Structured Decision Making for the Real World: A Qualitative Analysis of How Governance Structures En(Dis)able SDM in Local Watershed Planning.

IF 2.7 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Environmental Management Pub Date : 2025-03-10 DOI:10.1007/s00267-025-02142-0
David J Trimbach, Kelly Biedenweg
{"title":"Structured Decision Making for the Real World: A Qualitative Analysis of How Governance Structures En(Dis)able SDM in Local Watershed Planning.","authors":"David J Trimbach, Kelly Biedenweg","doi":"10.1007/s00267-025-02142-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Structured decision making (SDM) is defined by having a variety of characteristics, including a focus on clarifying the context, defining all relevant objectives, developing alternatives, predicting consequences, evaluating tradeoffs, and monitoring and learning from decisions. Some of the most compelling aspects for public decision making are the inclusion of diverse values in the selection of objectives and the opportunity to create a shared understanding of the system, both the context and potential tradeoffs of different strategies. While the technological requirements of the most rigid SDM processes are out of reach of most public agencies and interested publics, governance structures may enable the use of different stages of SDM to improve decisions, without relying on complete datasets and extensive statistical knowledge. Building upon a 4-year participatory research project, we analyze the use of SDM with four different watershed groups to understand the governance factors that facilitated the use of SDM as a decision support tool. All groups aimed to add human wellbeing objectives to existing natural resource health objectives when making decisions. We found that who defines the objectives and required outputs of planning as well as how decisions were made influenced the extent to which groups completed SDM steps. We also demonstrate that decisions can be improved by engaging in each step of the SDM process, and the perfect decision may not depend on completing all steps.</p>","PeriodicalId":543,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-025-02142-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Structured decision making (SDM) is defined by having a variety of characteristics, including a focus on clarifying the context, defining all relevant objectives, developing alternatives, predicting consequences, evaluating tradeoffs, and monitoring and learning from decisions. Some of the most compelling aspects for public decision making are the inclusion of diverse values in the selection of objectives and the opportunity to create a shared understanding of the system, both the context and potential tradeoffs of different strategies. While the technological requirements of the most rigid SDM processes are out of reach of most public agencies and interested publics, governance structures may enable the use of different stages of SDM to improve decisions, without relying on complete datasets and extensive statistical knowledge. Building upon a 4-year participatory research project, we analyze the use of SDM with four different watershed groups to understand the governance factors that facilitated the use of SDM as a decision support tool. All groups aimed to add human wellbeing objectives to existing natural resource health objectives when making decisions. We found that who defines the objectives and required outputs of planning as well as how decisions were made influenced the extent to which groups completed SDM steps. We also demonstrate that decisions can be improved by engaging in each step of the SDM process, and the perfect decision may not depend on completing all steps.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Environmental Management
Environmental Management 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
2.90%
发文量
178
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: Environmental Management offers research and opinions on use and conservation of natural resources, protection of habitats and control of hazards, spanning the field of environmental management without regard to traditional disciplinary boundaries. The journal aims to improve communication, making ideas and results from any field available to practitioners from other backgrounds. Contributions are drawn from biology, botany, chemistry, climatology, ecology, ecological economics, environmental engineering, fisheries, environmental law, forest sciences, geosciences, information science, public affairs, public health, toxicology, zoology and more. As the principal user of nature, humanity is responsible for ensuring that its environmental impacts are benign rather than catastrophic. Environmental Management presents the work of academic researchers and professionals outside universities, including those in business, government, research establishments, and public interest groups, presenting a wide spectrum of viewpoints and approaches.
期刊最新文献
Gender Perspectives in Environmental Initiatives across Developing Countries. Strengthening Link between National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), Sector Policies and National Development Plans: Implications for Climate Change Governance. Illegal Hunting and Bushmeat Trade around Save Valley Conservancy. A Review of Hawaii and Plastic Pollution: Potential Innovations within Circular Economy? Structured Decision Making for the Real World: A Qualitative Analysis of How Governance Structures En(Dis)able SDM in Local Watershed Planning.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1