Geology topics

Gustavo A. Bisbal

Publications and source records attributed to Gustavo A. Bisbal.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2024

The decision maker’s lament: If I only had some science!

Environmental decision makers lament instances in which the lack of actionable science limits confident decision-making. Their reaction when the needed scientific information is of poor quality, uninformative, unintelligible, or altogether absent is often to criticize scientists, their work, or science in general. The considerations offered here encourage decision makers to explore alternative approaches to alleviate their disappointment. Ironically, many researchers lament the lack of support for the science they wish to deliver and accuse decision makers of failing to realize the value of the scientific studies they propose. Both communities would benefit by remembering that producing actionable science for a pending decision requires knowing the context for that decision beforehand. They may also look inward. Only then will they find answers to the question: What can I do within my own capacity to ensure that the necessary actionable science becomes available and facilitate its use to inform decisions?

Ambio↗

USGS2022

Considering science needs to deliver actionable science

Conservation practitioners, natural resource managers, and environmental stewards often seek out scientific contributions to inform decision-making. This body of science only becomes actionable when motivated by decision makers considering alternative courses of action. Many in the science community equate addressing stakeholder science needs with delivering actionable science. However, not all efforts to address science needs deliver actionable science, suggesting that the synonymous use of these two constructs (delivering actionable science and addressing science needs) is not trivial. This can be the case when such needs are conveyed by people who neglect decision makers responsible for articulating a priority management concern and for specifying how the anticipated scientific information will aid the decision-making process. We argue that the actors responsible for articulating these science needs and the process used to identify them are decisive factors in the ability to deliver actionable science, stressing the importance of examining the provenance and the determination of science needs. Guided by a desire to enhance communication and cross-literacy between scientists and decision makers, we identified categories of actors who may inappropriately declare science needs (e.g., applied scientists with and without regulatory affiliation, external influencers, reluctant decision makers, agents in place of decision makers, and boundary organization representatives). We also emphasize the importance of, and general approach to, undertaking needs assessments or gap analyses as a means to identify priority science needs. We conclude that basic stipulations to legitimize actionable science, such as the declaration of decisions of interest that motivate science needs and using a robust process to identify priority information gaps, are not always satisfied and require verification. To alleviate these shortcomings, we formulated practical suggestions for consideration by applied scientists, decision makers, research funding entities, and boundary organizations to help foster conditions that lead to science output being truly actionable.

Conservation Biology↗

USGS2022

The researcher's lament: Why do they ignore my science?

The researcher's lament is shared by many environmental and conservation scientists who complain about the little support they receive for their research proposals during the review and selection process. Understandably, any hopes of having their anticipated scientific findings applied toward the formulation of environmental management decisions or natural resource policy action are shattered. They attribute this lack of endorsement to shortcomings and limitations among decision makers and proposal selection officials when, in many cases, the rejection of project proposals is often a function of a handful of self-inflicted failures by applied scientists who anchor themselves stubbornly to doomed approaches. Familiar deficiencies in their research proposals perpetuate the disconnect between the enterprise of science and real-world resource management challenges. Researchers themselves can affect conditions that turn up the appetite for their scientific endeavors as a more meaningful component of the decision-making process, namely, to stage and deliver science that is more readily "actionable." Perhaps it is time for them to consider a course correction to improve the viability of their actionable science proposals. A few basic steps may help rejigger the science planning process in this direction and, consequently, help avoid the researcher's lament. The likelihood of gaining support during the proposal review and award adjudication process, and securing practical application of scientific products, increases when the products are (1) the result of active engagement of researchers with decision makers; (2) better connected to social and political priorities; (3) clearly designed to inform specific management decisions; and (4) tailored to fit the needs of targeted end users. These considerations and activities exist beyond the comfort zone of many environmental or conservation scientists. Yet, those who adopt them will spend less time lamenting rejection and become more influential in the production of actionable knowledge.

Ecosphere↗

USGS2019

Responses of Native American cultural heritage to changes in environmental setting

Cultural expressions of American Indian and Alaska Natives (AIAN) reflect the relationship between AIAN and the plant and animal species present in an area. Different forces that modify that relationship and influence those expressions can potentially shape AIAN cultural heritage and even compromise their cultural identity. Herein, we propose seven modalities to illustrate how AIAN cultural expressions may respond to changes in environmental settings that alter the relationship between plant and animal assemblages, and Native peoples. Each modality provides insight into the vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity of AIAN cultural expressions to changes in environmental settings. Future research may delve deeper into these modalities and help identify appropriate methods for managing culturally important resources. More culturally sensitive management approaches may strengthen conservation practices and safeguard the cultural legacy of indigenous groups.

AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenou↗

USGS2018

Practical tips to establish an actionable science portfolio for climate adaptation

The delivery of climate adaptation science products and services to inform resource management decisions—otherwise known as actionable climate adaptation science—is the primary driver and intended outcome of the science portfolios administered within the Department of the Interior's Climate Adaptation Science Center (CASC) network in the USA. This commitment hinges on the essential requirement that natural and cultural resource managers (science users) and scientists (science producers) work in unison with one another. This partnership may be illustrated by the conventional demand and supply relationship, where resource managers create the demand term by explicitly describing a priori top decisions or priority actions concerning the natural or cultural resources they administer, and scientists supply relevant research products and services. But an ideal interaction of users and producers is not trivial and presents challenges in the process of establishing an actionable science portfolio. A few practical suggestions are presented here to set up a productive dialogue between resource managers and scientists, and broker that conversation as they work side-by-side toward agreed-upon common objectives. These useful tips stem from working towards the goal of establishing actionable science portfolios within the CASC network and may prove valuable to similar entities committed to delivering climate adaptation science to address resource management concerns.

Science and Public Policy↗

USGS2017

A path to actionable climate science: Perspectives from the field

The U.S. Department of the Interior Climate Science Centers (CSCs) work with natural and cultural resource managers and scientists to gather information and build tools needed to help fish, wildlife, and ecosystems adapt to the impacts of climate change. The CSCs prioritize the delivery of actionable science products (e.g., synthesized scientific information, maps, decision support tools, etc.) that are focused on key management priorities and co-produced by teams of scientists and managers. In the specific case of the Northwest CSC, we have been successful at promoting and supporting the co-production of actionable climate science at the individual project level, but it has been more difficult to replicate this success at the regional program level. Here we identify the most significant challenges in satisfying this mandate and propose the creation of a Science Advisory Panel to provide improved interface between resource managers and scientists engaged with the Northwest CSC.

Environmental Management↗

USGS2013

NW CSC annual report fiscal year 2013

The Northwest Climate Science Center (NW CSC) was established in 2010 as one of eight regional Climate Science Centers created by the Department of the Interior (DOI). The NW CSC encompasses Washing-ton, Oregon, Idaho, and western Montana and has overlapping boundaries with three Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs): the Great Northern, the Great Basin, and the North Pacific. With guidance from its Executive Stakeholder Advisory Committee (ESAC), the NW CSC and its partner LCCs are addressing the highest priority regional climate science needs of Northwest natural and cultural resource managers. Climate Science Centers tap into the scientific expertise of both the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and academic institutions. The NW CSC is supported by an academic consortium with the capacity to generate climate science and tools in a coordinated fashion, serving stakeholders across the Northwest region. This consortium is primarily represented by Oregon State University (OSU), the University of Id-ho (UI), and the University of Washington (UW). The academic consortium and USGS provide capabilities in climate science, ecology, impacts and vulnerability assessment, modeling, adaptation planning, and advanced information technology, all necessary to address and respond to climate change in the Northwest. University members also recruit and train graduate students and early-career scientists. This Annual Report summarizes progress for the goals set out in the NW CSC Strategic Plan for 2012-2015 (http://www.doi.gov/csc/northwest/upload/Northwest-CSC-Strategic-Plan.cfm) and the NW CSC Work-plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 (October 1, 2012 through September 30, 2013). The report follows the structure of the Strategic Plan, which describes the five core services (Executive, Science, Data, Communications, and Education and Training) provided by the NW CSC in support of the stated vision: Our Vision: To become nationally recognized as a best-practice model for the provision of climate science and decision support tools to address conservation and management issues in the Pacific Northwest Region.

Report↗