People and Conflicts in Dammed New England Landscapes: From a Stakeholder Assessment to a Science-Based Role-Play Simulation

Increased demand to participate in environmental decision-making around highly contentious and wicked problems has shaped the need for participatory processes that prioritize learning and consensus building. Consensus building addresses one of the core issues and downfalls of hard-bargaining approaches to negotiations over water resources: not having the right or all relevant stakeholders represented. Before deciding whether a consensus building process is appropriate for dealing with a natural resource management issue, and if so, who should be involved and what issues should be at the table, a stakeholder assessment needs to be conducted. Such an assessment was conducted as part of the interdisciplinary “Future of Dams” project, for which the goal is to better understand how science is used in decision-making around current and future management of dams in New England. Due to their influence on environmental, economic, and social systems, as well as their inherent trade-offs, dams and decisions surrounding their management serve as examples of wicked problems. As aging infrastructure, safety concerns, and interests in ecological restoration lead to more New England communities being required to address the future of their dams, it becomes necessary to better understand the social context within which decisions are being made. This presentation will cover key steps of conducting stakeholder assessments, including stakeholder identification, data collection, data analysis (including use of NVivo software), and will conclude with preliminary results. The presentation will also address next steps, including use of results to design and implement a science-based role-play negotiation simulation around dam management

Role-Play Simulations and System Dynamics for Sustainability Solutions around Dams in New England

Research has shown that much of the science produced does not make its way to the decision-making table. This leads to a gap between scientific and societal progress, which is problematic. This study tests a novel science-based negotiation simulation that integrates role-play simulations (RPSs) with a system dynamic model (SDM). In RPSs, stakeholders engage in a mock decision-making process (reflecting real-life institutional arrangements and scientific knowledge) for a set period. By playing an assigned role (different from the participant’s real-life role), participants have a safe space to learn about each other’s perspectives, develop shared understanding about a complex issue, and collaborate on solving that issue. System Dynamic Models (SDMs) are visual tools used to simulate the interactions and feedback with a complex system. We test the integration of the two approaches toward problem-solving with real stakeholders in New Hampshire and Rhode Island via a series of two consecutive workshops in each state. The workshops are intended to engage representatives from diverse groups who are interested in dam related issues to foster dialogue, learning, and creativity. Participants will discuss a hypothetical (yet realistic) dam-decision scenario to consider scientific information and explore dam management options that meet one another\u27s interests. In the first workshop participants will contribute to the design of the fictionalized dam decision scenario and the SDM, for which we have presented drafts based on a literature review, stakeholder interviews, and expert knowledge. In the second workshop, participants will assume another representative\u27s role and discuss dam management options for the fictionalized scenario. We will report results related to the effectiveness to which this new knowledge production process leads to more innovative and collaborative decision-making around New England dams

Acting and Modeling the Future of Dams: Knowledge Production Processes in Sustainability Science

Sustainability scientists are developing new knowledge production processes (KPPs) based on findings that science has a greater impact on decision-making when it (1) adopts an interdisciplinary systems approach, and (2) is participatory and, therefore, perceived as more salient, legitimate, and credible by users. This presentation will discuss the findings from a review of the literature on the intersection of two KPP methods: systems dynamics (SD) and role-play simulations (RPS). SD is a powerful approach for modeling dynamic, complex systems to improve understanding of system behaviors in coupled social-ecological systems. It can capture complex biophysical phenomena and trade-offs, while also representing feedbacks and thresholds from social and institutional systems. It incorporates both qualitative and quantitative information. Unlike static models, SD is explicitly dynamic. It is well suited to group modeling efforts and informing consensus-based decisions. RPSs are experiential, scenario-based tools that help participants learn about how science is used in policy-making decisions, learn about others\u27 preferences and priorities regarding a public policy decision, develop and evaluate innovative options for addressing critical challenges, and contribute to building consensus among diverse and interdependent stakeholders. Although both approaches aim to improve the basis for decision-making, they are rarely discussed together. This presentation considers the literature on each method and their intersection by analyzing: (1) each method\u27s objectives and functions, (2) the steps in their processes for incorporating participation and interdisciplinary, systems-based knowledge, (3) approaches for evaluating outcomes, (4) strengths and weaknesses, (5) opportunities and challenges for integrations, and identifies recommendations for future research. A version of the presentation with an attached transcript can be found here

Pearl River Negotiation Simulation: Negotiating the Future of Dams

The role-play included in this packet is a facilitated, multi-issue negotiation simulation for eight or nine participants about the management of five dams in the hypothetical Pearl River basin. This role-play is meant to be used in conjunction with a system dynamics model, which simulates potential environmental and economic outcomes under different dam management alternatives in the Pearl River basin. The user interface for the system dynamics model can be accessed at: https://ddc.unh.edu/dam-system-dynamics/. The science-based role-play negotiation simulation provides opportunity for discussion of complex topics surrounding human-environment interactions, use of scientific data and modeling in environmental decision-making under uncertainty, and the mutual gains approach to negotiations over water resources. This PDF includes the following materials: (1) Teaching instructions, (2) Presentation slides, (3) Table place cards for each role, (4) General instructions for all players, which describe the setting of the Pearl River Basin, provide details on the status of the five dams in the basin, and outline the three decisions to be negotiated, and (5) Confidential instructions for the eight roles, which provide background information about each role, including about the role’s specific interests and constraints. A video introducing the role-play is available at: https://scholars.unh.edu/nh_epscor/3/. William Winslow of the UNH Data Discovery Center helped with developing the web-based user interface

Can science-informed, consensus-based stakeholder negotiations achieve optimal dam decision outcomes?

Integrating science and decision-making in dam management is needed to address complex tradeoffs among environmental, economic, and social outcomes across varied geographic scales and diverse stakeholder interests. In this study, we introduce an approach that integrates system dynamics modeling (SDM) and role-play simulation (RPS) to facilitate use of the best available knowledge in dam decision-making. Using a hypothetical dam decision context in the New England region of the United States, this research investigates: (1) How do science-informed, negotiated outcomes compare to Pareto-optimal outcomes produced by a scientific model that balance selected system performance tradeoffs?; and (2) How do science-informed, negotiated outcomes compare to the status quo outcome? To our knowledge, this research is the first effort to combine SDM and RPS to support dam decisions and compare science-informed, consensus-based outcomes and optimized system outcomes. Our analyses show Pareto-optimal solutions usually involve a multi-dam management approach with diversified management options. Although all negotiated outcomes produced a net loss compared with at least one of the Pareto-optimal solutions balanced across tradeoffs, some yielded benefits close to or better than specific Pareto-optimal solutions. All negotiated outcomes yielded improvements over the status quo outcome. Our findings highlight the potential for science-informed, stakeholder-engaged approaches to inform decision-making and improve environmental and economic outcomes

I’ll be dammed! Public preferences regarding dam removal in New Hampshire (Pre-print)

Decisions about dams, like other environmental conflicts, involve complex tradeoffs between different water uses with varying human and ecological impacts, have significant impacts on public resources and involve many stakeholders with diverse and often conflicting interests. Given the many upcoming dam decisions in New England and across the United States of America, an improved understanding of public preferences about dam decisions is needed to steward resources in the public interest. This research asks (1) What does the public want to see happen with dams?, and (2) Do demographic factors influence public preferences for dam decisions? This paper analyzes data from three statewide public opinion polls conducted in New Hampshire over 2018 using univariate, bivariate and multivariate statistical analysis of public preferences for dam removal or maintaining dams for specific benefits, including property values, hydropower generation, industrial history and recreation, and evaluates the effect of age, level of formal education, gender and political party. Our findings indicate that a majority of New Hampshire residents prefer to keep dams when they are used to generate hydropower, whereas majorities prefer instead to remove dams rather than to keep them for industrial history, recreation, or property values. Respondent demographic characteristics and political outlooks influence these preferences, in patterns broadly resembling those for many other environment-related issues. Political party, gender, and age are the strongest predictors: liberal leaning, younger, and female respondents are more likely to support dam removal. Level of formal education has no significant effect on preferences for keeping or removing dams. The results provide the first insights into statewide public preferences about dam removal in New England, support the use of public opinion polling to complement input from public meetings and guide decisions, and contribute to existing scholarship about public environmental preferences and the influence of demographic factors

I’ll be dammed! Public preferences regarding dam removal in New Hampshire

Decisions about dams, like other environmental conflicts, involve complex trade-offs between different water uses with varying human and ecological impacts, have significant impacts on public resources, and involve many stakeholders with diverse and often conflicting interests. Given the many upcoming dam decisions in New England and across the United States, an improved understanding of public preferences about dam decisions is needed to steward resources in the public interest. This research asks (1) What does the public want to see happen with dams? and (2) How do public preferences regarding dam removal vary with demography and politics? We address these questions using data from three random sample statewide telephone polls conducted in New Hampshire over 2018 that asked people for their preferences concerning dam removal versus maintaining dams for specific benefits—property values, hydropower generation, industrial history, or recreation. Respondent age, education, gender, and political party were tested among the possible predictors. We find that majorities (52% or 54%) of respondents favor removing dams rather than keeping them for industrial history or property values, and a plurality (43%) favor removal over keeping them for recreation. A plurality (46%) prefer keeping dams, however, if they are used to generate hydropower. Respondent background characteristics and political identity affect these preferences in ways resembling those for many other environment-related issues: women, young or middle-aged individuals, and political liberals or moderates (Democrats or independents) more often support dam removal. Education, on the other hand, has no significant effects. The results quantify levels of general public support for dam removal in New England, illustrating the use of public opinion polling to complement input from public meetings and guide decisions. More broadly, they contribute a new topic to existing scholarship on the social bases of environmental concern. This presentation was given virtually by Natallia Leuchanka Diessner at the Maine Sustainability & Water Conference on March 31, 2021

What to Do With Dams: An Assessment of Public Opinion to Inform the Debate in New Hampshire

Many of New Hampshire’s dams are reaching the end of their lifespan and require expensive maintenance or removal in order to meet safety standards. While engineers and public officials struggle with the scale of the challenge surrounding various dam management alternatives, including removal, what does the New Hampshire public think? In this brief, authors Natallia Leuchanka, Catherine Ashcraft, Kevin Gardner, and Lawrence Hamilton present results from statewide surveys in New Hampshire that explore public views about dam removal. They report that a majority of respondents in three Granite State Polls prefer to remove dams when the alternative is to keep them for maintenance of waterfront property values, preservation of industrial history, or maintenance of lake- and pond-based recreation. A majority of survey respondents prefer to keep dams when dams are for hydropower generation. Respondents’ age, gender, and party affiliation often predict their preference for dam removal. Levels of formal education do not make much difference. Younger respondents, women, and Democrats are more likely to support dam removal, although this varies somewhat depending on the tradeoffs