ABSTRACT
We present a decision support framework for science-based assessment and multi-stakeholder deliberation. The framework consists of two parts: a DPSIR (Drivers-Pressures-States-Impacts-Responses) analysis to identify the important causal relationships among anthropogenic environmental stressors, processes, and outcomes; and a Decision Landscape analysis to depict the legal, social, and institutional dimensions of environmental decisions. The Decision Landscape incorporates interactions among government agencies, regulated businesses, non-government organizations, and other stakeholders. It also identifies where scientific information regarding environmental processes is collected and transmitted to improve knowledge about elements of the DPSIR and to improve the scientific basis for decisions. Our application of the decision support framework to coral reef protection and restoration in the Florida Keys focusing on anthropogenic stressors, such as wastewater, proved to be successful and offered several insights. Using information from a management plan, it was possible to capture the current state of the science with a DPSIR analysis as well as important decision options, decision makers and applicable laws with a the Decision Landscape analysis. A structured elicitation of values and beliefs conducted at a coral reef management workshop held in Key West, Florida provided a diversity of opinion and also indicated a prioritization of several environmental stressors affecting coral reef health. The integrated DPSIR/Decision landscape framework for the Florida Keys developed based on the elicited opinion and the DPSIR analysis can be used to inform management decisions, to reveal the role that further scientific information and research might play to populate the framework, and to facilitate better-informed agreement among participants.
Subject(s)
Decision Making , Ecosystem , Environmental MonitoringABSTRACT
In-situ Lasagna technology was recently evaluated at a contaminated site at Offutt Air Force Base. The site was contaminated with low levels (<30 mg/kg) of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Originally, researchers planned to use field methanol extraction for both pre- and post-treatment sampling to evaluate the effectiveness of the technology on contaminant reduction. Precharacterization sampling, however, indicated that concentrations of some contaminants of concern were much lower than expected. Because use of methanol increases the detection limit, it was probable that post-treatment concentrations of these target contaminants would be nondetectable if methanol extraction was used. Project management, therefore, decided to use En Core samplers in addition to field methanol extraction during the pretreatment sampling event. The En Core sampling approach, while yielding a lower detection limit, uses discreet samples along the length of a core, whereas the methanol extraction approach samples the entire length of the core. The concern was that discreet samples may bias results if any "hot spots" were present. The two field sampling procedures, En Core and field methanol extraction, were performed side-by-side during the pretreatment phase of the technology evaluation in order to determine if the concern was valid for this site. Results were compared for four contaminants of concern: trichloroethylene, vinyl chloride, cis-1,2-dichloroethene, and trans-1,2-dichloroethene. The two procedures produced similar results with respect to both the concentration means and the variances, and no bias was evident. This finding supports project management's decision to use only En Core samplers post-treatment due to low concentrations of target contaminants.
