1 / 14

Timothy J. Brown and Crystal A. Kolden Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV Barbara J. Morehouse

Developing Sustainable Partnerships Between Fire Scientists and Decision-Makers. Timothy J. Brown and Crystal A. Kolden Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV Barbara J. Morehouse University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. Partnership.

verdi
Download Presentation

Timothy J. Brown and Crystal A. Kolden Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV Barbara J. Morehouse

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. Developing Sustainable Partnerships Between Fire Scientists and Decision-Makers Timothy J. Brown and Crystal A. Kolden Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV Barbara J. Morehouse University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

  2. Partnership • Requires a necessary foundation for the development of an iterative science-society collaboration • Society must develop a proprietary interest in the science and its applications • A sustainable partnership • Stakeholders who have the interest, social and economic capital, and motivation to sustain the enterprise

  3. Basic Questions • What are “partnerships”? • What makes a partnership effective?

  4. Partnership Synergy Factors • Synergy measures and example characteristics • Collaborative thinking (e.g., creativity, practical, innovative) • Partnership action (e.g., pooling and coordination of resources) • Relationships with community (e.g., focus on community problems) • Partner participation (e.g., extent of individual and organization participation) • Planning (e.g., development of realistic goals) • Management/administration (e.g., understand and document impacts of actions)

  5. Determinants of Partnership Synergy • Synergy measures and example characteristics • Resources (e.g., money, information, connections) • Partnership characteristics (e.g., leadership characteristics, flexible management/administration, efficiency) • Relationships among partners (e.g., trust, confidence, respect) • External environments (e.g., community characteristics, public policies, organization policies)

  6. California and Nevada Smoke and Air Committee (CANSAC) • Comprises 9 federal, state and local agencies • USFS R5, BLM (CA & NV), FWS, NPS, USFS PSW, CDF, CARB, SJVA • Mission • Oversee the implementation and operation of the CEFA Operations and Forecast Facility • Facilitate the transfer of MM5 and other mesoscale meteorology research done by various agencies to the field for operational applications • Work closely with the other regional mesoscale meteorology modeling consortiums to improve model accuracy and the implementation of “Bluesky” and other programs

  7. CANSAC Structure • Board of Directors • 9 members • Operational and Applications Group • 7 members • Technical Advisory Group • 5 members

  8. Survey Method • 45 questions/statements • Ranked 1-5 • 1 (strongly disagree); 5 (strongly agree) • 1 (very poor); 5 (very good)

  9. Survey Categories • Partnership structure • Organizational design • Availability of resources • CANSAC management • Leadership • Progress

  10. Sample Statements • A sufficient level of trust exists among CANSAC members • CANSAC has the flexibility to be innovative in how it approaches its work • Funding is sufficient • Management accountability • Ability to harmonize differences in members’ perspectives • Level of integration with stakeholders

  11. Results • BOD and OAG strongly agreed that their organization’s interests are well integrated into the partnership • TAG less certain on the level of commitment • Disagreement between all 3 groups on question of having satisfactory access to the resources it needs • All 3 groups concerned with flexibility to allocate resources

  12. Results (cont) • All 3 groups concerned with funding stability • BOD and TAG concerned about motivating members • BOD concerned about harmonizing member differences • BOD concerned about external communications and evaluation • OAG concerned about project evaluation process

  13. Summary • Survey indicated an overall moderate level of satisfaction in terms of a CANSAC partnership • BOD and OAG feel strongly that their organization’s interests are well integrated into the partnership • CANSAC resources and project/product evaluation process needs improvement

  14. Conclusions • CANSAC can be identified with a number of observed and theorized aspects of synergistic partnership characteristics and determinants • Serves as a useful model for scientist and decision-maker sustainable partnerships • Claiming a partnership is not satisfactory, nor realistic • It must be evaluated on an on-going basis with synergistic characteristics and determinants as measures • Various levels of project/product use and value must be assessed (e.g., operations, management) • It takes time to establish a partnership • 3 to 5 years of continuous effort is common

More Related