4.4 Process
The SAA endeavored to bring together the best available knowledge to
address the assessment’s questions in a short time. From organization to
publication, the assessment took only 2 years to complete. Organizers of
the SAA took lessons from earlier regional assessments but had considerable latitude to design a process that matched the issues at hand. Four
conceptual guidelines framed the resulting effort: (1) the assessment would
compile information, but it would not prescribe action or lead directly to
specific decisions, (2) the assessment teams would not conduct new original research or compile new data but would use the best available existing
information, (3) efforts would be strictly limited to answering the specific
questions of the assessment, and (4) the process would be accessible to the
public.
The decision not to decide (i.e., designing the assessment as an
information-gathering rather than as a decision-making process) had
several important implications. Most significantly, it meant that an environmental impact statement and its attendant formal processes would not
be required. This allowed the assessment’s leaders to fit a process to the
region’s needs and allowed for considerable flexibility in designing that
process, especially as it related to public involvement. Additionally, because
there was no explicit resource management outcome involved, constituents
could engage in the assessment’s process without engaging in gamesmanship intended to influence the outcome of a decision.
The decision to use only available information and not to collect and
analyze new data had two important implications. One was that the time
frame of the assessment was compressed, thereby reducing the time
commitment of scientists to the project. By limiting the time frame, the
SAA was able to engage more scientists and perhaps scientists of higher
caliber than would have otherwise been possible. Another important implication was that the costs of conducting the assessment were lower than
would have been required had primary data gathering and analysis been
pursued.
Assessment teams addressed only the set of specific questions developed
through the public involvement process. Because the questions communicated the specific objectives of the assessment to the interested public and
the participating agencies, they helped build trust between assessment
organizers and the public. By treating these questions as a de facto contract
(i.e., not engaging in unilateral change) the assessment organizers were
able to define and control the limits of the scope of the SAA. Any change
to a question required approval by the executive committee. Building trust
was especially important in the Southern Appalachians, where 83% of the
land being analyzed was in private ownership and concerns regarding
government agencies analyzing data from private lands could have been
substantial.
76
David N. Wear
The SAA endeavored to bring together the best available knowledge to
address the assessment’s questions in a short time. From organization to
publication, the assessment took only 2 years to complete. Organizers of
the SAA took lessons from earlier regional assessments but had considerable latitude to design a process that matched the issues at hand. Four
conceptual guidelines framed the resulting effort: (1) the assessment would
compile information, but it would not prescribe action or lead directly to
specific decisions, (2) the assessment teams would not conduct new original research or compile new data but would use the best available existing
information, (3) efforts would be strictly limited to answering the specific
questions of the assessment, and (4) the process would be accessible to the
public.
The decision not to decide (i.e., designing the assessment as an
information-gathering rather than as a decision-making process) had
several important implications. Most significantly, it meant that an environmental impact statement and its attendant formal processes would not
be required. This allowed the assessment’s leaders to fit a process to the
region’s needs and allowed for considerable flexibility in designing that
process, especially as it related to public involvement. Additionally, because
there was no explicit resource management outcome involved, constituents
could engage in the assessment’s process without engaging in gamesmanship intended to influence the outcome of a decision.
The decision to use only available information and not to collect and
analyze new data had two important implications. One was that the time
frame of the assessment was compressed, thereby reducing the time
commitment of scientists to the project. By limiting the time frame, the
SAA was able to engage more scientists and perhaps scientists of higher
caliber than would have otherwise been possible. Another important implication was that the costs of conducting the assessment were lower than
would have been required had primary data gathering and analysis been
pursued.
Assessment teams addressed only the set of specific questions developed
through the public involvement process. Because the questions communicated the specific objectives of the assessment to the interested public and
the participating agencies, they helped build trust between assessment
organizers and the public. By treating these questions as a de facto contract
(i.e., not engaging in unilateral change) the assessment organizers were
able to define and control the limits of the scope of the SAA. Any change
to a question required approval by the executive committee. Building trust
was especially important in the Southern Appalachians, where 83% of the
land being analyzed was in private ownership and concerns regarding
government agencies analyzing data from private lands could have been
substantial.
76
David N. Wear