Dr. Ron Stewart
Department of Environmental Science and Policy
George Mason University
Office: DK3043
Phone: (703) 993-3187
E-mail:  rstewart@gmu.edu
Office Hours:  Tuesdays and Wednesdays from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Dr. Lawrence Walters
Department of Public and International Affairs
George Mason University
Office: A236 Robinson
Phone: (703) 993-3957
E-mail: Lwalter1@gmu.edu
Office Hours:

Dr. Anand Desai
School of Public Policy and Management
The Ohio State University
Office:
Phone: 614-292-0826
E-mail: desai.1@osu.edu

If you are a student with a disability and you need academic accommodations, please see one of us and contact the Disability Resource Center (DRC) at 703-993-2474 at George Mason University or at The Ohio State University.  All academic accommodations must be arranged through the DRC.

Textbook:
None

Course reading package:
(Available in the “course pack” section of the GMU Bookstore)
Stewart, Ronald E., Lawrence C. Walters, Peter J. Balint, and Anand Desai.  2004. Managing Wicked Environmental Problems: A Report to Jack Blackwell, Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.  March 30, 2004. 203p.
Other readings as listed below. All readings are available either through the URL listed or through the course WebCT page. If you are unfamiliar with WebCT, please see the Student Quick Start Guide listed at http://webct38.gmu.edu

Course Description:
Clearly, some public management problems, including environmental problems, are more difficult to resolve than others.  Environmental debates operate on three levels of complexity; therefore, conventional ecological risk assessment, designed to reduce uncertainty and make problems more manageable, has decreasing utility as an input into policy making as levels of complexity and conflict increase.  At the highest level of complexity and conflict, profound social and cultural values come into play, and stakeholder investment is essential.  In these most complex cases, the processes of defining shared values, common goals, desirable outcomes, and acceptable risks become political.  Such problems are difficult even to formulate.  Consequently, technical analyses alone—which do not integrate social values and deliberation—cannot provide an adequate decision-support framework.  Problems that do not lend themselves to easy formulation, much less easy solutions, are referred to in the literature as “wicked problems.
 
Much of the decision-making literature focuses on the “rational” decision maker.  In addition to the fact that this concept of a rational decision maker has come under criticism, when dealing with wicked problems one must consider not just individual rationality, but numerous other rationalities, e.g. political, administrative and legal.  Multiple rationalities, environmental contingencies, and varied valuations of the inherent risks make obtaining satisfactory solutions to wicked problems extremely difficult.  During the conduct of this course, we will examine three common approaches for coping with wicked problems: use of the precautionary principle, adaptive management, and participatory processes.

The purpose of this course is to look at environmental decision making through a set of concepts and a framework for more effective communication and integration of science and policy.  Students will explore concepts through lectures and review of literature.  They then will examine how these concepts work in an actual complex case study involving the development of a forest planning decision for the USDA Forest Service covering national forests in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California and Nevada.  Finally, they will independently research, analyze, and report on a case study of their choosing.

Course Objectives:
The specific objectives of this course are to have students:
1. Gain a broad overview of the interaction between science and public policy with respect to addressing wicked problems.
2. Understand some of the key concepts and barriers that affect communication between scientists, professional experts and policy makers.
3. Examine the role of scientists, professionals and policy makers in public policy.
4. Improve their skills in preparing and presenting analysis of technical information.
5. Develop their own framework for improving effectiveness in operating at the interface between science and policy.

Course Requirements:
You will be required to do selected readings from articles, books and journals in advance of class lectures.  A listing of these readings is included below.  Active participation in class discussions based on these readings and your own experiences is expected.
 

Guidelines for paper and related presentation

A paper analyzing an environmental policy issue of your choosing using the concepts and techniques provided in this course will be required.  Not all public or environmental problems are wicked problems, but those that are challenge our collective ability to deal with them. Your task in crafting a paper is to
• Identify an environmental policy problem of interest—Identify the key questions or policy issues, identify the important players and stakeholders, both internally and externally, the policy options considered and why, and internal or external factors and forces that affect the policy alternatives and potential solutions.
• Document and defend your characterization of the problem as a “wicked problem” as opposed to “merely” complex or complicated.
• Identify the key and competing values associated with the issue and its resolution, especially those related to characterizations of risk.
• Assess the state of our scientific understanding and uncertainty related to the problem. Describe the quality, completeness, and consistency of the information available to the policy analysts, scientists, and policymakers.
• Describe and evaluate the successes and failures of current decision processes being used to address the problem.
• Evaluate the roles of and potential for scientific analysis and public participation in addressing the problem.
• Finally, either defend current decision processes or design an alternative process that will improve on the status quo both in terms of process and likely outcomes.
Essentially, we are asking that you apply the lessons of this class to a new environmental policy setting of your choice. If the policy area that interests you the most does not involve environmental issues, we would be happy to entertain other proposals along similar lines. Please submit a one-page description of your proposed topic by Feb 8.  Your final paper should be in the range of 20 to 25 pages. Instructor fatigue sets in quickly much beyond this range, but it is difficult to do justice to a given problem in less than 20 pages. In your paper, please be complete in your citations, and follow a consistent citation style throughout your paper.

A presentation of your findings will be given to demonstrate that you have considered all aspects of the problem in your policy formulation and plan to carry out that policy. If you use PowerPoint for your presentation, you may want to access the Instructional Resource Center website on workshop materials  [http://www.irc.gmu.edu/wkshpmaterials/default.asp] and scroll down to the PowerPoint section. These helpful resources will improve the quality and power of your presentation.

Grading:
The student’s grade will be determined by a combination of:
1. Class participation (10 percent)
2. Two written midterm essay exams (25 percent each).
3. Oral presentation of a student selected case study (15 percent).
4. Written report and analysis of their case study (25 percent).

Honor Code Policy:
Please read and follow the University and Department Honor Codes, on the Web at:
http://mason.gmu.edu/%7Emontecin/plagiarism.htm
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/pia/r-links/pia-honor-code.htm

We support the University Honor Code and expect that you will abide by it. With respect to this class, “abiding by the Honor Code” means that all work submitted to fulfill course requirements is to be solely the product of the individual whose name appears on it. Except with our permission, no recourse is to be had to projects, papers, lab reports or any other written work previously prepared by another student, and except with our permission no paper or work of any type submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of another course may be used a second time to satisfy a requirement in this course. No assistance is to be obtained from commercial organizations that sell or lease research help or written papers.

Weekly Schedule of Topics and Assigned Readings:

Week 1 (January 25):
     An introduction to wicked problems (Stewart)
      Reading assignments:
Required:
Chapter 3. The nature of wicked problems.  In Stewart, Ronald E., Lawrence C. Walters, Peter J. Balint, and Anand Desai. 2004. Managing wicked environmental problems. Report to Jack Blackwell, Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, March 30, 2004.
Allen, G.M. and E. Gould, Jr. 1986. Complexity, wickedness, and public forests. Journal of Forestry 84(4): 20-23
Churchman, C.W. 1967. Wicked problems. Management Science 14(4) B141-B142.
Rittel, H.W.J., and M.M. Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4: 155-169
Optional:
Asher, W. 2001. Coping with complexity and organizational interests in natural resource management. Ecosystems 4: 742-757.
Conklin, E.J. and W. Weil. 1997. Wicked problems: naming pain in organizations. http://www.3m.com/meetingnetwork/readingroom/gdss_wicked.html retrieved on November 16, 2004.
Conklin, J. (in press). Wicked problems and fragmentation. http://www.cognexus.org/wpf/wpf.htm retrieved on November 16, 2004.
Renn, O. 1995 Style of using scientific expertise: a comparative framework. Science and Public Policy 22: 147-156.

Week 2 (February 1):
     An overview of the Sierra Nevada case as a wicked problem (Stewart)
      Reading assignments:
Required:
Chapter 4. Managing the national forests.  In Stewart, Ronald E., Lawrence C. Walters, Peter J. Balint, and Anand Desai. 2004. Managing wicked environmental problems. Report to Jack Blackwell, Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, March 30, 2004.
Gericke, K.L, J. Sullivan, et. al. 1992. Public-participation in national forest planning: perspectives, procedures, and costs. Journal of Forestry 90(2): 35-38.
Nelson, R.H. 1999. The religion of forestry: scientific management. Journal of Forestry 97(11): 4-8.
Thomas, J.W. and James Burchfield. 1999. Comments on “the religion of forestry: scientific management.” Journal of Forestry 97(11): 10-13.
Optional:
None

Week 3 (February 8):
     Characterization of risk and uncertainty (Desai)
      Reading assignments:
Required:
Balint et al. (2004) “Managing wicked environmental problems: Risk and Uncertainty.” Submitted to the Journal of Forestry.
Fischhoff, B. (1995). "Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of process." Risk Analysis 15(2): 137-144.
Optional:
Chess, C., K. L. Salome, et al. (1995). "Improving risk communication in government: Research priorities." Risk Analysis 15(2): 127-135.
Freudenburg, W. R. (1988). "Perceived risk, real risk: Social science and the art of probabilistic risk assessment." Science 242: 44-49.
National Research Council (1989). Improving Risk Communication. Washington, DC, National Academy Press.
National Research Council (1996). Understanding Risk: Informing Decision in a Democratic Society. Washington, DC, National Academy Press.

Week 4 (February 15):
     Approaches to coping with wicked problems-the precautionary principle (Desai)
      Reading assignments:
Required:
Balint et al. (2004) “Managing wicked environmental problems: Precautionary Principle” Submitted to the Journal of Forestry.
Optional:
deFur, P. L. and M. Kaszuba (2002). "Implementing the precautionary principle." The Science of the Total Environment 288: 155-165.
Dethlefsen, V., T. Jackson and P. Taylor. (1993). The precautionary principle—towards anticipatory environmental management. In T. Jackson, ed., Clean Production Strategies. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers, 41-62.
Keeney, R. L. and D. von Winterfeldt (2001). "Appraising the precautionary principle: A decision analysis perspective." Journal of Risk Research 4(2): 191-202.
Stirling, A. (2000) “On Science and Precaution in the Management of Technological Risk” Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Seville.  Downloaded from http://www.jrc.es/home/publications/publications.html in January, 2004.

Week 5 (February 22):
     Approaches to coping with wicked problems-adaptive management (Stewart)
      Midterm #1 distributed (take home exam)
     Reading assignments:
Required:
Chapter 6. Adaptive management and the call for learning by doing.  In Stewart, Ronald E., Lawrence C. Walters, Peter J. Balint, and Anand Desai. 2004. Managing wicked environmental problems. Report to Jack Blackwell, Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, March 30, 2004.
Bormann, B.T. and A.R. Kiester. 2004. Options forestry: acting on uncertainty. Journal of Forestry 102: 22-27.
Lee, K.N. 1999. Appraising adaptive management. Conservation Ecology 3(2): 3. [online]   URL:http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss2/art3
Shindler, B. and L.A. Cramer. 1999. Shifting public values for forest management: making sense of wicked problems. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 14(1): 28-34.
Shindler, B., B. Steel, et al. 1996. Public judgments of adaptive management: an initial response from forest communities. Journal of Forestry 94(6): 4-12.
Stankey, G.H., B.T. Bormann, et al. 2003. Adaptive management and the Northwest Forest Plan: rhetoric and reality. Journal of Forestry 101(1): 40-46.
Stubbs, M. and M. Lemon. 2001. Learning to network and networking to learn: facilitating the process of adaptive management in a local response to the UK’s national air quality strategy. Environmental Management 27(3): 321-334.
Optional:
Gen, S. 2001. Progress and challenges of adaptive ecosystem management at military installations: a case study of Fort Huachuca, Arizona. Environmental Practice 3(3): 153-162.
Gunderson, L.H. 1999. Resilience, flexibility and adaptive management: antidotes for spurious certitude? Conservation Ecology 3(1): 7. [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss1/art7
Johnson, B.L. 1999a. Introduction to the special feature: adaptive management-scientifically sound, socially challenged? Conservation Ecology 3(1): 10.
Johnson, B.L. 1999b. The role of adaptive management as an operational approach for resource management agencies. Conservation Ecology 3(2): 8.  [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss2/art8
Shindler, B. and K. Cheek. 1999. Integrating citizens in adaptive management: a propositional analysis. Conservation Ecology 3(1): 9.
Walters, C. 1997. Challenges in adaptive management of riparian and coastal ecosystems.  Conservation Ecology 1(2): 1. [online]  URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss2/art1
 
Week 6 (March 1):
           Approaches to coping with wicked problems-Participatory processes Part 1
     (Walters)
Midterm #1 due at beginning of class
Reading assignments:
Required:
Beierle, T. C. (2002). "The quality of stakeholder-based decisions." Risk Analysis 22(4): 739-749.
Bryson, J. M. and S. R. Anderson (2000). "Applying large-group interaction methods in the planning and implementation of major change efforts." Public Administration Review 60(2): 143-162.
Forrester, J. (1999). "The Logistics of Public Participation in Environmental Assessment." International Journal of Environment and Pollution 11(3): 316-330.
Walters, L. C., J. Aydelotte, et al. (2000). "Putting more public in policy analysis." Public Administration Review 60(4): 349-359.
Optional:
DeLeon, P. (1995). "Democratic Values and the Policy Sciences." American Journal of Political Science 39(4): 886-905.
Fischer, F. (1993). "Citizen Participation and the Democratization of Policy Expertise - from Theoretical Inquiry to Practical Cases." Policy Sciences 26(3): 165-187.

Week 7 (March 8):
     Approaches to coping with wicked problems- Participatory processes Part 2
      (Walters)
      Reading assignments: None
Required:
Haight, D. and C. Ginger (2000). "Trust and understanding in participatory policy analysis: The case of the Vermont Forest Resources Advisory Council." Policy Studies Journal 28(4): 739-759.
Walters, L.C., P. Balint, R. Stewart and A. Desai “Rethinking Public Participation in Addressing Wicked Problems.” Manuscript.
Weeks, E. C. (2000). "The practice of deliberative democracy: Results from four large-scale trials." Public Administration Review 60(4): 360-372.
Optional:
Busenberg, G. J. (1999). "Collaborative and adversarial analysis in environmental policy." Policy Sciences 32(1): 1-11.
Johnson, B. R. and R. Campbell (1999). "Ecology and participation in landscape-based planning within the Pacific Northwest." Policy Studies Journal 27(3): 502-529.
Steelman, T. (2001). "Elite and participatory policymaking: Finding balance in a case of National Forest planning." Policy Studies Journal 29(1): 71-89.

Week 8 (March 15):
     Spring Break
      Reading assignments: None

Week 9 (March 22):
     Determining, analyzing and using information on stakeholder preferences and
      values Part 1 (Desai and Walters)
      Reading assignments:
Required:
Durning, D. (1993). "Participatory policy analysis in a social-service agency: A case-study." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 12(2): 297-322.
Green, P. E. and V. Srinivasan (1978). "Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues and outlook." Journal of Consumer Research 5: 102-123.
Optional:
None

Week 10 (March 29):
     Determining, analyzing and using information on stakeholder preferences and
      values Part 2 (Walters)
      Reading assignments:
Required:
Martin, I.M. and T. A. Steelman. 2004. Using multiple methods to understand agency values and objectives: Lessons for public lands management. Policy Sciences 37(1):37-69.
Pavlikakis, G. E. and V. A. Tsihrintzis. 2003. Integrating humans in Ecosystem Management using Multi-Criteria Decision Making. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 39(2):277-288.
Optional:
Steelman T.A. and L. A. Maguire. 1999. Understanding participant perspectives: Q-methodology in national forest management. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 18(3):361-388.
Turpie, J. and A. Joubert. 2001. Estimating potential impacts of a change in river quality on the tourism value of Kruger National Park: An application of travel cost, contingent and conjoint valuation methods. Water SA 27(3):387-398.
Poe, G.L. 1999. “Maximizing the environmental benefits per dollar expended”: An economic interpretation and review of agricultural environmental benefits and costs. Society and Natural Resources 12(6): 571-598.

Week 11 (April 5):
      Midterm #2 (in-class)

Week 12-15 (April 12, 19, 26, May 3):
     Student presentations