Creating a dialogue for effective collaborative decision-making: A case study with Michigan stakeholders

Journal of Great Lakes Research

Volumn 34, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 12-22

  Dreelin, Erin A ^a   Rose, Joan B ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Collaborative decision making; Michigan; Stakeholders; Water policy

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS; PUBLIC POLICY; TECHNICAL PRESENTATIONS;

COLLABORATIVE DECISION MAKING; STAKEHOLDERS; WATER POLICY;

DECISION MAKING;

DECISION MAKING; POLICY MAKING; STAKEHOLDER; WATER MANAGEMENT; WATER PLANNING;

MICHIGAN; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 42349094269     PISSN: 03801330     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3394/0380-1330(2008)34[12:CADFEC]2.0.CO;2     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Ascher, W. 2004. Scientific information and uncertainty: challenges for the use of science in policymaking. Sci. Eng. Ethics 10:437-455.
2. Baron, J., and Spranca, M. 1997. Protected values. Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec. 70:1-16.
3. Bentrup, G. 2001. Evaluation of a collaborative model: A case study analysis of watershed planning in the intermountain west. Environ. Manage. 27 (5):739-748.
4. Choi, B.C.K., Pang, T., Lin, V., Puska, P., Sherman, G., Goddard, M., Ackland, M.J., Sainsbury, P., Stachenko, S., Morrison, H., and Clottey, C. 2005. Can scientists and policy makers work together? J. Epidemiol. Commun. H. 59(8):632-637.
5. Conley A., and Moote, M.A. 2003. Evaluating collaborative natural resource management. Soc. Natur. Resour. 16 (5):371-386.
6. Costanza R., and Ruth, M. 1998. Using dynamic modeling to scope environmental problems and build consensus. Environ. Manage. 22 (2):183-195.
7. Failing, L., Horn, G., and Higgins, P. 2004. Using expert judgment and stakeholder values to evaluate adaptive management options. Ecol. Soc. 9(1):13.
8. Francis, T.B., Whittaker, K.A., Shandas, V., Mills, A.V., and Graybill, J.K. 2005. Incorporating science into the environmental policy process: a case study from Washington State. Ecol. Soc. 10(1):35.
9. GLRC (Great Lakes Regional Collaboration). 2006. Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy Implementation Framework. http://www.glrc.us/documents/ ImplementationFramework03152006.pdf
10. Gutrich, J., Donovan, D., Finucane, M., Focht, W., Hitzhusen, F., Manopimoke, S., McCauley, D., Norton, B., Sabatier, P., Salzman, J., and Sasmitawidjaja, V. 2005. Science in the public process of ecosystem management: lessons from Hawaii, Southeast Asia, Africa and the US Mainland. J. Environ. Manage. 76:197-209.
11. Halbert, C.L. 1993. How adaptive is adaptive management? Implementing adaptive management in Washington State and British Columbia. Rev. Fish. Sci. 1:261-283.
12. Hall, J. D., O'Connor, K., and Ranieri, J. 2006. Progress toward delisting a Great Lakes Area of Concern: The role of integrated research and monitoring in the Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan. Environ. Monit. Assess. 113 (1-3):227-243.
13. Houck, O. 2003. Tales from a troubled marriage: science and law in environmental policy. Science 302:1926-1929.
14. Hrudey, S.E., Payment, P., Huck, P.M., Gillham, R.W., and Hrudey, E.J. 2003. A fatal waterborne disease epidemic in Walkerton, Ontario: comparison with other waterborne outbreaks in the developed world. Wat. Sci. Tech. 47 (3):7-14.
15. Innvaer, S., Vist, G., Trommald, M., and Oxman, A. 2002. Health policy-makers' perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review. J. Health Serv. Res. Pol. 7(4):239-244.
16. Krantzberg, G. 2004. Science must inform Great Lakes policy. J. Great Lakes Res. 30:573-574.
17. Maguire, L.A. 2003. Interplay of science and stakeholder values in Neuse River total maximum daily load process. J. Water Res. Pl.-ASCE 129 (4):261-270.
18. Morris, T.J., Mohapatra, S.P., and Mitchell, A. 2006. Sustainable groundwater allocation in the Great Lakes Basin. Water Res. Dev. 22:615-628.
19. MDEQ (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality). 2006. Water Quality and Pollution Control in Michigan 2006 Sections 303(D), 305(B), and 314 Integrated Report. Available online at [http://www.deq.state.mi.us/ documents/deq-wb-swqas-2006integratedreport.pdf].
20. Oreskes, N. 2004. Science and public policy: what's proof got to do with it? Environ. Sci. Policy 7:369-383.
21. Patel, M., Kok, K., and Rothman, D.S. 2007. Participatory scenario construction in land use analysis: an insight into the experiences created by stakeholder involvement in the Northern Mediterranean. Land Use Policy 24:546-561.
22. Pereira, T.S. 2004. Science policy-making, democracy, and changing knowledge institutions. Int. Soc. Sci. J. 56 (2):245-256.
23. Rose, J.B., and Dreelin, E.A. 2005. Shaping Future Water Policy: The Role of Science. Report of the Water Resource Fellows. Available online at www.environment.msu.edu/water/.
24. Sagoff, M. 2000. Environmental economics and the conflation of value and benefit. Environ. Sci. Technol. 34:1426-1432.
25. Stave, K.A. 2002. Using system dynamics to improve public participation in environmental decisions. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 18(2):139-167.
26. Stern, P.C., and Fineberg, H.V., eds. 1996. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
27. Tippett J., Searle, B., Pahl-Wostl, C., and Rees, Y. 2005. Social learning in public participation in river basin management - early findings from HarmoniCOP European case studies. Environ. Sci. Policy 8 (3):287-299.
28. Walters, C. 1997. Challenges in adaptive management of riparian and coastal ecosystems. Conserv. Ecol. 1(2):1. Available online at [http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss2/art1/].