bi issues. issues.
AHP Hierarchy Survey AHP Hierarchy Survey Example: Conservation Group’ ’s Feeding s Feeding Example: Conservation Group Scores Scores Elk Bison Forage Disease Hunting Disease Forage Hunting Hunt GTNP/NER Dispersal Hunt GTNP/NER Dispersal Winter Feed Hunt NER only Vaccinate Hunt NER only Enhance forage/ Winter Vaccinate No Feed Winter Range Feeding Test & No Hunting No Hunting Test & Slaughter Slaughter .16 Annual No active mgmt .77 Emergency .77 Current .08 No Feed Scores always sum to one Range in Jackson Range outside Jackson
Traceability of Conservation Group’ ’s Scores s Scores Traceability of Conservation Group .90 Elk .90 Elk .10 Bison .62 Forage .62 Forage .21 Disease . 07 Hunting .01 Disease .08 Forage .02 Hunting .16 Dispersal .00 Hunt .00 Hunt .01 Dispersal .01 Winter Feed GTNP/NER GTNP/NER .04 Vaccinate .56 Enhance forage/ .56 Enhance forage/ .06 Winter .06 Winter .00 Vaccinate .07 No Feed .07 Hunt NER only .02 Hunt NER only Winter Range Winter Range Feeding Feeding .01 Test & .00 Test & Slaughter .00 No Hunting .00 No Hunting Slaughter .01 Annual .02 No active mgmt .05 05 Emergency Emergency .04 Current .00 No Feed Scores always sum to one .50 50 Restore Historic Migration Restore Historic Migration
Viewing Stakeholder Preferences Viewing Stakeholder Preferences Placed options within spectrum of management practices Placed options within spectrum of management practices “Hands Off Hands Off” ” ----- ----- vs vs ---- “ “Managed Managed” ” “ ---- Dispersal Test & Slaughter No Winter Feeding Annual Feeding No Hunting Hunt GTNP & NER
Policy Possibilities Frontier Policy Possibilities Frontier “Hands off” Technically efficient combinations Land Use Management of land management practices that Practices can be produced using available resources * Boundary constrained by EIS agencies’ missions and mandates “Managed” Land Use Represent the multiple objectives associated Management Practices with each resource management practice
Results: Stakeholder Preferences & Current Management Results: Stakeholder Preferences & Current Management Use Management Practices “Natural” Land AR 1 AR 2 CON 3 CON 6 • • • TRB 1 CON 5 • APHIS • • CON 1 CON 2 USFS • CON 7 • • TRB 2 NPS • LGV 2 • BLM Current HO 3 CON 4 • FWS Management Organizational Codes AGI = Agricultural Interests AR = Animal Rights • SGV 1 CON = Conservation Groups • SGV 3 SGV 2 In Red = Federal Government HO 1 LB 2 HO = Hunting & Outfitting • HO 2 LGV 1 HO 4 LB = Local Business AGI 1 LB 1 • LGV = Local Government AGI 2 SGV = State Government • TRB = Tribal HO 5 “Managed” Land Use Management Practices
Recommend
More recommend
