Stakeholder-led science: engaging resource managers to identify science needs for long-term management of floodplain conservation lands

Floodplains pose challenges to managers of conservation lands because of constantly changing interactions with their rivers. Although scientific knowledge and understanding of the dynamics and drivers of river-floodplain systems can provide guidance to floodplain managers, the scientific process often occurs in isolation from management. Further, communication barriers between scientists and managers can be obstacles to appropriate application of scientific knowledge. With the coproduction of science in mind, our objectives were the following: (1) to document management priorities of floodplain conservation lands, and (2) identify science needs required to better manage the identified management priorities under nonstationary conditions, i.e., climate change, through stakeholder queries and interactions. We conducted an online survey with 80 resource managers of floodplain conservation lands along the Upper and Middle Mississippi River and Lower Missouri River, USA, to evaluate management priority, management intensity, and available scientific information for management objectives and conservation targets. Management objectives with the least information available relative to priority included controlling invasive species, maintaining respectful relationships with neighbors, and managing native, nongame species. Conservation targets with the least information available to manage relative to management priority included pollinators, marsh birds, reptiles, and shore birds. A follow-up workshop and survey focused on clarifying science needs to achieve management objectives under nonstationary conditions. Managers agreed that metrics of inundation, including depth and extent of inundation, and frequency, duration, and timing of inundation would be the most useful metrics for management of floodplain conservation lands with multiple objectives. This assessment provides guidance for developing relevant and accessible science products to inform management of highly dynamic floodplain environments. Although the problems facing managers of these lands are complex, products focused on a small suite of inundation metrics were determined to be the most useful to guide the decision making process.

Understanding stakeholder preferences for flood adaptation alternatives with natural capital implications

Inland flood risks are defined by a range of environmental and social factors, including land use and floodplain management. Shifting patterns of storm intensity and precipitation, attributed to climate change, are exacerbating flood risk in regions across North America. Strategies for adapting to growing flood risks and climate change must account for a community’s specific vulnerabilities, and its local economic, environmental, and social conditions. Through a stakeholder-engaged methodology, we designed an interactive decision exercise to enable stakeholders to evaluate alternatives for addressing specific community flood vulnerabilities. We used a multicriteria framework to understand what drives stakeholder preferences for flood mitigation and adaptation alternatives, including ecosystem-based projects. Results indicated strong preferences for some ecosystem-based projects that utilize natural capital, generated a useful discussion on the role of individual values in driving decisions and a critique of local environmental and hazard planning procedure, and uncovered support for a river management alternative that had previously been considered socially infeasible. We conclude that a multicriteria decision framework may help ensure that the multiple benefit qualities of natural capital projects are considered by decision makers. Application of a utility function can demonstrate the role of individual decision-maker values in decision outcomes and help illustrate why one alternative may be a better choice than another. Although designing an efficient and accurate multicriteria exercise is quite challenging and often data intensive, we imagine that this method is applicable elsewhere. It may be especially suitable to group decisions that involve varying levels of expertise and competing values, as is often the case in planning for the ecological and human impacts of climate change.