Download 1 URBANIZATION AND LAND USE BREAK OUT GROUP

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