USING STRUCTURED DECISION MAKING TO INTEGRATE HUMAN WELLBEING IN PUGET SOUND RECOVERY - A COMPARATIVE WATERSHED STUDY
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
WIN 2021
USING STRUCTURED DECISION MAKING
TO INTEGRATE HUMAN WELLBEING IN
PUGET SOUND RECOVERY
A COMPARATIVE WATERSHED STUDY
ALEXA RAMOS-CUMMINGS
MASTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Oregon State University
1 Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................................................. 4 Puget Sound Context..................................................................................................................................... 6 Literature Review........................................................................................................................................ 10 Ecocentric Ethics .................................................................................................................................... 10 Social Sustainability Indicators ............................................................................................................... 11 Decision Support Tools & Frameworks.................................................................................................. 12 Local Context .............................................................................................................................................. 15 Snohomish-Stillaguamish LIO ................................................................................................................ 15 South Central LIO and Puyallup-White River LIO ................................................................................ 20 Integrating Human Wellbeing Intervention ................................................................................................ 22 Methods ...................................................................................................................................................... 23 Interviews ................................................................................................................................................ 24 Participant Observation ........................................................................................................................... 26 Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 28 Interviews ................................................................................................................................................ 28 Participant Observation ........................................................................................................................... 36 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 38 Moving Forward - Limitations ................................................................................................................ 39 Outlook ....................................................................................................................................................... 40 References ................................................................................................................................................... 42 Appendix A ................................................................................................................................................. 45
2
Executive Summary
In Washington State, regional leaders have acknowledged the intrinsic value of nature
and are striving to provide equal consideration to both human and nonhuman nature in the quest
to restore the Puget Sound. But watershed-based committees supporting this work have faced
challenges to effectively consider human wellbeing (HWB) in their decision-making without a
formal process for quantifying and integrating HWB-related elements.
In the field of natural resources, there has been an increasing interest in the use of social
sustainability indicators and decision support tools to increase transparency and accountability in
decision-making, elevate the consideration of underrepresented components in planning, and
better connect with partners. Beginning in 2017, Oregon State University and the Puget Sound
Partnership engaged Local Integrating Organizations (LIOs) to develop tools, including decision
support systems (DSS), to facilitate the integration of social and environmental science for the
purposes of prioritizing local recovery actions.
This report compares participating and non-participating LIOs to draw insights into how
the HWB integration project has or has not impacted the consideration of HWB components in
local watershed group decision-making processes. How LIO committee member attitudes and
opinions about the governance structures and decision-making changed through the process of
piloting (or not) a decision support tool is also evaluated.
Analysis of interview data and direct participation in the HWB integration project, shows
that increased attention is being given to the human dimensions of Puget Sound recovery across
the LIOs, including those that participated in the HWB integration project and those that did not.
There is evidence that the implementation of a decision support tool resulted in members having
an increased perception of transparency in their planning processes and trust among fellow LIO
3
members. It also highlighted specific shortcomings around representation and increased
members’ perceptions that not all the right people are being included in their decision-making.
Based on participant-observation of a decision support tool pilot, there is evidence to
confirm that engaging in the HWB integration project and implementing the tool did increase the
LIO’s consideration of human dimensions throughout the duration of the project and will likely
have lasting positive impacts going forward.4
Statement of the Problem
Human Wellbeing (HWB) is irrevocably intertwined with ecosystem recovery as people
and society are included in the definition of “ecosystem” (Curry, 2012). Scholars have defined
HWB as a state of being with others and the environment, which arises when human needs are
met, when individuals and communities can act meaningfully to pursue their goals, and when
individuals and communities enjoy a satisfactory quality of life (Breslow et al., 2016). In the
Puget Sound region of Washington State, this means constantly working to balance the
ecological needs of salmon, the economic needs of local farmers and businesses, and the cultural
needs of local tribes.
Collaborative approaches that include multiple stakeholders and information sources are
increasingly used to address challenging environmental problems globally (Koontz and Newig,
2014). The Puget Sound Partnership (Partnership) is the state agency mandated to coordinate
government, non-government, and academic partners in these regional goals. This governance
network is intended to overcome siloes and facilitate cooperation and coordination across
jurisdictions, locations, and public/private sectors (Sayles and Baggio, 2017). In this
collaborative model, the work of balancing social and ecological needs is often done by ten
Local Integrating Organizations (LIOs). LIOs are watershed-based committees that work to
integrate efforts to advance the Partnership’s Action Agenda, the “roadmap” of strategies and
actions needed to recover and restore Puget Sound. These watershed committees recognize the
importance of factoring HWB into decision-making processes, but there is no formal process for
quantifying and integrating HWB-related elements. However, since 2018 four LIOs have
engaged in an effort (referred to as the HWB integration project), in cooperation with Oregon
State University (OSU) and the Partnership, to develop tools to facilitate the integration of social5
and environmental science for the purposes of prioritizing local recovery actions. This report
focuses on one of the participating LIOs, Snohomish-Stillaguamish (established in 2012), and
one of the non-participating LIOs, Puyallup-White River (PWR – established in 2018). The
PWR LIO (formerly part of the South Central LIO) did not participate in the HWB integration
project because the LIO did not exist at the onset of the project. But the area is very similar to the
Snohomish-Stillaguamish LIO in terms of landscape setting, human population demographics,
and major pressures/limiting factors/threats. A comparison between the two LIOs will therefore
allow for insight into how participation in the HWB integration project has or has not impacted
LIO consideration of HWB components in local watershed group decision-making processes.
This report addresses how LIO committee members’ attitudes and opinions about the
governance structures and decision-making process changed through piloting (or not) a decision-
making support tool. The implications for the results of this study on public policy are
significant. These research findings have high potential to inform the use of social indicators for
tracking progress and informing decisions as well as decision support tool implementation going
forward for this local watershed group. Both HWB considerations and decision support tool use
(or lack thereof) will influence where restoration funding is allocated and for what purposes. In a
region as environmentally and socially unique as the Puget Sound, people across the globe look
to the area as leaders and innovators. So, what decision-makers do here matters not only for the
local residents and ecosystem, but also for the management of all natural resources necessary for
a healthy and thriving planet.6
Puget Sound Context
The Puget Sound is a saltwater body within the larger Salish Sea. It is the largest estuary
in the United States and is a uniquely complex ecosystem made up of mountains, farmlands,
cities, rivers, forests, and wetlands. Today, and for thousands of years, humans have inhabited
and depended on the natural resources of this bountiful area (PSP, n.d.).
The Partnership is the non-regulatory state agency tasked with guiding the region’s efforts to
restore and protect Puget Sound. The Partnership facilitates collaboration among regional
partners to support recovery actions focused on a common agenda (Partnership, 2018a). To that
end, in 2007, Washington State statute (RCW 90.71.300) identified six recovery goals for the
Partnership, two of which specifically address HWB (below in bold):
1. Healthy Human Population — A healthy population supported by a healthy Puget
Sound that is not threatened by changes in the ecosystem.
2. Vibrant Quality of Life — A quality of human life that is sustained by a functioning
Puget Sound ecosystem.
3. Thriving Species and Food Web — Healthy and sustaining populations of native species
in Puget Sound, including a robust food web.
4. Protect and Restored Habitat — A healthy Puget Sound where freshwater, estuary,
nearshore, marine, and upland habitats are protected, restored, and sustained.
5. Abundant Water Quantity — An ecosystem that is supported by good groundwater levels
as well as river and stream flows sufficient to sustain people, fish, wildlife, and the
natural functions of the environment.7
6. Healthy Water Quality — Fresh and marine waters and sediments of a sufficient quality
to support water that is safe for drinking, swimming, and other human uses and
enjoyment, and which are not harmful to the native marine mammals, fish, birds, and
shellfish in the region.
Figure 1: Partnership Vital Signs
The HWB Vital Signs (see Figure 1) are designed to address the relationship between
people’s actions and the natural environment of Puget Sound. Their associated indicators
function as measurable metrics for tracking recovery progress (see Table 1). While the Vital8
Signs are comprised of clearly recognizable human health attributes, including clean air and
drinking water, they also account for mental and cultural wellbeing, through components like
Sense of Place and the ability to engage in cultural practices which require a healthy
environment.
Table 1: Human Wellbeing Vital Signs and their Indicators
Healthy Human Populations Vibrant Quality of Life
Air Quality Cultural Wellbeing
Exposure to impaired air quality Participation in cultural practices
Drinking Water Economic Vitality
Nitrate concentration in source water Percent of employment in natural
Index of Vulnerability for Elevated resource industries
Nitrates in Groundwater Employment in natural resource
industries
Natural resource industry output
Local Foods Good Governance
Locally harvestable foods Good Governance Index
Bivalve harvester days
Recreational Dungeness crab catch
Outdoor Activity Sense of Place
Nature-based recreation Overall life satisfaction
Nature-based work Psychological Wellbeing Index
Condition of swimming beaches Sense of Place Index
Shellfish Beds Sound Stewardship
Area of harvestable shellfish beds Engagement in stewardship activities
Sound Behavior Index
*Note that Onsite Sewage was subject to revision during the Vital Signs Revisions project and was retired.
The Partnership has recognized that addressing the human dimensions of Puget Sound
recovery supports a more holistic and altogether more effective method for reaching ecosystem
recovery targets (Partnership, 2018b). To further support the implementation of this thinking, the9
Partnership led a three-year long effort to develop the necessary model and Indicators for this
ecocentric ethic framework (Harguth et al., 2015).
Figure 2: The Partnership’s Integrated Ecosystem Recovery Conceptual Model
The layout of their model (see Figure 2) equally balances the two types of recovery goals for
the Puget Sound ecosystem – those associated with HWB and those associated with the
biophysical environment. It also demonstrates how other components of the ecosystem interact
to influence those goals.
The LIOs are local stakeholder groups that work to integrate efforts to advance the
Partnership’s Action Agenda (updated every 4 years). Currently, LIOs concentrate on moving
the needle on recovery within the three Strategic Initiatives established in 2012: Stormwater,10
Shellfish, and Habitat. Strategic Initiatives were set to prioritize near-term recovery efforts and
funding to concentrate on the most significant improvements for Puget Sound (Partnership,
2018c).
Literature Review
Ecocentric Ethics
The Partnership has endeavored to implement an ecocentric framework for recovery
through the creation of the Puget Sound Vital Signs and Integrated Ecosystem Recovery
Conceptual Model. Ecocentrism places the natural world at the center of its value system and
acknowledges the intrinsic value of nature. There is contention about whether this includes
human beings, but many philosophers argue that it can and does (Curry, 2012; Sylvan and
Bennett, 1994; Piccolo et al., 2018; Allen et al., 2019). The key difference from
anthropocentrism (human-centeredness wherein nature is defined by its instrumental value for
humans) is that ecocentrism provides equal consideration to both human and nonhuman nature.
This inclusive, nature-centeredness therefore supports a dark green ecological virtue ethic
wherein ecological problems are not solely defined by reference to human beings, other natural
entities deserve protection regardless of their use or value to humans, and nature has intrinsic
value (Curry, 2012).
Of the six recovery goals identified by Washington State statute in 2007, two specifically
address HWB. And since that which gets measured gets managed, in order to consider human
interests in environmental decision-making, many are looking for ways to quantify HWB. But
evaluating human and community wellbeing can be difficult due to the often qualitative
characteristics of these components. It follows that the field of natural resource management has11
traditionally been most influenced by the economic and ecological sciences. This demonstrates
how indicators that are not easily quantifiable are not readily incorporated into decision-making.
The Partnership, however, is one of a few organizations that have attempted to create and
implement social sustainability indicators as part of their ecocentric recovery framework which
acknowledges the interconnectedness of human and ecosystem wellbeing as well as
sustainability at large.
Social Sustainability Indicators
Social sustainability indicators can offer a valuable means for evaluating progress and
setting goals. They can be a useful tool for assessing the intangible social measures of
sustainability. This recognition can be seen in the many national and international organizations
that have developed their own social indicator frameworks including the United Nations,
International Institute of Sustainable Development (IISD), United Nations Commission of
Sustainable Development (UNCSD), Sustainable Seattle, the National Round Table on the
Environment and the Economy (NRTEE), United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and
the World Bank, New Economics Foundations, and Oxfam International, and the US Interagency
Working Group on Sustainable Development Indicators (Choi and Sirakaya, 2006). And not to
be overlooked, the landmark Millennium Ecosystem Assessment of 2005, that specifically
assessed the consequences of ecosystem change for human wellbeing, used indicators such as
human health and social relations to develop and explore future condition scenarios.
HWB planning and monitoring is a growing area in the field of natural resource
management in response to the increasing acknowledgement that it is a key element of
ecosystem recovery. In Puget Sound specifically, local watershed groups have created recovery12
action plans that include HWB strategies and identify where local-specific indicators still need to
be developed. Recognizing this data gap, there has been significant interest from locals in
support and guidance for developing indicators to track and implement HWB initiatives
(Biedenweg et al., 2014). In 2014, the Partnership facilitated a project to develop their regional
indicators and in 2015 they adopted them along with the Integrated Ecosystem Recovery
Conceptual Model (Biedenweg et al., 2014; Harguth et al., 2015). These indicators are monitored
every two years with data collected from a survey.
Decision Support Tools & Frameworks
Sophisticated decision support tools can integrate diverse data into a framework that
captures the relationships between indicators and demonstrates the potential outcomes of
scenarios where certain indicators are altered based on presumed responsiveness to possible
actions or inaction. These models have potential to impact policy because they provide practical
outputs. They may serve to support management decisions or initiate the consideration of a
previously ignored issue within a decision-making body (Oxley et al., 2004). In the LIO’s case, a
decision support tool could increase the consideration of HWB, a previously overlooked topic.
McIntosh et al. (2011) explains that decision support tools are designed to help the
process of structuring and resolving what action to take when the nature and impact of problems
(and how best to address them) is uncertain and debated. Decision support systems (DSS)
increase the transparency of decision-making by providing rational explanations to support
decisions and by enabling the user to reproduce the procedure, adjust the criteria weights, and
conduct analyses to evaluate the decision strength. However, even with all the advantages
offered by DSS there are legitimate concerns about the uptake and actual use of these13
technologies. Challenges have been identified around engagement, adoption, business cost and
technology, and evaluation of success (McIntosh et al., 2011).
As noted by Schwartz et al. (2018), “[p]lanning and decision support frameworks are
designed to help conservation practitioners increase planning rigor, project accountability,
stakeholder participation, transparency in decisions, and learning (Schwartz et al. 2018).”
Several fundamental categories of decision support tools are briefly outlined below.
1. Strategic Foresight: this framework can be helpful in assessing a range of potential future
conditions in order to identify actions most likely to achieve a desired future condition.
2. Systematic Conservation Planning: this framework has tools which can identify and
prioritize where to take action and minimize cost, while reaching conservation goals.
3. Structured Decision Making: this framework has a wide collection of tools designed to
assist with making choices among actions that differentially achieve a set of potentially
competing objectives.
4. Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation: this framework offers processes for
developing conceptual models of interconnected threats or factors to identify priority
actions and critical results required to determine whether certain actions will achieve
desired outcomes.
5. Evidence-Based Practice: this framework can provide support for quick selection of the
most effective management actions for a decision by synthesizing existing knowledge
and helping connect where past actions may be most applicable.14
Each of these frameworks has distinct strengths and inherent limitations. Therefore, no one
framework alone can address the full breadth of potential ecosystem recovery planning and
decision challenges faced by practitioners. However, Schwartz et al. (2018) posits that by taking
time to work through a few key questions, decision-makers should be able to operate within a
given framework and then adapt the tools to suit the needs of their specific situation.
In a study of DSS, Oxley et al. (2004) describes how the involvement of policymakers,
stakeholders, and other end users is essential for the identification of relevant decision-making
issues and the development of practical, interactive support tools. But identifying both the
decision-makers and the issues they perceive as important is not simple. Decision-making and
policymaking are complex, multifaceted processes with a multitude of different influential
actors, in a sense, negotiating the decisions and policies to be made and/or instituted. Beyond
that first step, there is the challenge of receptivity to such tools which must be overcome.
Researchers have found that open and frequent communication is effective at fostering a
relationship of mutual trust and respect among the end users and DSS developers to encourage
real world tool implementation (Oxley et al., 2004; McIntosh et al., 2011).
Challenges around end user engagement in DSS development and implementation
highlight the importance of utilizing a collaborative process that embraces participation by end
users and stakeholders throughout design and development phases. McIntosh et al. (2011)
propose that individual and organizational capacity-related obstacles to using DSS and the
match between DSS and organizational goals can be overcome with a few strategies: 1)
promotion of the DSS by an internal champion at various organizational levels, 2) coordination
and capacity building within the organization, and; 3) ensuring that developers concentrate on15
creating user-friendly and affordable DSS (and that they are perceived as such by the end users)
(McIntosh et al., 2011).
The literature has shown the utility of decision-making support tools as well as the
limitations and obstacles to effective implementation of them. This understanding has informed
the questions to be investigated in this research paper. To gain insight into how local watershed
groups have experienced using a structured decision making (SDM) tool and whether this has
impacted their opinions about including HWB considerations into environmental decisions the
following questions will be explored: 1) How have LIO committee members’ attitudes and
opinions changed or remained unchanged through the process of piloting a decision-making
support tool? 2) Did their opinions about the usefulness of HWB concerns become more
generous, unified, or accepting through engaging (or not) in the HWB integration project? The
potential policy implications for the results of this study on social indicators and decision support
tool usage in this local context is significant.
Local Context
Snohomish-Stillaguamish LIO
The Snohomish-Stillaguamish LIO geography encompasses the Snohomish River
watershed (Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 7) and the Stillaguamish River watershed
(WRIA 5). The Snohomish River watershed is the largest in Snohomish and King Counties and
the second largest in the Puget Sound region. The Snohomish River meets the Puget Sound north
of Everett, the area’s fifth largest city and a major industrial and commercial hub. Primary land
uses in the watershed are forestry, farming, and urban and rural residential development. Around
70% of the basin is covered by forest land, and agriculture makes up about 5% of the watershed.16
As one of the fastest growing areas in the Puget Sound region, rural residential and urban areas
also make up a large percentage of the watershed’s land base (Snohomish-Stillaguamish LIO,
2017).
The Stillaguamish River watershed is the fifth largest in the Puget Sound region. It is
almost entirely contained within Snohomish County with limited areas in northwest Skagit
County. The basin’s primary land uses are forestry and farming with urban development
occurring in the cities of Stanwood, Arlington, and Granite Falls.
The LIO’s stated purpose is to function as a local forum for the Snohomish and
Stillaguamish watersheds’ diverse array of stakeholders to collaboratively develop and
coordinate actions to improve the health of both basins, advance the Puget Sound Action
Agenda, and restore the environmental health of Puget Sound. To that end, the LIO is
responsible for coordinating with the Partnership and other LIOs, facilitating integration of local
strategies and actions to advance planning and implementation of the Action Agenda, engaging
the local community to identify and prioritize local actions focused on addressing the Strategic
Initiatives, and facilitating collaboration among member organizations (Snohomish County,
n.d.).17
Figure 3: Snohomish-Stillaguamish LIO Map
In 2015, the LIO was tasked with developing a Five-Year Ecosystem Recovery Plan to
guide improvements in the local ecosystem and contribute to Puget Sound recovery overall. The18
Plan contains logic model strategies to address the Vital Sign targets. When faced with
addressing HWB integration, the Plan describes how the LIO chose to proceed,
“The LIO recognized the strong link between human wellbeing and ecosystem
health, and determined that most of the human health and human quality of life
components would be best addressed alongside all of the ecosystem
components/Vital Signs – embedded within each approach to each ecosystem
component – rather than prioritized within the list of ecosystem components (p.
11).”
So, the creation of separate HWB component logic models was purposely omitted in their
planning process. This may serve as some explanation for the lack of formal consideration of
HWB in the LIO’s decision-making processes to date. However, in 2017 the LIO chose to
engage in the HWB integration project to explore filling this gap.
Actors
The main actors in Snohomish-Stillaguamish LIO decision-making include the federal,
state, and local government, tribes, and local interests. The LIO is comprised of a wide spectrum
of members with participation from all major stakeholders. These tribal representatives, farmers,
environmentalists, and elected officials work together to understand each other’s different
perspectives and find common ground to work towards solutions.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plays a key role in the LIO and Puget
Sound recovery at large by providing capacity support funds through a contract with the
Partnership. The EPA also provides funding guidance to the Strategic Initiative (SI) Leads (an
array of state agencies) to inform their funding decisions and processes in their implementation
of the Action Agenda. The SI Leads submit funding packages and supporting information to
EPA Project Officers, the Puget Sound NEP Management Conference and the Tribal19
Management Conference. The LIOs work closely with the EPA’s National Estuary Program via
the SI Leads to recommend a project of their choosing for an annual $100,000 direct allocation
award. Oftentimes the SI Leads will attend LIO committee meetings to communicate their
current priorities for funding, collaborate about strategies for recovery, and give and receive
feedback on various planning processes.
The federally recognized Puget Sound tribes have three areas of responsibility in salmon
recovery planning: participating in the local efforts to develop basin-wide plans that address
salmon recovery; developing technical, policy, and recovery actions with other constituents; and
co-managing harvest and hatchery plans that address species recovery at both the local and
regional levels with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) (Forum, 2005). As
such, the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians and the Tulalip Tribes offer an integral contribution
through their participation in the LIO, especially related to the LIO’s focused efforts on habitat
restoration for salmon. The Snoqualmie Tribe is not federally recognized at this time but
participates as a member of the LIO as well.
The state and local governments provide regulatory authority for water quality, natural
resource management, and community development. Local agencies are responsible for ensuring
compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), permitting
wells, and maintaining municipal drinking systems all of which relates to Habitat, Shellfish, and
Stormwater recovery (the three Strategic Initiatives). They also provide staffing capacity and
technical expertise to local ecosystem recovery planning efforts. And again, each of the Strategic
Initiatives teams is lead by two related state agencies that actively engage as a bridge between
the federal stakeholders and the LIOs to ensure that the local expertise in taken into
consideration when setting regional priorities and making funding decisions.20
The LIO recognizes that strong community support is critical for successfully
implementing recovery actions. They consider community priorities and as such also support
farming, forestry, and rural community partners, and recognize the local economic benefits of a
healthy Puget Sound. The LIO seeks to collaborate with the diverse set of local stakeholders and
encourages engagement through its planning processes as demonstrated in their Five-Year
Ecosystem Recovery Plan.
South Central LIO and Puyallup-White River LIO
Established in 2010, the former South Central LIO’s geography extent had previously
included the Cedar-Sammamish, Duwamish-Green, Kitsap, and Puyallup-White river
watersheds. However, in 2018 the Puyallup-White River (PWR) LIO was formed and now
represents the WRIA 10 boundaries separate from South Central LIO.
The South Central LIO chose not to participate in the HWB integration project so will
provide an opportunity to compare the experiences of a participating and non-participating LIO
and analyze how participation did or did not impact HWB considerations within each group.
This area was selected for comparison in this report to the Snohomish-Stillaguamish LIO
because it has a similar landscape setting, human population demographics, and major
pressures/limiting factors/threats. The PWR LIO encompasses a watershed of 1,040 square miles
with suburban and rural communities across unincorporated King and Pierce Counties. The
broader region is the most urbanized portion of Puget Sound and includes a variety of industrial,
commercial, and residential infrastructure, a highly modified shoreline, and a large network of
streets, roads, and highways. Although portions of this area have been intensively developed,
approximately most of the area is not considered urban, with vast tracts of agricultural lands in21 rural King and Pierce Counties and undeveloped lands in Mount Rainier National Park and the Mount Baker–Snoqualmie National Forest. There are also large parks and open spaces throughout, including in the cities (King County, n.d.). Figure 4: Puyallup-White River LIO Map
22
The South Central LIO took a similar approach to the Snohomish-Stillaguamish LIO for
incorporating HWB components in its Five-Year Ecosystem Recovery Plan. While the LIO
called out Shellfish Beds and Swimming Beaches as local priorities for recovery the LIO did not
develop specific targets or strategies at that time.
The recently established PWR LIO is currently in the process of developing its
Ecosystem Recovery Plan and appears to have dedicated a greater emphasis to incorporating
HWB issues like equity, environmental justice and climate change. They are structuring their
plan around eight focus areas including Equity and Human Wellbeing. The Equity and Human
Wellbeing focus area is dedicated to “building all peoples sense of their oneness with the natural
world and commitment to a healthy environment for human and ecological benefits”. Each focus
area chapter in the plan will consist of a brief description of the status, goals and targets, key
pressures and strategies, and ongoing program and identified actions (McManus & Colón, 2020).
Aside from the various demographic and geographic differences between the two focus
LIOs, it is worth noting that some members of the PWR LIO bring with them recent prior
experience of developing HWB indicators through a collaboration between the Puget Sound
Institute and the Puyallup Watershed Initiative (Biedenweg and Harguth, 2014). This may
influence how the PWR LIO manages HWB components in their planning processes as well
interviewees’ responses to the topic.
Integrating Human Wellbeing Intervention
In 2017, the LIOs were approached by the OSU-Partnership team about participating in
the HWB integration project. Part of the project included exploring the potential for use of23
decision support tools, rooted in various decision support frameworks, to support HWB
integration in local decision-making processes. The Snohomish-Stillaguamish LIO, along with
three others, expressed interest.
For three years the LIOs participated in the HWB integration project. Participation
included attending numerous workshops (project-specific and on structured decision making
(SDM) more generally), participating in interviews to assess the factors that influence LIO
integration of social data in the planning process, and two LIOs completed piloting the use of the
EPA’s Decision Analysis for a Sustainable Environment, Economy, and Society (DASEES) tool
on a subset of project proposals to inform the funding decision for their annual $100,000 direct
award allocation. The pilots were intended to demonstrate the tool’s capabilities, allow for
feedback on the tool itself, and generate discussion on the potential uses within the LIOs in the
future.
Methods
The purpose of this study was to investigate how LIO committee member attitudes and
opinions about the governance structures and decision-making process changed or remained
rigid through piloting (or not) a decision support tool. Interviews and participant observation
were used to gather relevant data for analysis. The quantitative data used was collected during
the interviews from agreement statements about transparent, trusting, and inclusive decision
processes. The qualitative interview data used is about HWB integration. The participant
observation data is about the factors that facilitated or impeded the integration of HWB through
decision support systems (DSS).24
Interviews
Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with LIO members from both
participating and non-participating LIOs. The interviews occurred at the conclusion of the
project in order to assess how attitudes associated with participation differed from attitudes with
those who did not participate in the intervention. Purposive sampling was used as a type of
nonprobability sampling in which the participants to be observed were selected based on the
researcher’s judgement about which ones would be the most useful or representative (Babbie,
2010). Two main criteria were used to select participants for the study:
1. Engagement with the LIO: Collaborative groups draw interest from many stakeholders
but are a time intensive process. This results in an unequal level of participation among
those engaged. This study sought participants that are highly engaged in the LIO and/or
HWB project.
2. Interest or perspective represented: The LIOs have a broad spectrum of members with
participation from all major stakeholders; tribal and non-tribal representatives,
businesses, environmentalists, local government, and elected officials. Interviewees
represented the diversity of stakeholders involved with the LIO.
Potential self-selection bias of participants could have influenced the sense of the general
attitude of LIOs toward this subject. However, there is confidence that the interviewees provided
valid and reliable responses to the interview questions. Participation in the study was voluntary
and kept anonymous. The data collected posed no risk to the interviewees which should have
encouraged them to share their honest responses. I, as one of the interviewers, have worked
closely with the LIOs for over four years so there may have been a foundation of trust that
helped respondents feel more comfortable to share their true thoughts. However, it may also have25
caused some respondents to withhold their honest responses. It is more likely that the
interviewees from the other LIOs were not aware of and therefore not influenced by my own
position as staff to the Snohomish-Stillaguamish LIO. And to prevent any potential conflict of
interest, I did not personally interview members from the Snohomish-Stillaguamish LIO.
Interviews were conducted one-on-one to eliminate the risks of group think inherent to
focus groups. Participants were interviewed at the end of the HWB project, so their attitudes on
the subject were well developed by this time. Conducting semi-structured interviews rather than
a self-administered survey allowed for any necessary clarification around the questions being
asked. This reduced potential misinterpretations of the questions as written and supported the
collection of data as intended by the research team. See Appendix A for interview protocol.
While this study has been strategically designed to extract targeted data and develop a detailed
understanding of the research topic at a fine scale, there are inherent limitations related to
quantifying qualitative data, drawing from a small sample size, and the applicability of such
results at a broad scale which should be noted.
The interviews included a cognitive mapping exercise to better understand the factors that
influence individuals’ integration of social data (e.g. social science or human wellbeing) in the
planning process. Participants were asked to imagine that they were explaining to someone
completely unfamiliar with the LIO planning process “the factors that enable integration of
social data in the LIO planning process.” To represent these factors, they were asked to use an
online interactive tool to select and sort virtual sticky notes that had individual factors on them.
This Conceptual Content Cognitive Map (3CM) is a method for testing hypotheses about mental
models. Mental models or schemas represent the way individuals organize their worldview about
a specific topic and in turn influences the way that individuals take in and interpret new26
information. Mental models are an effective way to capture how people organize and define
constructs such as HWB, which helped me understand participants’ thoughts on the subject.
Participant Observation
In 2018, as staff for the Snohomish-Stillaguamish LIO, I attended the first HWB project
workshop, with the LIO Coordinator, on the LIO’s behalf. Three other LIOs were also
represented by their LIO Coordinators at the event. During the workshop, the research team
presented a suite of human wellbeing integration tools for the LIOs to choose from for further
exploration and application to their specific decision scenario through the project process. All the
LIOs present were interested in pursuing Decision Analysis for a Sustainable Environment,
Economy, and Society (DASEES). As a textbook decision support tool, DASEES offers users
the ability to increase the transparency of decision-making by requiring explicit documentation
for the logic behind decisions. And by being fully replicable and customizable, decision strength
can readily be evaluated.
DASEES is a free, web-hosted EPA tool that aims to solve decisions with environmental,
economic, and social data. It integrates data and stakeholder issues, allowing users to develop
and quantitatively evaluate decision outcomes. It is adaptable for a wide range of decisions that
involve objectives, measures, and actions. Based on a structured decision making (SDM)
framework, it includes a five-step process: (1) define context; (2) define objectives; (3) identify
options; (4) evaluate options; (5) and take action. In the end, a data visualization tool is created
from the consequence table output that can communicate the potential outcomes of decisions and
their impacts on objectives to decision makers and stakeholders. All data input is translated from
the initial measured value or units into a normalized score using a value function ranging from27
0–1 reflecting the relative preference for different levels of the actual measure which can be
elicited from decision makers and stakeholders. This allows the combination of all results for a
multi-measure assessment of alternatives and provision of a common measure for comparison
(scenarios). And ultimately, this facilitates the presentation of results, initial screening of input,
integration of diverse variables and finally discussion and decision-making.
In Year 1, the Snohomish-Stillaguamish LIO Coordinator and I further discussed data
tools and needs to develop a draft work plan and present for approval to the Executive
Committee. The LIO Coordinator, support staff, some committee members, and I also
participated in the HWB research team’s pre-project interviews to provide an initial assessment
of the factors that influence the integration of social data in the planning process.
In Year 2, the Snohomish-Stillaguamish LIO piloted the use of DASEES to inform the
funding decision for their annual $100,000 direct award allocation. On behalf of the LIO, I
worked with the research team and DASEES developers at the EPA to ensure a proper output for
the LIO’s consideration. This required data translation and entry from the LIO’s recovery plan,
regional indicators, and over 25 priority Near Term Actions (NTAs) into DASEES. The
consequence table output showed that the “Measurable On-the-Ground NTAs” scenario would
have the greatest impact on the LIO’s recovery measures.
In Year 3, as staff for one of only two LIOs to complete a pilot of DASEES, I worked
with the research team to reflect, compile lessons learned, and share our experience with others
interested in utilizing these tools for their own needs. Part of this included attending a series of
SDM workshops. In Workshop #1, the content was tailored to those LIOs that participated in the
HWB project. The goals were to 1) build capacity among HWB project partners by further
exploring, sharing, and integrating DASEES into LIO decision-making and 2) examine DASEES28
tool use for integrating human wellbeing into ecosystem recovery among LIOs. At this
workshop, I shared a brief presentation describing 1) what our DASEES decision (project) was;
2) how we used DASEES; and 3) our current decision/project status. The other LIOs were able
to ask questions of myself and the DASEES developers from the EPA to get a better
understanding of ways that they could utilize DASEES in their own work and there was time set
aside for the other LIOs to begin working in the DASEES tool itself. In Workshop #2, the
audience was broader and included EPA staff along with other regional representatives that were
interested to see how DASEES was being used to inform local decision-making. The DASEES
developers each gave presentations on the theory of SDM and DASEES as a tool for SDM. I
provided a more detailed presentation of the Snohomish-Stillaguamish LIO’s DASEES pilot
project with key takeaways and the outlook for future uses of DASEES in Puget Sound recovery.
In Workshop #3, the organizers structured the event around breakout sessions that focused on
different elements and applications of SDM and DASEES. The HWB research team and I led a
session on integrating HWB Vital Signs into SDM and I shared my experience using DASEES at
the LIO scale.
At the end of Year 3, LIO members and support staff, including myself, participated in
post-project interviews. This data enabled the research team to look at change over time and
evaluate how the LIOs have been impacted by the HWB integration project.
Results
Interviews
Four people were interviewed from the Snohomish-Stillaguamish LIO and the majority
were LIO staff. Five people were interviewed from the PWR LIO and most participants were29 LIO committee members. In general, respondents from the Snohomish-Stillaguamish LIO felt that engaging with the HWB integration project and piloting the decision support tool DASEES did increase the consideration of HWB components within the LIO and has the potential to do so into the future. They also felt that not all the right people were being included in their decision- making processes. Interview participants from the newly formed PWR LIO, which did not participate in the HWB integration project, had mixed feelings about their LIO’s level of HWB consideration. Some referenced the explicit development of an Equity and Human Wellbeing chapter in the PWR LIO Ecosystem Recovery Plan while recognizing the challenges around the lack of information available on these topics and that there could be more done to further increase HWB consideration. Other interviewees felt strongly that there is still a significant need for improvement and that the goal should be to integrate HWB into all the LIO’s conversations, not just one chapter of the Plan.
30
In comparing responses between the two LIOs, there was a larger portion of Snohomish-
Stillaguamish LIO respondents that agreed or completely agreed that their planning processes
were transparent (75% vs 60%).31
There was also a larger portion of Snohomish-Stillaguamish LIO respondents that felt
they trust the members of their LIO in planning processes (100% vs 80%).32
Lastly, there was a larger portion of PWR LIO respondents that felt they have the right
people in the room for decision-making in their planning processes (60% vs 50%).
One possible explanation for these results is that implementation of a decision support
tool within the Snohomish-Stillaguamish LIO increased transparency and fostered trust among
the members as it has been cited to do so in the literature. However, this could also be a simple
effect of a well-established group with many members that have been colleagues for years. The
process of piloting DASEES may also have increased awareness in the Snohomish-Stillaguamish
LIO regarding certain gaps in expertise among their membership as it relates to integrating social
data in decision-making. For example, one interviewee commented:33
“I think that the success of the LIO or the ability to integrate these social science
factors into our work is very much helped by people who are experts at that, who
are providing us either the leadership or the institutional prioritization so that we
can get to all of the other stuff… having the support to do that is important
because I don't necessarily think that expertise is held alone in each of the LIOs.”
– Snohomish-Stillaguamish Interviewee
Another interview participant noted:
“I love my colleagues, but I would like to see some new fresh faces and hear some
different voices, and to have those different voices and ideas meaningfully
incorporated… I don't think we have enough people in the room with the right
voices…” – Snohomish-Stillaguamish Interviewee
These responses show a notable level of self-awareness within the Snohomish-Stillaguamish
watershed group and a desire to address self-identified factors contributing to the difficulties they
have faced with successfully integrating HWB into their recovery planning and decision-making
– not having all the right people in the room.
Whereas the Snohomish-Stillaguamish LIO is currently implementing and adaptively
managing their existing recovery plan, PWR LIO is in a completely different phase of recovery
planning and decision-making. As a new stakeholder group they have had little time, relative to
the other LIOs, for collaboration and interaction which may have influenced the interviewees’
responses around the topics of trust and transparency. PWR LIO is also in the middle of
developing the recovery plan that will guide their work over the next several years. And having
come into existence so many years after the first LIOs were formed they are in a particularly
unique situation. As one interviewee described it,
“They really had the benefit of… all the years of experimenting with what is an
effective LIO, to sort of like hit the ground running and launch their own LIO. So,
it was a very comparatively, a much more thoughtful, concerted, and deliberate34
process that they went through than what I remember on the South Central Action
Area LIO.” – PWR Interviewee
It is not surprising then that PWR LIO has attempted to seize this opportunity to directly
address persistent gaps, such as effective HWB integration, that have eluded the other
LIOs in the past, by strategically dedicating a section of their recovery plan to Equity and
Human Wellbeing. “We are looking at the equity and the climate change topics, which
are lacking in existing local plans compared to the other focus areas”, said one
respondent. But not all participants have been satisfied with the execution of this effort to
recognize the importance of HWB in recovery planning. One interviewee commented,
“I feel like it's been really heavily focused on acres planted or this many salmon
species protected... I don't feel like there's a strong social science component in
our planning processes. I mean, obviously the conversation and the people there
they're trying…” – PWR Interviewee
Another respondent added,
“I don't think anyone in the room is bringing it up enough. And I don't feel like...
Well, the other caveat is that I'm not participating in the Equity chapter. And I
think that might be our only vaguely social one.” – PWR Interviewee
But these opinions are juxtaposed by other interviewees’ views that while imperfect,
significant strides are being made within the LIOs, even those that did not participate in
the HWB integration project, to acknowledge these important HWB concepts:35
“In our meetings, we have these conversations where we're asking the
question, are we including the right people in the conversation? Are we connecting the
dots? Cross-cutting issues. Are we connecting dots between... Around human health
and wellbeing and the connection between environment and taking action to protect
the environment? And coming at it not just from a purely environmental science
perspective, but from the perspective of what people gain by investing in the
environment…
It's the way the people that are sitting around the table are thinking, right.
They're asking, are we thinking diversity, equity, inclusion? Are we thinking human
health and wellbeing and the relationship between tree canopy cover and human
health? I think it's just the people that are sitting around the table are... And I wouldn't
say that it's a hundred percent of the time or that we're a hundred percent doing it. I'm
just saying that we're motivated to think that way. And to ask the question when it's...
And we probably don't ask the question all the time and we probably don't ask it
enough and we probably don't really know what we're doing, but we're trying, I guess.”
-South Central LIO Interviewee
Perspectives on whether HWB is being adequately incorporated into the PWR LIO’s
planning processes appear to depend on the specific LIO meetings and conversations the
respondents have been able to engage in personally. It is likely that those LIO members directly
involved in the development of the Equity and Human Wellbeing chapter of their recovery plan
have a more positive outlook on the watershed group’s ability to effectively integrate these
concepts into their planning and decision-making. This is acknowledged as much by those
respondents that communicated the desire for a stronger focus on HWB within the greater LIO:
“I think there's seven chapters. I'm participating in two of them. So, I think that's
a flaw of the system. It just means that I'm not able to engage in that [Equity
chapter] conversation, because I'm not funded to spend more time on it than I
can.” – PWR Interviewee36
This brings to light the impacts of broader issues like funding and capacity, that are relevant for
all LIOs, on implementing even well-supported initiatives like HWB integration.
Participant Observation
Based on my participant observation, the Snohomish-Stillaguamish LIO was open to
exploring the potential for structured decision making (SDM) via DASEES to increase
transparency and accountability in their decision-making, elevate the consideration of HWB
components in their planning, and engage existing and new partners by incorporating HWB
considerations that were previously overlooked and underrepresented. Through piloting the use
of DASEES, it became apparent that: 1) HWB recovery components were lacking in the
Snohomish-Stillaguamish LIO’s recovery plan (definitions, targets, and measures), 2) recovery
components and measures were inconsistent and uneven, and 3) NTAs and the NTA solicitation
process may have overemphasized (via a ranking loophole) certain recovery components causing
a misrepresentation of NTAs and their potential impacts to recovery. Because NTAs are often
(mis)linked to a recovery component that does not fully or adequately capture the project’s
objectives or measures, mapping NTAs to explicit recovery decisions is challenging. Overall,
recovery components are not evenly articulated, measures vary (with some potentially being
difficult to adequately measure in practice), and HWB components are undeveloped in
comparison to their ecological counterparts in this LIO’s recovery plan. This in turn makes
utilizing a SDM tool like DASEES more challenging. Still, the pilot with DASEES, while not
perfect, did demonstrate the high potential to address all the LIO’s goals for SDM. While the
experience highlighted areas for improvement in the LIO’s recovery plan strategies and metrics,
as well as alignment between the local and regional approaches, once those elements areYou can also read
