Ecological risk assessments typically are organized using the processes of planning (a discussion among managers, stakeholders, and analysts to clarify ecosystem management goals and assessment scope) and problem formulation (evaluation of existing information to generate hypotheses about adverse ecological effects, select assessment endpoints, and develop an analysis plan). These processes require modification to be applicable for integrated assessments that evaluate ecosystem management alternatives in terms of their ecological, economic, and social consequences.We present 8 questions that define the steps of a new process we term integrated problem formulation (IPF), and we illustrate the use of IPF through a retrospective case study comparing 2 recent phases of development of the Fire Program Analysis (FPA) system, a planning and budgeting system for the management of wildland fire throughout publicly managed lands in the United States. IPF extends traditional planning and problem formulation by including the explicit comparison of management alternatives, the valuation of ecological, economic and social endpoints, and the combination or integration of those endpoints. The phase 1, limited prototype FPA system used a set of assessment endpoints of common form (i.e., probabilities of given flame heights over acres of selected land-resource types), which were specified and assigned relative weights at the local level in relation to a uniform national standard. This approach was chosen to permit system-wide optimization of fire management budget allocations according to a cost-effectiveness criterion. Before full development, however, the agencies abandoned this approach in favor of a phase 2 system that examined locally specified (rather than system-optimized) allocation alternatives and was more permissive as to endpoint form. We demonstrate how the IPF process illuminates the nature, rationale, and consequences of these differences, and argue that its early use for the FPA system may have enabled a smoother development path.
Nature conservation and social equity issues have been approached in a myriad of ways by conservation, humanitarian, and development practitioners. The rapid and shifting urbanization of the globe makes the interaction of these issues paramount and it is imperative to articulate pathways to harmonizing these relationships readily followed by conservation practitioners. We describe the processes and compare the resulting social equity and conservation objectives of two initiatives purposefully integrating these approaches. A private nonprofit seeking to develop an urban conservation program in the Atlanta metropolitan area purposefully engaged residents from surrounding communities and self-identified local and sector leaders to identify communities where social equity and conservation objectives could be created together. A public agency, built on a century-long history of environmental stewardship for migratory birds and pollinators, integrated 20 years of participatory action research to engage the surrounding communities using methods suggested and developed by the communities themselves. In both cases, community-based research approaches have helped establish cocreated objectives and flexible monitoring and evaluation baselines. Both initiatives found a need to appropriately resource and train staff to remain open to learning and evolving new objectives as additional perspectives emerge and the impact on conservation and equity objectives is assessed.
Authors' Contribution WM and NR conceived and designed the experiments. WM and SN performed the experiments. WM, EBAK and SN analyzed the data. WM and EBAK wrote the manuscript.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.