Disparate Stakeholder Management: A case
study on how to avoid being buffaloed by
competing interests.
Lynne Koontz
USGS Fort Collins Science Center
Policy Analysis & Science Assistance Branch
Presentation Points
„
„
„
„
„
Case Study
Research Objectives
Methodology
Key Results
Implications for managers
Case Study
Elk & Bison Management Planning Process
Grand Teton National Park and the National Elk Refuge
Winter Feeding on the National Elk Refuge
Initiated to mitigate for the loss of winter range. Currently there are
13,500 elk in the Jackson herd, with half wintering on the Refuge.
Need for the Elk and Bison Management
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
Bison Population in Jackson Hole
600
500
400
LAWSUIT
300
200
100
Introduced to
Wildlife Park
Escaped
Discovered
Supplemental
Feed
0
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Challenges with the Elk & Bison Decision Making
Process
Soliciting public input for an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS)
-
Diverse preferences for each issue
-
Discussion quickly becomes polarized
-
-
Impossible to look at how important each issue is in
the overall decision
Looking at the overall context
- Makes it easier to find common ground among stakeholders
- Develop compromised solutions
- Reduce litigation
Research Objective
Develop an approach, called Disparate Stakeholder
Management (DSM) that helps decision makers better
describe, measure, communicate and resolve
management issues with disparate stakeholders.
Predict the level of support and conflict for all relevant
policy decisions, and identify who would support or
oppose each decision.
Methods: Constructing the DSM
1) Used Decision Analysis (Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP))
• organize and describe the management problem
• measure stakeholder preferences for elk and bison issues
2) Used Economic Public Choice Theory to understand the level of
conviction each stakeholder group holds for a particular
management issue to determine possible compromised
solutions.
3) An Institutional Analysis model was incorporated to account for
stakeholders’ political influence in the decision making process.
Stakeholder Interviews
Interviewed 47 individuals representing 30 organizations:
Local, State, & Federal government agencies;
Native American tribes;
Local businesses;
Agricultural and ranching interests;
Hunting and outfitting;
Environmental and wildlife conservation;
Animal rights.
To collect the information we needed for the DSM each stakeholder
representative completed three surveys (one on stakeholder preferences
& two on political influence).
Benefits of using Decision Analysis (AHP)
¾ Organizes and describes the management
problem in a hierarchy framework
¾ Allows for the weighting of factors influencing
the decision (decision makers & other stakeholders)
¾ Provides traceability for every management
issue in the overall context
Constructing the AHP Hierarchy
Main Management Issues
¾ Disease Management (dispersal, vaccination, or test & slaughter)
¾ Forage Management
¾ Winter Feeding (no feeding, emergency basis, or annually)
¾ Restore Historic Migration Corridor
¾ Hunting (no hunting, on NER only, both GTNP/NER)
Separate hierarchies due to different preferences for elk and bison
issues.
AHP Hierarchy Survey
Example: Conservation Group’s Feeding
Scores
Elk
Forage
Disease
Dispersal
Vaccinate
Test &
Slaughter
Bison
Winter
Feeding
.16 Annual
Enhance forage/
Winter Range
Hunting
Disease
Forage
Hunting
Hunt GTNP/NER
Dispersal
Winter Feed
Hunt GTNP/NER
Hunt NER only
Vaccinate
No Feed
Hunt NER only
No Hunting
Test & Slaughter
No Hunting
No active mgmt
.77 Emergency
Current
.08 No Feed
Range in Jackson
Range outside Jackson
Scores always sum to one
Traceability of Conservation Group’s Scores
.90 Elk
.62 Forage
.21Disease
.16 Dispersal
.04 Vaccinate .06 Winter
Feeding
.01 Test &
Slaughter
.01 Annual
.56 Enhance forage/
Winter Range
.10 Bison
.07 Hunting
.01 Disease
.08 Forage
.00 Hunt
.01 Dispersal
.01 Winter Feed
.00 Vaccinate
.07 No Feed
GTNP/NER
.07 Hunt NER only
.02 No active mgmt .00 No Hunting
.00 Test & Slaughter
.02 Hunting
.00 Hunt
GTNP/NER
.02 Hunt NER only
.00 No Hunting
.05 Emergency .04 Current
.00 No Feed
.50 Restore Historic Migration
Scores always sum to one
Viewing Stakeholder Preferences
Placed options within spectrum of management practices
“Hands Off” ----- vs
Dispersal
No Winter Feeding
No Hunting
---- “Managed”
Test & Slaughter
Annual Feeding
Hunt GTNP & NER
Policy Possibilities Frontier
“Hands off”
Land Use Management
Practices
Technically efficient combinations
of land management practices that
can be produced using available
resources
* Boundary constrained
by EIS agencies’
missions and mandates
Represent the multiple objectives associated
with each resource management practice
“Managed” Land Use
Management Practices
“Natural” Land
Use Management Practices
Results: Stakeholder Preferences & Current Management
Organizational Codes
AR 1
•
AR 2 CON 3
• •
CON 2
•
CON 6
TRB 1
APHIS
CON 5
••
CON 7
TRB 2
•
NPS
BLM
CON 4
CON 1
USFS
••
••
FWS
LGV 2
•
Current
Management
HO 3
AGI = Agricultural Interests
AR = Animal Rights
CON = Conservation Groups
In Red = Federal Government
HO = Hunting & Outfitting
LB = Local Business
LGV = Local Government
SGV 2
LB 2
LGV 1
AGI 1
•
•
•
AGI 2
•
SGV 1
SGV 3
HO 1
HO 2
HO 4
LB 1
SGV = State Government
TRB = Tribal
•
HO 5
“Managed” Land Use
Management Practices
“Natural” Land
Use Management Practices
Original EIS Management Alternatives
Organizational Codes
AR 1
AR 2 CON 3
2
• •
CON 2
•
CON 6
TRB 1
APHIS
CON 5
••
CON 7
TRB 2
•
NPS
BLM
CON 4
The DSM helped managers
identify policy gaps.
CON 1
USFS
••
••
LGV 2
3
FWS
HO 3
4
AGI = Agricultural Interests
AR = Animal Rights
1
CON = Conservation Groups
In Red = Federal Government
HO = Hunting & Outfitting
LB = Local Business
LGV = Local Government
SGV 2
LB 2
LGV 1
AGI 1
•
•
5
AGI 2
•
SGV 1
SGV 3
HO 1
HO 2
HO 4
LB 1
SGV = State Government
TRB = Tribal
•
HO 5
“Managed” Land Use
Management Practices
“Natural” Land
Use Management Practices
Alternatives in Draft EIS
Organizational Codes
AR 1
AR 2 CON 3
A
2
• •
CON 2
•
CON 6
TRB 1
APHIS
CON 5
••
CON 7
TRB 2
6
•
NPS
BLM
CON 4
••
•3
FWS
CON 1
USFS
••
LGV 2
HO 3
4
AGI = Agricultural Interests
1
AR = Animal Rights
CON = Conservation Groups
In Red = Federal Government
HO = Hunting & Outfitting
LB = Local Business
LGV = Local Government
SGV 2
LB 2
LGV 1
AGI 1
•
•
5
AGI 2
•
SGV 1
SGV 3
HO 1
HO 2
HO 4
LB 1
SGV = State Government
•
TRB = Tribal
*More defensible EIS analysis
HO 5
“Managed” Land Use
Management Practices
Potential Compromised Solutions
How Important are the Issues?
Tells which issue
matters most
Disease
Elk Management
Winter Feeding
Hunting
Dispersal
Annual
Both GT/NER
Vaccinate
Sufficient
NER Only
Test & Slaughter
No Feed
No Hunting
Tells the options each
stakeholder wants
Compromise Ratings for each Management
Alternative by Stakeholder Group
Tribes
Local
Business
Ag &
Ranch
Hunting
&
Outfitting
Groups
39%
36%
61%
66%
57%
13%
31%
9%
11%
60%
11%
5%
7%
62%
61%
70%
53%
66%
76%
45%
44%
59%
58%
72%
Alt. 4
60%
62%
68%
69%
52%
50%
66%
30%
53%
Alt. 5
49%
83%
77%
44%
86%
81%
74%
21%
38%
Alt. 6
64%
46%
59%
75%
35%
36%
48%
54%
69%
Federal
Gov't
State
Gov't
Local
Gov't
Alt. 1
45%
60%
Alt. 2
51%
Alt. 3
Animal
Rights
Groups
Conservation
Groups
Implications for managers
Assisted EIS Team:
1. Reduced polarity in stakeholder preferences by breaking
problems down into smaller pieces where acceptable
compromises were more likely;
2. Identified many dimensions of the problem, which gave decision
makers more alternatives to choose from;
3. Assured decision makers that alternatives offered for
consideration covered the gambit of stakeholder preferences;
4. Portrayed the relationships between alternatives and stakeholder
preferences, including the balance struck by Alternative 4, in
regional and national briefings;
5. Promoted inclusion and equity for stakeholders by applying a
consistent process to develop the PPF.
Contact information:
koontzl@usgs.gov
970-226-9384