Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
URBANIZATION AND LAND USE BREAK OUT GROUP SUMMARY NOTES Discussion facilitators: Nora Devoe, Alicia Torregrosa and Angie Evenden. Following is a summary of the Urbanization and Land Use group discussion held at the Great Basin Collaborative Research and Management Conference in Reno, on Thursday, November 30. Approximately 20 people participated in this work group. Names of participants were not recorded. Like the other breakout groups, the focus of the discussion centered on two primary questions: 1) How do we develop collaborative management and research programs to address critical Great Basin Issues? 2) How do we organize and communicate? Initial discussion centered on the need to define the purpose and scope of collaboration work to be accomplished. Several participants felt that it was important to frame the need before identifying organizational approaches and structures. After considerable discussion it was agreed that fully articulating the purpose and scope was outside of the time allotted for the breakout group discussion. The general purpose of the ‘job’ to be accomplished was summarized as follows: • • • • Maintain ecological integrity and land health Conduct land use research as basis to guide growth and to ensure that land is maintained in the best possible condition. Recognize that most problems converge on having a healthy environment for the future. Need measurable successes. The group recognized that organizing to conduct collaborative research and management programs is an extremely complex undertaking and that these efforts consist of numerous elements influenced by scale and relationships. These organizational elements are influenced by geographical and decision making contexts. The group felt that the next step was to identify an ‘architecture’ that would help identify and effectively position program elements to achieve goals. The remaining discussion focused on outlining such an architecture. Two approaches to identifying the necessary architecture were identified: • Link existing organizations and entities together and define vision • Build vision and then see how existing organizations align One participant pointed out that individual entities can exist without collaboration and may be interested in collaboration, but only within the confines of their individual organizations. It was suggested that an alternative strategy to starting from existing building blocks is to define the vision, then allow existing entities/organizations to align to that vision. The groups recommended approach to structuring collaborative efforts follows. 1 Architecture of Collaboration What is necessary for more effective pan-Basin Collaboration? Shared Vision Need to define common vision and mutual goals. Knowledge Of what is being done Of who is doing what Of what gaps are Of what the needs are Of funding opportunities Procedure To Share Information Keep people informed Network those with mutual interests Prerequisites Define the terms Identify the stakeholders Buy in Need common baselines. Collaboration needs to result in mutual benefit/reward What structure will provide for this knowledge and procedures? The need for a communication plan and accompanying structure for sharing information was clearly identified and strongly endorsed by the group. Communications should include both electronic and printed media. A web-based clearinghouse is suggested to address the list of needs/components below. Alternative communication venues for individuals and organizations without electronic access (or no time to access) need to be addressed in the communication plan. Communication planning should address the need to frame the issues and information in lay people terms, stepping up the information to higher levels of detail ending with full scientific information and data. The group recommends reviewing existing websites across organizations to determine how to best integrate them. Communication strategy needs to address why Great Basin is important and the need to reach all target audiences. Possible components to be addressed through a web-based venue. • Research catalog and database allowing easy access to what work is underway or has been completed. • Experts database (who is available to conduct research and in what areas of expertise) • Email lists and chat rooms for communication 2 • Directory of information sources and effective linking between sources. This should be all inclusive (feds, states, counties, NGOs, universities, etc.). Suggestion is to make it like an on-line ‘dating service’ to connect resources (funds, data, etc.). • Data repository for safeguarding data Face to face The group felt strongly that an element of successful collaboration involved plenty of ‘face to face’ time between managers, scientists and other stakeholders. Some participants felt that researchers often don’t hear what managers are asking for. Suggested venues for interaction to enhance understanding and communication include: • Workshops (like the November 2006 Collaborative Research & Management Workshop and the Colorado Plateau Biennial Science Conference) • Details/work exchanges between organizations • Regularly scheduled meetings • Scientists working together with stakeholders • Involve and capitalize on citizen science opportunities (e.g. Master Naturalist Program) • Joint fact finding. This involves inviting public and target audiences, which are often excluded from the scientific process, to participate in defining needs and framing the problems for study. It was suggested that meetings that allow practioners to share the details of what the participants are actually engaged in would be beneficial (e.g. science conference). Establish a steering committee As a next step, the group recommended establishment of a steering committee to serve as a catalyst and to further explore opportunities for collaborative research in the Great Basin. It is suggested that this steering committee include land managers and researchers. Following are some suggested actions: • Clearly define purpose and goals for collaboration. • Conduct exploratory phase to investigate possible collaborative structures. Task the CESU to begin the above. As part of this effort examine existing organizational structures such as the Great Basin Restoration Initiative; Great Basin Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit (CESU); the proposed Great Basin Environmental Project and others. Consider analysis of gaps as part of this process – e.g. what do existing structures offer, what is missing? 3 • Learn from existing collaborations – especially what makes these efforts successful. The Great Basin Restoration Initiative and Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition were identified as examples to review. • Examine functions of existing organizational entities from the perspective of needing a ‘non-denominational’ structure (super integrated common). • Develop road map with measurable objectives and milestones. This effort should consider steps and components necessary for successful collaboration: what are the needs, gaps, funding opportunities, what resources exist (people, data, etc.); how do we keep people informed, connect people with common interests; what is the action or function that networks people? It is further recommended that the collaborative process be interactive and iterative so that researchers stay focused on addressing priority management needs. • Address importance of socio-economic factors in development of an organizational structure. Involve social scientists in collaborative efforts. • Identify full set of stakeholders and outreach to this group. Convene a Follow-up Meeting A specific suggestion is made to have another meeting in a year to focus on what has been accomplished, reporting back on workplan areas including communication structure and funding. Constraints and Barriers to Effective Collaboration As part of the breakout group discussion participants identified a number of constraints or barriers to forming effective partnerships. The group felt that it was important to articulate the barriers and to share these with the broader group. These issues should be kept in mind when building a collaborative framework for the Great Basin. Many of these issues have been addressed in the recommended course of action presented above. • Definition of terms • Building common vision – we don’t have common baselines • We don’t know what each other is doing • Need road map • Need to know what all these efforts need • Confusion on what to focus on – urban is so closely tied to other issues • Many different architectures to collaboration • Socio-economic integration (underlying driver) • Easy to spin wheels if not connecting to other issues • We talk but nothing happens • Big picture applications need to be followed by an implementation strategy • Need a catalyst for meta-analysis of all existing Great Basin activities • Need to safeguard data so that a data repository could become a viable repository • No one wants to administer 4 • • • • • • • • • • • • • Need primer on organizational structures Our ‘place’ is huge – may need to break it down into manageable units Don’t know where to go Communication is not easy Competition between entities Functions of entities need to be examined from the focus of the need fo a ‘nondenominational’ structure (super integrated common) Connection between researchers and land managers No time to use a website No access to use a website Need education translation of science to public and managers Lack of participation of ‘endusers’ of scientific information – joint fact finding. Researchers don’t hear what managers are asking for. Need interactive/iterative process so that researchers don’t run amuck. 5