Disparate Stakeholder Management: Disparate Stakeholder Management: - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Disparate Stakeholder Management: Disparate Stakeholder Management: Disparate Stakeholder Management: Disparate Stakeholder Management:

A case A case A case A case study on how to avoid being buffaloed by study on how to avoid being buffaloed by study on how to avoid being buffaloed by study on how to avoid being buffaloed by competing interests. competing interests. competing interests. competing interests.

Lynne Koontz Lynne Koontz Lynne Koontz Lynne Koontz

USGS Fort Collins Science Center USGS Fort Collins Science Center USGS Fort Collins Science Center USGS Fort Collins Science Center Policy Analysis & Science Assistance Branch Policy Analysis & Science Assistance Branch Policy Analysis & Science Assistance Branch Policy Analysis & Science Assistance Branch

Presentation Points Presentation Points

• Case Study

Case Study

• Research Objectives

Research Objectives

• Methodology

Methodology

• Key Results

Key Results

• Implications for managers

Implications for managers

Case Study Case Study

Elk & Bison Management Planning Process Elk & Bison Management Planning Process

Grand Teton National Park and the National Elk Refuge Grand Teton National Park and the National Elk Refuge

Winter Feeding on the National Elk Refuge

Initiated to mitigate for the loss of winter range. Currently there are 13,500 elk in the Jackson herd, with half wintering on the Refuge.

Need for the Elk and Bison Management Need for the Elk and Bison Management Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 100 200 300 400 500 600 Escaped Discovered Supplemental Feed Introduced to Wildlife Park

Bison Population in Jackson Hole LAWSUIT LAWSUIT

Soliciting public input for an Environmental Impact Soliciting public input for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Statement (EIS)

• Diverse preferences for each issue

Diverse preferences for each issue

• Discussion quickly becomes polarized

Discussion quickly becomes polarized

• Impossible to look at how important each issue is in

Impossible to look at how important each issue is in the overall decision the overall decision

• Looking at the overall context

Looking at the overall context

• Makes it easier to find common ground among stakeholders

Makes it easier to find common ground among stakeholders

• Develop compromised solutions

Develop compromised solutions

• Reduce litigation

Reduce litigation

Challenges with the Elk & Bison Decision Making Challenges with the Elk & Bison Decision Making Process Process

Research Objective Research Objective

Develop an approach, called Disparate Stakeholder Develop an approach, called Disparate Stakeholder Management (DSM) that Management (DSM) that helps decision makers helps decision makers better better describe, measure, communicate and resolve describe, measure, communicate and resolve management issues with disparate stakeholders. management issues with disparate stakeholders. Predict the level of support and conflict for all relevant Predict the level of support and conflict for all relevant policy decisions, and identify who would support or policy decisions, and identify who would support or

• ppose each decision.
• ppose each decision.

Methods: Constructing the DSM Methods: Constructing the DSM

1) Used 1) Used Decision Analysis Decision Analysis (Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)) (Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP))

• organize and describe the management problem
• rganize and describe the management problem
• measure stakeholder preferences for elk and bison issues

measure stakeholder preferences for elk and bison issues 2) Used Economic Public Choice Theory to understand the level of 2) Used Economic Public Choice Theory to understand the level of conviction each stakeholder group holds for a particular conviction each stakeholder group holds for a particular management issue to determine possible management issue to determine possible compromised compromised solutions solutions. . 3) An Institutional Analysis model was incorporated to account f 3) An Institutional Analysis model was incorporated to account for

• r

stakeholders stakeholders’ ’ political influence political influence in the decision making process. in the decision making process.

Stakeholder Interviews Stakeholder Interviews

Interviewed 47 individuals representing 30 organizations Interviewed 47 individuals representing 30 organizations: : Local, State, & Federal government agencies; Local, State, & Federal government agencies; Native American tribes; Native American tribes; Local businesses; Local businesses; Agricultural and ranching interests; Agricultural and ranching interests; Hunting and outfitting; Hunting and outfitting; Environmental and wildlife conservation; Environmental and wildlife conservation; Animal rights. Animal rights.

To collect the information we needed for the DSM each stakeholde To collect the information we needed for the DSM each stakeholder r representative completed three surveys representative completed three surveys (one on stakeholder preferences (one on stakeholder preferences & two on political influence). & two on political influence).

Benefits of using Decision Analysis (AHP) Benefits of using Decision Analysis (AHP)

• Organizes and describes the management

Organizes and describes the management problem in a hierarchy framework problem in a hierarchy framework

• Allows for the weighting of factors influencing

Allows for the weighting of factors influencing the decision the decision (decision makers & other stakeholders)

(decision makers & other stakeholders)

• Provides

Provides traceability traceability for every management for every management issue in the overall context issue in the overall context

Constructing the AHP Hierarchy Constructing the AHP Hierarchy

Main Management Issues Main Management Issues

• Disease Management

Disease Management

( (dispersal, vaccination, or test & slaughter) dispersal, vaccination, or test & slaughter)

• Forage Management

Forage Management

• Winter Feeding

Winter Feeding (no feeding, emergency basis, or annually)

(no feeding, emergency basis, or annually)

• Restore Historic Migration Corridor

Restore Historic Migration Corridor

• Hunting

Hunting (no hunting, on NER only, both GTNP/NER)

(no hunting, on NER only, both GTNP/NER)

Separate hierarchies due to different preferences for elk and bi Separate hierarchies due to different preferences for elk and bison son issues. issues.

Bison

Disease Forage Hunting

Dispersal Vaccinate Test & Slaughter Winter Feed No Feed

Elk

Disease Forage Hunting

Winter Feeding Enhance forage/ Winter Range

.16 Annual .77 .77 Emergency .08 No Feed

No active mgmt Current Range in Jackson Range outside Jackson Dispersal Vaccinate Test & Slaughter Hunt GTNP/NER Hunt NER only No Hunting

AHP Hierarchy Survey AHP Hierarchy Survey Example: Conservation Group Example: Conservation Group’ ’s Feeding s Feeding Scores Scores

Hunt GTNP/NER Hunt NER only No Hunting

Scores always sum to one

.10 Bison

.01 Disease .08 Forage .02 Hunting

.01 Dispersal .00 Vaccinate .00 Test & Slaughter .01 Winter Feed .07 No Feed

.90 Elk .90 Elk

.21Disease .62 .62 Forage Forage .07 Hunting

.06 .06 Winter

Winter Feeding Feeding

.56 .56 Enhance forage/

Enhance forage/ Winter Range Winter Range

.01 Annual .05 05 Emergency

Emergency

.00 No Feed .02 No active mgmt .04 Current .50 50 Restore Historic Migration

Restore Historic Migration

.16 Dispersal .04 Vaccinate .01 Test &

Slaughter

.00 Hunt

GTNP/NER

.07 Hunt NER only .00 No Hunting .00 Hunt

GTNP/NER

.02 Hunt NER only .00 No Hunting

Traceability of Conservation Group Traceability of Conservation Group’ ’s Scores s Scores

Scores always sum to one

Viewing Stakeholder Preferences Viewing Stakeholder Preferences

“ “Hands Off Hands Off” ” -----

• ---- vs

vs

• --- “

“Managed Managed” ” Dispersal Test & Slaughter No Winter Feeding Annual Feeding No Hunting Hunt GTNP & NER

Placed options within spectrum of management practices Placed options within spectrum of management practices

Represent the multiple objectives associated with each resource management practice

“Hands off” Land Use Management Practices “Managed” Land Use Management Practices

Policy Possibilities Frontier Policy Possibilities Frontier

Technically efficient combinations

• f land management practices that

can be produced using available resources

* Boundary constrained

by EIS agencies’ missions and mandates

Results: Stakeholder Preferences & Current Management Results: Stakeholder Preferences & Current Management

Organizational Codes

AGI = Agricultural Interests AR = Animal Rights CON = Conservation Groups In Red = Federal Government HO = Hunting & Outfitting LB = Local Business LGV = Local Government SGV = State Government TRB = Tribal

AR 1 CON 3 CON 6 APHIS FWS SGV 3 HO 4 LB 1 SGV 1 HO 1 HO 2 HO 5

• •
• CON 2
• CON 5

CON 4 AGI 2 LGV 1 TRB 1 NPS CON 1 LGV 2 HO 3 LB 2

• CON 7

SGV 2 AGI 1

Use Management Practices “Natural” Land “Managed” Land Use Management Practices

• USFS

AR 2 TRB 2 BLM

• Current

Management

Original EIS Management Alternatives Original EIS Management Alternatives

Organizational Codes

AGI = Agricultural Interests AR = Animal Rights CON = Conservation Groups In Red = Federal Government HO = Hunting & Outfitting LB = Local Business LGV = Local Government SGV = State Government TRB = Tribal

AR 1 CON 3 CON 6 APHIS FWS SGV 3 HO 4 LB 1 SGV 1 HO 1 HO 2 HO 5

• •
• CON 2
• CON 5

CON 4 AGI 2 LGV 1 TRB 1 NPS CON 1 LGV 2 HO 3 LB 2

• CON 7

SGV 2 AGI 1

Use Management Practices “Natural” Land “Managed” Land Use Management Practices

• USFS

AR 2 TRB 2 BLM 5 1 4 2

• 3

The DSM helped managers identify policy gaps.

Alternatives in Draft EIS Alternatives in Draft EIS

AR 1 CON 3 CON 6 APHIS FWS SGV 3 HO 4 LB 1 SGV 1 HO 1 HO 2 HO 5

• •
• CON 2
• CON 5

CON 4 AGI 2 LGV 1 TRB 1 NPS CON 1 LGV 2 HO 3 LB 2

• CON 7

SGV 2 AGI 1

Use Management Practices “Natural” Land “Managed” Land Use Management Practices

• USFS

AR 2 TRB 2 BLM 5 1 4 6 A

• 3

*More defensible EIS analysis

Organizational Codes

AGI = Agricultural Interests AR = Animal Rights CON = Conservation Groups In Red = Federal Government HO = Hunting & Outfitting LB = Local Business LGV = Local Government SGV = State Government TRB = Tribal

2

Tells which issue matters most Tells the options each stakeholder wants

Disease Hunting Dispersal Vaccinate Test & Slaughter Both GT/NER NER Only No Hunting

Elk Management

Winter Feeding Annual Sufficient No Feed Annual Sufficient No Feed Dispersal Vaccinate Test & Slaughter Both GT/NER NER Only No Hunting

Potential Compromised Solutions Potential Compromised Solutions

How Important are the Issues? How Important are the Issues?

Compromise Ratings for each Management Compromise Ratings for each Management Alternative by Stakeholder Group Alternative by Stakeholder Group

Federal Gov't State Gov't Local Gov't Tribes Local Business Ag & Ranch Hunting & Outfitting Groups Animal Rights Groups Conservation Groups

• Alt. 1

45% 60% 39% 36% 61% 66% 57% 13% 31%

• Alt. 2

51% 9% 11% 60% 11% 5% 7% 62% 61%

• Alt. 3

70% 53% 66% 76% 45% 44% 59% 58% 72%

• Alt. 4

60% 62% 68% 69% 52% 50% 66% 30% 53%

• Alt. 5

49% 83% 77% 44% 86% 81% 74% 21% 38%

• Alt. 6

64% 46% 59% 75% 35% 36% 48% 54% 69%

Implications for managers Implications for managers

Assisted EIS Team: Assisted EIS Team:

• 1. Reduced polarity in stakeholder preferences by breaking

problems down into smaller pieces where acceptable compromises were more likely;

• 2. Identified many dimensions of the problem, which gave decision

makers more alternatives to choose from;

• 3. Assured decision makers that alternatives offered for

consideration covered the gambit of stakeholder preferences;

• 4. Portrayed the relationships between alternatives and stakeholder

preferences, including the balance struck by Alternative 4, in regional and national briefings;

• 5. Promoted inclusion and equity for stakeholders by applying a

consistent process to develop the PPF.

Contact information: Contact information: koontzl@usgs.gov koontzl@usgs.gov 970 970-

• 226

226-

• 9384

9384