1 / 23

Karen Murphy (WAK LCC Coordinator) Session Moderator

The LCC Trajectory: Moving from Identifying Science Needs -to Science Planning -to Activities 3 Cases Studies on the Processes Used & Lessons Learned. Western Alaska LCC. Appalachian LCC. Plains and Prairie Potholes LCC. Karen Murphy (WAK LCC Coordinator) Session Moderator.

jetta
Download Presentation

Karen Murphy (WAK LCC Coordinator) Session Moderator

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The LCC Trajectory: Moving from Identifying Science Needs -to Science Planning -to Activities 3 Cases Studies on the Processes Used & Lessons Learned Western Alaska LCC Appalachian LCC Plains and Prairie Potholes LCC Karen Murphy (WAK LCC Coordinator) Session Moderator

  2. Identifying Science Needs -to Science Planning -to Activities

  3. 3 Distinct Regions, 3 seas • Kotzebue Lowlands, Seward Peninsula, Nulato Hills • Arctic tundra, permafrost, Beringia, whitefish, caribou • Southern edge of the Chukchi Sea & northern Bering Sea • Yukon Kuskokwim Delta, Wood TickchikMtns • Wetlands, permafrost, waterfowl, salmon • Bering Sea • Alaska Peninsula & Kodiak Island • Volcanoes, no permafrost, salmon, caribou, brown bears • Bering Sea to the West, Pacific Ocean to the east

  4. Developing an LCC Science Plan requires combining… Strategic Planning… Vision, Mission, Goals => Measures of Success, Assess Internal (strengths, weaknesses) & External (opportunities/needs, threats), expected ‘return’ (benefits, risk of failure, etc.) for Science (clear scientific goals / conceptual foundation, multiple space-time scales; transparent management processes; effective data management & dissemination strategy) for an LCC(decision-relevant science; coordination with partners; etc.)

  5. Strategic Planning Vision? drives development of measure of success which is central to long-term feedback / adaptive management of LCCHow should the LCC assess the success of its activities? Multiple constituencies: DC (HPPGs, etc.), SC, agency programs / field staff, NGOs, local stakeholders,…All with different ‘Measures of Success’(Jean’s diagram?)

  6. SWOT(?) W. AK.: first draft from Science Needs & assessment of institutions/partners…

  7. Core elements of a Science Plan* • Clear conceptual foundation (ecosystem models, etc.) • Transparent processes for selecting Themes, Activities (synchronize language across APP, PPP) • Commitment to • long-term Data Management • Organizational learning (adaptive management)

  8. Essential elements for LCC • Decision-relevant applied science • Mission-focused • Partner buy-in • …

  9. How has your LCC… • …identified the LCC-relevant decision makers and decisions? • …garnered buy-in from and developed trust among your partners? • …decided to measure success? By what process did your Steering Committee identify its values and objectives? • …instituted long-term organizational learning?

  10. SC homework

  11. SC homework

  12. Putting it all together…

  13. WALCC Priority Information Needs

  14. Major Decisions • How should the LCC assess the ‘success’ of its activities? • Any priorities among types of Strategic Science activities? • Any preference among approaches to identifying Science topics? • How can we best utilize the Science & Traditional Ecological Knowledge Community and the Partnership Community in the planning process?

  15. Assessing Success • Science Plan must be dynamic and evolving. • Informative measures of success will play a key role in the LCC’s development as an adaptive, learning organization. They should be based on the LCC’s goals and values but must be defined in enough detail as to allow their evaluation for any given activity or LCC program.

  16. WALCC Primary Decision Types & High-level Objectives

  17. Priorities among types of Strategic Science activities? Should there be any prioritization among the LCC goals in the Charter? While it is likely that each effort taken by the LCC will incorporate, to some extent, all of the LCC goals, if there are priorities among the goals they will influence the LCC’s choice of activities, projects and staffing, as well as the allocation of funds between short-term projects and longer-term services.For example, the LCC could prioritize activities to focus on (i) data access and distribution [mainly Goals d, c] – for example, by providing staff to help PIs develop data management plans, create and share metadata, identify appropriate existing data servers for sharing their data, etc.. Or (ii) collecting new data [mainly Goals c, b]- for example, FY2011’s RFP. Or (iii) analysis and integration of existing data [mainly Goal c]- for example, by providing staff, training, or other activities focused on data integration and analysis, creating software tools to simplify standard analyses, etc. Or (iv) communicating current understanding and methods [mainly Goals a, e].

  18. Preference among approaches to identifying Science topics? Deciding on a strategic approach to address science needs in an integrative manner that encourages collaborative. Some options for selecting topics for focus themes include: • Continue with the “pilot program” approach taken in 2012 and 2013 so that most of the project funds are focused on addressing key science needs in only one or two process-related themes at a time. Some example themes from the LCC Science Workshop include focusing on needs associated with high priority, foundational landscape processes with wide impact on a variety of biological resources and management decisions. For example: • Freshwater Hydrology • Permafrost • Vegetation Community Vulnerability Analyses • Vegetation shifts • Coastal Processes (repeat of cycle since the FY12-13 program started here). • Focus on ecosystems or vegetation communities. The five highest priority community types identified at the Science Workshop were: • Lichen communities • Estuaries • Riverine systems • Thermokarst wetlands • Precipitation driven wetlands • Focus on specific geographic areas and understanding their baseline conditions and how they might change with changing climate. This would allow for a strong synthesis of prior and ongoing work within each area. • Focus on the highest priority science needs in each of a suite of different thematic categories. For example, fund a project that specifically addresses something about permafrost change, another focused on the effects of shrub expansion across the landscape, another focused on subsistence resources etc. all in one year. This would generate a project list more like that funded in FY11 than what is likely to come from the FY12-13 pilot programs. This also may not generate as much collaboration, and leveraging, as other approaches. • Focus on specific decision-related topics by identifying current or near-term decisions being made by a variety land and resource managers, identify the associated priority uncertainties for a common class of decisions, and structure “themes” around them. For instance, focusing on information needs of decision makers who manage coastlines in western Alaska would prioritize projects that link climate change effects to changes in coastal characteristics relevant to the decision makers. This approach would provide the most direct linkage to decision-maker needs and thus would likely result in products of immediate management interest.

  19. How best utilize the Science & Traditional Ecological Knowledge Community and the Partnership Community in the planning process? • Regardless of the decisions regarding #s 2 & 3 above, the planning process should involve input from a wide variety of partners to ensure prioritize the science needs within each topical category. There are multiple ways to accomplish this and they are not mutually exclusive (i.e. more than one approach could be taken). • Seek established research/science needs from existing Partnerships. For example, the Western Arctic Caribou Herd Working group has already provided the LCC with its science needs these needs can help the LCC prioritize activities that will benefit that partnership while benefiting the larger LCC goals. Other examples would include improved coordination with the Pacific Flyway Joint Venture and the Southwest AK Fisheries Habitat partnership. • Establish working groups related to the processes topic and/or the landscape type to prioritize amongst the science needs and/or areas. • Do a general mailing list/general public request for input (would require developing alternatives of priorities within each approach for consideration and response). • Request assistance from Steering Committee agency staff to develop initial priorities then use A,B or C to get feedback. • ???

  20. The LCC performs a decision support function to identify science needs • To provide effective decision support • Begin with user’s needs • Give priority to processes over products • Link information producers and users • Build connections across disciplines and organizations • Seek institutional stability • Design for learning Karen Jenni (Insight Decisions, LLC) and Tim Nieman (Decision Applications, Inc.) Report available on : http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12626

More Related