SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Humanities and Social Sciences Communications”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2020

Earthquake early warning in Aotearoa New Zealand: A survey of public perspectives to guide warning system development

Earthquake early warning (EEW) can be used to detect earthquakes and provide advanced notification of strong shaking, allowing pre-emptive actions to be taken that not only benefit infrastructure but reduce injuries and fatalities. Currently Aotearoa New Zealand does not have a nationwide EEW system, so a survey of the public was undertaken to understand whether EEW was considered useful and acceptable by the public, as well as perceptions of how and when such warnings should be communicated, before making an investment in such technology. We surveyed the public’s perspectives ( N = 3084) on the usefulness of EEW, preferred system attributes, and what people anticipated doing on receipt of a warning. We found strong support for EEW, for the purposes of being able to undertake actions to protect oneself and others (e.g. family, friends, and pets), and to mentally prepare for shaking. In terms of system attributes, respondents expressed a desire for being warned at a threshold of shaking intensity MM5–6. They suggested a preference for receiving a warning via mobile phone, supported by other channels. In addition to being warned about impending shaking, respondents wanted to receive messages that alerted them to other attributes of the earthquake (including the possibility of additional hazards such as tsunami), and what actions to take. People’s anticipated actions on receipt of a warning varied depending on the time available from the warning to arrival of shaking. People were more likely to undertake quicker and easier actions for shorter timeframes of <10 s (e.g., stop, mentally prepare, take protective action), and more likely to move to a nearby safe area, help others, look for more information, or take safety actions as timeframes increased. Given the public endorsement for EEW, information from this survey can be used to guide future development in Aotearoa New Zealand and internationally with respect to system attributes, sources, channels and messages, in ways that promote effective action.

Humanities & Social Sciences Communications↗

USGS2022

Science facilitation: Navigating the intersection of intellectual and interpersonal expertise in scientific collaboration

Today’s societal challenges, such as climate change and global pandemics, are increasingly complex and require collaboration across scientific disciplines to address. Scientific teams bring together individuals of varying backgrounds and expertise to work collaboratively on creating new knowledge to address these challenges. Within a scientific team, there is inherent diversity in disciplinary cultures and preferences for interpersonal collaboration. Such diversity contributes to the potential strength of the created knowledge but can also impede progress when teams struggle to collaborate productively. Facilitation is a professional practice-based form of interpersonal expertise that supports group members to do their best thinking. Although facilitation has been demonstrated to support group functioning in a wide range of contexts, its role in supporting scientific teams has been largely overlooked. This essay defines scientific facilitation as a form of interactional expertise and explains how facilitating scientific teams requires skills in managing interpersonal interactions as well as understanding how different types of disciplinary knowledge integrate in the creation of new knowledge. Next, it explains how this science facilitation expertise may be developed through metacognition. Finally, it provides examples of how scientific facilitation could be more widely incorporated into research by describing three pathways to expand the use of facilitation theory and techniques in collaborative scientific research: developing facilitation skills among scientists leading teams, using broadly trained facilitators, and using specialised science facilitators. The strengths and risks of each path are discussed, and criteria are suggested for selecting the right approach for a given team science project.

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications↗

USGS2024

Facilitating psychological safety in science and research teams

Science is increasingly dependent on large teams working well together. Co-creating knowledge in this way, usually across disciplines and institutions, requires team members to feel comfortable taking interpersonal risks with each other; in other words, to have what is known as “psychological safety”. Although the importance of psychological safety for team functioning is increasingly well understood, the behaviours necessary to foster psychological safety are harder to define. We suggest that science facilitation expertise offers a path forward for scientific teams – particularly through the integration of outside facilitators or team members taking on the facilitation role – to identify dynamics that can promote or curtail psychological safety, interpret those dynamics accurately, and intervene appropriately to shift a group towards greater psychological safety. We describe how specific practices can support this cycle of observation, interpretation, and action to promote psychological safety across the team process and at key moments. We conclude with recommendations for how research teams might embed these facilitation practices into their work, and how institutions can drive more widespread recognition and development of the expertise needed to cultivate psychologically safe scientific teams.

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications↗

USGS2025

Practitioners’ perceived risks to biodiversity from renewable energy expansion through 2050

Large-scale (e.g., > 1 megawatt capacity) wind and solar energy (hereafter, LSWS) developments are increasing to aid decarbonization. However, LSWS can also negatively affect biodiversity. Planners and other interested parties’ perceptions about the impact of LSWS on biodiversity will thus affect how trade-offs are managed during planning and buildout. We present a survey of professionals (n=116) working at the intersection of LSWS and biodiversity protection across the United States concerning: (1) perceived environmental impacts from LSWS expansion; and (2) how these impacts compare to other land-use and land-cover change drivers. We find that practitioners perceive LSWS to impact biodiversity negatively but less so than other land-cover change drivers, including fossil fuels and agriculture. This highlights the need for increased attention to the role of practitioners in advancing renewable energy and biodiversity conservation.

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications↗

USGS2018

Science for a risky world—A U.S. Geological Survey plan for risk research and applications

Executive Summary Natural hazards—including earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, landslides, hurricanes, droughts, floods, wildfires, geomagnetic storms, and pandemics—can wreak havoc on human communities, the economy, and natural resources for years following an initial event. Hazards can claim lives and cause billions of dollars in damage to homes and infrastructure as well as lost or compromised economic activity and threats to national security. They also can have adverse environmental, social, economic, and health effects that extend well beyond the immediate area, sometimes with global implications. Changes in population growth, climate, and urbanization may exacerbate hazard impacts. Because of the potential severity of a single hazard event, reducing risk—the potential loss of societally important assets caused by these hazards—is a high priority for everyone, including policy makers, community members, emergency managers, resource managers, utility operators, business owners, and planners. These stakeholders demand usable, user-centric information to support decisions for planning a resilient future and for responding to and recovering from unanticipated events in more adaptable and cost-effective ways. Meeting this demand requires maximizing the use of environmental observations; hazards science; and research on communications, social stressors, and human behavior to deliver risk information in forms that are accessible by decision makers and the public alike. To achieve this, scientists and stakeholders must collaborate to match community needs with actionable insights, research, products, and tools, using advances in technology to improve information discovery and delivery.

Circular↗

USGS2025

ShakeAlert®—Communication, education, outreach and technical engagement strategic vision

Executive Summary In 2006, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) began directly supporting ShakeAlert ® research and in 2012 the ShakeAlert demonstration system began testing ( Given and others, 2018 ). The ShakeAlert earthquake early warning (EEW) system is a partnership between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the three West Coast States (Washington, Oregon, and California) served by the ShakeAlert System, which is part of the larger Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS). With more than 143 million people exposed to potentially damaging shaking in the United States ( Jaiswal and others, 2015 ), earthquakes are a national hazard. Most of our Nation’s earthquake risk is concentrated in the highly populated areas on the active plate tectonic boundaries on the West Coast of the conterminous United States. ShakeAlert is the first public alert system in the United States to provide rapid mass notification of earthquake detection, potentially offering seconds of warning before strong shaking arrives. A few seconds may not seem like much time, but the information in ShakeAlert Messages can be used to trigger automated actions that can prevent injury or death, reduce immediate damage, and speed recovery from earthquakes. The information product issued by the ShakeAlert system is called a ShakeAlert Message and is one of the information products and tools of the ANSS. The ShakeAlert System includes the USGS component, plus the pathways by which ShakeAlert-powered products and (or) services are delivered to end users. Alerts can be delivered to cell phones or be used to trigger automated systems to protect equipment, facilities, and infrastructure, such as slowing or stopping a train. ShakeAlert-powered automated actions can include fire house doors that can be opened to prevent jamming, heavy equipment (for example, trains, elevators, and cranes) that can be automatically stopped or parked in safe positions, and pipeline valves that can be closed to prevent surges and spills. A few seconds of warning also may be sufficient for people to take protective actions, such as drop, cover, and hold on or modified protective actions for a broad range of populations. Advance training may increase the benefit of a speedy response to an alert. Outreach and education about EEW may raise awareness of the overall earthquake threat and how people can best react when they receive an alert or feel shaking. ShakeAlert communication, education, outreach, and technical engagement (CEO&TE) efforts are highly collaborative and essential for the success of the ShakeAlert System. This strategic vision informs how the vast ShakeAlert CEO&TE Community operates and works together. The CEO&TE Community delineates a strategic framework that is intended to set the path for a long-term, sustainable approach to CEO&TE through three focus areas and five priorities. Focus Areas Technical engagement.— The objective of this focus area is to expand and broaden ShakeAlert technical engagement and implementation. External engagement.— This focus area targets engagement in long-term communication, education, and outreach planning, implementation, and evaluation. Internal engagement.— The purpose of this focus area is to build and sustain a robust infrastructure to optimize collaboration, information sharing, and project planning among the community of stakeholders charged with implementing ShakeAlert CEO&TE. Priorities The enumeration of the five priorities listed below does not suggest priority ranking. Public safety, preparedness, and resilience; Technical implementation and engagement; Consistent messaging and communication; Integration with other Federal and State earthquake hazards products; and Educational resources development and dissemination. This strategic vision is a tangible outcome of collaboration among many stakeholders beginning in July 2016. Since then, the work of the ShakeAlert CEO&TE Community has grown into an international effort. The USGS has developed, tested, and implemented a broad spectrum of communication, education, and outreach tools and resources—all of which recognize that seconds matter when it comes to safety and mitigating harm from earthquake hazards. The CEO&TE social science research effort has provided invaluable insights into the ShakeAlert System’s human interface. USGS-licensed technical partners develop, test, and implement real-world applications using ShakeAlert Messages. The success of ShakeAlert CEO&TE efforts is predicated on robust collaboration across numerous agencies, organizations, and groups. As such, this strategic vision outlines a “partnership model” that delineates roles and responsibilities to ensure alignment with focus areas and priorities. The partnership model includes the CEO&TE lead agency (USGS); its principal partners (State agencies and university partners); its implementation partners (for example, technical partners who build systems to deliver ShakeAlert-powered products and (or) services [focus area one]), earthquake education partners who work to increase public preparedness for seismic events (focus area two); and other organizations that work together to enhance the adoption and effectiveness of the ShakeAlert System. These partners collaborate and convene through a variety of working groups and forums, which are also described in this strategic vision and align with focus area three (internal engagement). The CEO&TE Community collaboratively developed its operating principles and a consensus-based, decision-making strategic framework to guide its collective work. Performance metrics are used to continually measure success. Ultimately, the USGS and ShakeAlert CEO&TE Community are advancing the ShakeAlert System that as of the publication of this strategic vision to “provide earthquake early warning for all” serves more than 50 million people.

Circular↗

USGS2004

Ecology for a crowded planet

Within the next 50 to 100 years, the support and maintenance of an extended human family of 8 to 11 billion people will be difficult at best. The authors of this Policy Forum describe changes that are required if we hope to meet the needs and aspirations of humans while improving the health of our planet's ecosystems. Problems as diverse as disease transmission and global climate change have benefited substantially from advances in ecology. Such advances have set the stage for emergence of a proactive ecological science in which social and political realities are acknowledged and attention is turned decisively toward the future. The ecological sciences must chart an understanding of how ecosystem services can persist given their extensive human use. Innovative research on the sciences of ecosystem services, ecological restoration, and ecological design must be massively accelerated and must be accompanied by more effective communication of ecological knowledge to society.

Science↗

USGS2010

Fort Collins Science Center- Policy Analysis and Science Assistance Branch : Integrating social, behavioral, economic and biological sciences

The Fort Collins Science Center's Policy Analysis and Science Assistance (PASA) Branch is a team of approximately 22 scientists, technicians, and graduate student researchers. PASA provides unique capabilities in the U.S. Geological Survey by leading projects that integrate social, behavioral, economic, and biological analyses in the context of human-natural resource interactions. Resource planners, managers, and policymakers in the U.S. Departments of the Interior (DOI) and Agriculture (USDA), State and local agencies, as well as international agencies use information from PASA studies to make informed natural resource management and policy decisions. PASA scientists' primary functions are to conduct both theoretical and applied social science research, provide technical assistance, and offer training to advance performance in policy relevant research areas. Management and research issues associated with human-resource interactions typically occur in a unique context, involve difficult to access populations, require knowledge of both natural/biological science in addition to social science, and require the skill to integrate multiple science disciplines. In response to these difficult contexts, PASA researchers apply traditional and state-of-the-art social science methods drawing from the fields of sociology, demography, economics, political science, communications, social-psychology, and applied industrial organization psychology. Social science methods work in concert with our rangeland/agricultural management, wildlife, ecology, and biology capabilities. The goal of PASA's research is to enhance natural resource management, agency functions, policies, and decision-making. Our research is organized into four broad areas of study.

Fact Sheet↗

USGS1999

Design approaches in quarrying and pit-mining reclamation

Reclaimed mine sites have been evaluated so that the public, industry, and land planners may recognize there are innovative designs available for consideration and use. People tend to see cropland, range, and road cuts as a necessary part of their everyday life, not as disturbed areas despite their high visibility. Mining also generates a disturbed landscape, unfortunately one that many consider waste until reclaimed by human beings. The development of mining provides an economic base and use of a natural resource to improve the quality of human life. Equally important is a sensitivity to the geologic origin and natural pattern of the land. Wisely shaping out environment requires a design plan and product that responds to a site's physiography, ecology, function, artistic form, and publication perception. An examination of selected sites for their landscape design suggested nine approaches for mining reclamation. The oldest design approach around is nature itself. Humans may sometimes do more damage going to an area in the attempt to repair it. Given enough geologic time, a small-site area, and stable adjacent ecosystems, disturbed areas recover without mankind's input. Visual screens and buffer zones conceal the facility in a camouflage approach. Typically, earth berms, fences, and plantings are used to disguise the mining facility. Restoration targets social or economic benefits by reusing the site for public amenities, most often in urban centers with large populations. A mitigation approach attempts to protect the environment and return mined areas to use with scientific input. The reuse of cement, building rubble, macadam meets only about 10% of the demand from aggregate. Recognizing the limited supply of mineral resources and encouraging recycling efforts are steps are steps in a renewable resource approach. An educative design approach effectively communicates mining information through outreach, land stewardship, and community service. Mine sites used for art show a celebration of beauty and experience -- abstract geology. The last design approach combines art and science in a human-nature ecosystem termed integration. With environmental concerns, an operating or reclaimed mine site can no longer be considered isolated from its surroundings. Site analysis of mine works needs to go beyond site-specific information and relate to the regional context of the greater landscape. Understanding design approach can turn undesirable features (mines and pits) into something perceived as desirable by the public.

Book↗

USGS2019

Results from the Department of the Interior Strategic Sciences Group Technical Support for the 2018 Kīlauea Eruption

On May 3, 2018 Hawai'i’s Kīlauea volcano erupted, ultimately covering 35 square kilometers (13.5 square miles) of land in lava, destroying over 700 homes in multiple subdivisions, and displacing over 2500 residents in the Puna District on the southeast flank of the volcano. Simultaneously, Kīlauea’s summit experienced its largest collapse in 200 years, with a total of 500 meters (1,640 feet) subsidence and tens of earthquakes each day rattling surrounding communities. These simultaneous events impacted residential, agricultural, business, tourist, and scientific areas. Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park closed, slowing tourism and the local economy. The building housing the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Hawai'ian Volcano Observatory also closed, displacing scientists responsible for monitoring the erupting volcano. The eruption lasted 107 days, one of the longest eruptions in recent history in lower Puna. Throughout the eruption, uncertainty regarding the duration of the event, its extent, and total damage remained high. This uncertainty led to social tensions and fatigue across the affected community, responders, and local officials. At the direction of the USGS Director, serving as the Science Advisor to the Secretary of the of the Interior, the Department of the Interior (DOI, hereafter also referred to as “the Department”) Strategic Sciences Group (SSG) convened a multidisciplinary group of 13 experts in Hilo, Hawai'i, on July 17-19, 2018. The SSG was charged with considering the cascading short- and long-term social, economic, and environmental consequences of the 2018 Kīlauea eruption to DOI resources, employees, and facilities as well as to the surrounding communities. Established in 2012, the SSG is designed to complement ongoing response efforts by providing strategic science to identify potential social, environmental, and economic consequences and potential interventions during a crisis event affecting Departmental resources. This activation of the SSG was funded by the USGS. It was the first official activation of the SSG since it supported Hurricane Sandy recovery in 2013 and provided the unique opportunity to test new methods, including bolstering the social science expertise on the team and interacting directly with stakeholders before, during, and after deployment. The SSG Kīlauea Team developed three scenarios focused on 1) the impacts of continued seismicity and deformation at the summit; 2) vog (volcanic smog); and 3) the eruption in the lower East Rift Zone. Across all scenarios, areas of concern included human health (physical and mental); biosecurity (for example, protecting threatened and endangered species); infrastructure (impacts caused by seismic activity, vog, and lava); communications (internal and public-facing); long-term planning (related to tourism, access, housing); and ongoing needs for community engagement and empowerment. The SSG Kīlauea Team identified 59 potential actions for mitigation. Highlights of these actions were delivered to stakeholders during briefings in August and September 2018. Examples of potential actions included: ● Seize opportunities to develop new partnerships within and outside of DOI to address facilities issues caused by seismic damage and park closure. ● Educate community members and new workers to increase early detection of invasive species and establish new wash stations to address biosecurity threats to the park posed by more frequent commuting from new temporary Hilo locations. ● Create a "vog officer" position to ensure coordination and consistency in communication about vog hazards across federal, state, and county agencies. It is important to note that the potential actions are suggestions and are not intended to be prescriptive. The SSG uses “blue sky thinking” when developing these potential actions to encourage creative approaches to problem solving. In some cases, some of the suggested potential actions derived by the SSG are actions that were already underway, or already under consideration and helped to affirm 3 activities by different stakeholders. In other cases, the actions may be new ideas. Some were applicable to immediate response, while others are more relevant to long-term recovery. This report details the results from the July 2018 activation of the SSG. It includes background on Kīlauea and the 2018 eruption, an overview of SSG methodology, and a complete list of the potential actions to mitigate cascading consequences identified by the SSG. Importantly, Appendix 4 includes several rapidly assembled “issue papers” on a variety of topics for consideration for recovery and future preparedness and response activities. This report is designed to be used by both the Department and more broadly by partners, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Hawai'i County, Hawai'i Department of Health, and the Hawai'i Emergency Management Agency.

Hawaii↗

USGS2014

ARkStorm@Tahoe: Stakeholder perspectives on vulnerabilities and preparedness for an extreme storm event in the greater Lake Tahoe, Reno, and Carson City region

Atmospheric rivers (ARs) are strongly linked to extreme winter precipitation events in the Western U.S., accounting for 80 percent of extreme floods in the Sierra Nevada and surrounding lowlands. In 2010, the U.S. Geological Survey developed the ARkStorm extreme storm scenario for California to quantify risks from extreme winter storms and to allow stakeholders to better explore and mitigate potential impacts. To explore impacts on natural resources and communities in montane and adjacent environments, we downscaled the scenario to the greater Lake Tahoe, Reno and Carson City region of northern Nevada and California. This ArkStorm@Tahoe scenario was presented at six stakeholder meetings, each with a different geographic and subject matter focus. Discussions were facilitated by the ARkStorm@Tahoe team to identify social and ecological vulnerabilities to extreme winter storms, science and information needs, and proactive measures that might minimize impacts from this type of event. Information collected in these meetings was used to develop a tabletop emergency response exercise and set of recommendations for increasing resilience to extreme winter storm events in both Tahoe and the downstream communities of Northern Nevada. Over 300 individuals participated in ARkStorm@Tahoe stakeholder meetings and the emergency response exercise, including representatives from emergency response, natural resource and ecosystem management, health and human services, public utilities, and businesses. Interruption of transportation, communications, and lack of power and backup fuel supplies were identified as the most likely and primary points of failure across multiple sectors and geographies, as these interruptions have cascading effects on natural and human systems by impeding emergency response efforts. Other key issues that arose in discussions included contamination risks to water supplies and aquatic ecosystems, especially in the Tahoe Basin and Pyramid Lake, interagency coordination, credentialing, flood management, and coordination of health and human services during such an event. Mitigation options were identified for each of the key issues. Several science needs were identified, particularly the need for improved flood inundation maps. Finally, key lessons learned were identified and may help to increase preparedness, response and recovery from extreme storms in the future.

Report↗

USGS2022

Long-term ocean observing for international capacity development around tsunami early warning

The 2004 magnitude (M) 9.1 Sumatra-Andaman Islands earthquake in the Indian Ocean triggered the deadliest tsunami ever, killing more than 230,000 people. In response, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) established three additional Intergovernmental Coordination Groups (ICGs) for the Tsunami and Other Coastal Hazards Early Warning System: for the Caribbean and Adjacent Regions (ICG/CARIBE-EWS), for the Indian Ocean, and for the Northeastern Atlantic, Mediterranean, and Connected Seas. Along with the ICG for the Pacific Ocean, which was established in 1965, one of the goals of the new ICGs was to improve earthquake and tsunami monitoring and early warning. This need was further demonstrated by the 2011 Great East Japan (Tōhoku-oki) earthquake and tsunami, which killed more than 20,000 people, and other destructive tsunamis that occurred in the Solomon Islands, Samoa, Tonga, Chile, Indonesia, and Peru. In response to the call to action by the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021–2030), as well as the desired safe ocean outcome (von Hillebrandt-Andrade et al., 2021), the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of UNESCO approved the Ocean Decade Tsunami Programme in June 2021. One of its goals is to develop the capability to issue actionable alerts for tsunamis from all sources with minimum uncertainty within 10 minutes (Angove et al., 2019). While laudable, this goal presents complexities. Currently, warning depends on quick detection as well as the location and initial magnitude estimates of an earthquake that may generate a tsunami. Other factors that affect tsunamis, such as the faulting mechanism (how the faults slide past each other) and areal extent of the earthquake, currently take at least 20–30 minutes to forecast and are still subject to large uncertainties. Hence, agencies charged with tsunami early warning need to broadcast public alerts within minutes after an earthquake occurs but may struggle to meet this 10-minute goal without further technological advances, some of which are outlined in this article. To reduce loss of life through adequate tsunami warning requires global ocean-based seismic, sea level, and geodetic initiatives to detect high-impact earthquakes and tsunamis, combined with sufficient communication and education so that people know how to respond when they receive alerts and warnings. The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction defines an early warning system as “a set of capacities needed to generate and disseminate timely and meaningful warning information to enable individuals, communities, and organizations threatened by a hazard to prepare and to act appropriately and in sufficient time to reduce the possibility of harm or loss” (UNISDR, 2012). In short, a successful early warning system requires technology coupled with human factors (Kelman and Glantz, 2014). In this article, we explore case studies from Japan and Canada, where scientists are leading the way in incorporating ocean observing capabilities in their early warning systems. We also explore advancements and challenges in the Caribbean, an area with a complex tectonic environment that would benefit greatly from increased global ocean observing capabilities. We also explore physical and social science interventions necessary to reduce loss of life.

Oceanography↗

USGS2020

6&6: A transdisciplinary approach to art-science collaboration

Despite an historical connection between the arts and sciences, in the past century, the two disciplines have been greatly siloed. However, there is a renewed interest in collaboration across the arts and sciences to support conservation practice by understanding and communicating complex environmental, social, and cultural challenges in novel ways. 6&6 was created as a transdisciplinary art–science initiative to promote a deeper appreciation of the Sonoran Desert. Six artists and six scientists were paired to create work that explored conservation issues in the Sonoran Desert and the Gulf of California. In-depth interviews were conducted with the artists and scientists throughout the 4-year initiative to understand the impact of 6&6 on their personal and professional behaviors and outlook. The findings from this case study reveal the role that intensive, place-based, and transdisciplinary art–science programs can play in shaping narratives to better communicate the patterns and processes of nature and human–environment interactions.

Arizona, Baja California, Baja California Sur, Cal↗

USGS2013

Structured decision making

Wildlife management is a decision-focused discipline. It needs to integrate traditional wildlife science and social science to identify actions that are most likely to achieve the array of desires society has surrounding wildlife populations. Decision science, a vast field with roots in economics, operations research, and psychology, offers a rich set of tools to help wildlife managers frame, decompose, analyze, and synthesize their decisions. The nature of wildlife management as a decision science has been recognized since the inception of the field, but formal methods of decision analysis have been underused. There is tremendous potential for wildlife management to grow further through the use of formal decision analysis. First, the wildlife science and human dimensions of wildlife disciplines can be readily integrated. Second, decisions can become more efficient. Third, decisions makers can communicate more clearly with stakeholders and the public. Fourth, good, intuitive wildlife managers, by explicitly examining how they make decisions, can translate their art into a science that is readily used by the next generation.

Book chapter↗

USGS2020

Human dimensions considerations in wildlife disease management

In 1943, Aldo Leopold observed that the real problem of wildlife management is not how to handle wildlife, but how to manage humans. As with any other aspect of wildlife management, social sciences can improve understanding the human dimensions of wildlife disease management (WDM). Human activities have accelerated the emergence of wildlife diseases, and human concerns about the ecological, social, and economic impacts of wildlife diseases and their management have led to diseases becoming headline-worthy public issues. This chapter provides guidance to help front-line professionals understand and address the public’s perspectives and behaviors relevant to WDM. This chapter focuses on practical needs of wildlife disease managers who have to consider and interact with specific stakeholders and the broader public. The chapter does not dive deeply into social science; instead it briefly reviews some concepts that are most relevant to WDM. The chapter also suggests where to look for assistance and additional resources for further reading. Following brief introductory comments, the chapter is organized around a simple model of the general process for WDM. It addresses three key areas where social science can assist in WDM—audience research to understand stakeholders; engaging stakeholders in wildlife disease management; and using risk communication about wildlife diseases and disease management to inspire risk-wise behavior.

Techniques and Methods↗

USGS2022

Value of information: Exploring behavioral and social factors

There is growing interest within and beyond the economics community in assessing the value of information (VOI) used in decision making. VOI assessments often do not consider the complex behavioral and social factors that affect the perception, valuation, and use of information by individuals and groups. Additionally, VOI assessments frequently do not examine the full suite of interactions and outcomes affecting different groups or individuals. The behavioral and social factors that we mention are often (but not always) innately-derived, less-than-conscious influences that reflect human and societal adaptations to the past. We first discuss these concepts in the context of the recognition and use of information for decision making. We then find fifteen different aspects of value and information pertinent to VOI assessments. We examine methodologies and issues related to current VOI estimation practices in economics. Building on this examination, we explore the perceptions, social factors, and behavioral factors affecting information sharing, prioritization, valuation, and discounting. Information and valuation issues are then considered in the context of information production, information trading and controls, and information communication pathologies. Lastly, we describe issues relating to information useability and actionability. Our examples mention the value and use of geospatial information, and more generally concern societal issues relating to the management of natural resources, environments, and natural and anthropogenic hazards. Our paper aims to be instrumentally relevant to anyone interested in the use and value of science.

Frontiers in Environmental Science↗

USGS2021

Earthcasting: Geomorphic forecasts for society

Over the last several decades, the study of Earth surface processes has progressed from a descriptive science to an increasingly quantitative one due to advances in theoretical, experimental, and computational geosciences. The importance of geomorphic forecasts has never been greater, as technological development and global climate change threaten to reshape the landscapes that support human societies and natural ecosystems. Here we explore best practices for developing socially relevant forecasts of Earth surface change, a goal we are calling “earthcasting”. We suggest that earthcasts have the following features: they focus on temporal (∼1–∼100 years) and spatial (∼1 m–∼10 km) scales relevant to planning; they are designed with direct involvement of stakeholders and public beneficiaries through the evaluation of the socioeconomic impacts of geomorphic processes; and they generate forecasts that are clearly stated, testable, and include quantitative uncertainties. Earthcasts bridge the gap between Earth surface researchers and decision-makers, stakeholders, researchers from other disciplines, and the general public. We investigate the defining features of earthcasts and evaluate some specific examples. This paper builds on previous studies of prediction in geomorphology by recommending a roadmap for (a) generating earthcasts, especially those based on modeling; (b) transforming a subset of geomorphic research into earthcasts; and (c) communicating earthcasts beyond the geomorphology research community. Earthcasting exemplifies the social benefit of geomorphology research, and it calls for renewed research efforts toward further understanding the limits of predictability of Earth surface systems and processes, and the uncertainties associated with modeling geomorphic processes and their impacts.

Earth's Future↗

USGS2012

Strategic directions for U.S. Geological Survey water science, 2012-2022 - Observing, understanding, predicting, and delivering water science to the Nation

Executive Summary This report expands the Water Science Strategy that was begun in the USGS Science Strategy, “Facing Tomorrow’s Challenges—U.S. Geological Survey Science in the Decade 2007–2017” (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007). The report looks at the relevant issues facing society and develops a strategy built around observing, understanding, predicting, and delivering water science for the next 5 to 10 years by building new capabilities, tools, and delivery systems to meet the Nation’s water-resource needs. This report begins by presenting the vision of water science for the USGS and the societal issues that are influenced by, and in turn influence, the water resources of our Nation. The essence of the Water Strategic Science Plan is built on the concept of “water availability,” defined as spatial and temporal distribution of water quantity and quality, as related to human and ecosystem needs, as affected by human and natural influences . The report also describes the core capabilities of the USGS in water science—the strengths, partnerships, and science integrity that the USGS has built over its 130-year history. Nine priority actions are presented in the report, which combine and elevate the numerous specific strategic actions listed throughout the report. Priority actions were developed as a means of providing the audience of this report with a list for focused attention, even if resources and time limit the ability of managers to address all of the strategic actions in the report. Priority actions focus on the following: Improve integrated science planning for water. Expand and enhance water-resource monitoring networks. Characterize the water cycle through development of state-of-the-art 3-D/4-D hydrogeologic framework models at multiple scales. Clarify the linkage between human water use (engineered hydrology) and the water cycle (natural hydrology). Advance ecological flow science. Provide flood-inundation science and information. Develop rapid deployment teams for water-related emergencies. Conduct integrated watershed assessment, research, and modeling. Deliver water data and analyses to the Nation. The body of the report is presented as a hierarchal set of 5 goals, 14 objectives, and 27 strategic actions that the USGS should undertake to advance water science through year 2022. The goals deal with: Providing society the information it needs regarding the amount and quality of water in all components of the water cycle at high temporal and spatial resolution, nationwide; Advancing our understanding of processes that determine water availability; Predicting changes in the quantity and quality of water resources in response to changing climate, population, land use, and management scenarios; Anticipating and responding to water-related emergencies and conflicts; and Delivering timely hydrologic data, analyses, and decision-support tools seamlessly across the Nation to support water-resource decisions. Scientific information produced on water resources would be without value if it were not communicated to society in a fashion that can inform decisions and actions. Therefore, the chapter following the goals describes how the USGS should inform, involve, and educate society about the science it produces. This includes discussions on local outreach and the use of social media for effective communication. This report concludes with a chapter devoted to the crosscutting science issues of the Water Mission Area with the other USGS Mission Areas: Climate and Land Use Change, Core Science Systems, Ecosystems, Energy and Minerals, Environmental Health Science, and Natural Hazards. Not one of these Mission Areas stands alone—all must work together and integrate their actions to fulfill the USGS science mission for the future. This final chapter identifies the important linkages that must be realized and maintained for this integration to occur.

Open-File Report↗