Environmental Decision-Making and Scientific Modeling: A Critical Analysis of Model Use
Craig B. Forster (Geology)
Tarla Peterson (Communication)
Robert W. Adler (Law)
University of Utah
Overview
Environmental law and policy is increasingly justified and legitimized by the use of scientific models, or simplifications of reality, that can be used to test alternative scenarios. Participants in environmental policy deliberations bring with them apparently antagonistic interests, passions, technical expertise, and conceptualizations of the good. The resulting communication process often falls prey to inefficiency, excess expense and technical misunderstandings. In particular, it is difficult for modelers to communicate how others involved in the decision-making process should account for assumptions and limitations inherent in each model; it is difficult for regulators and decision-makers to communicate how decisions must fit within existing institutional structures; and it is difficult for citizens to communicate the (sometimes intangible) social concerns they believe should be part of the decision-making process.
We are engaged in a case study of model use that integrates both its technical and humanistic dimensions, as a step toward improving both the technical feasibility and social acceptability of decisions that make use of modeled scientific knowledge. We are critically analyzing how the Hydrogeomorphic Methodology (HGM) was used by the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) to evaluate wetlands impacts and to develop/approve project mitigation plans for the Legacy Parkway, Utah. The project will help improve decision-making in environmental issues by bridging gaps in communication among modelers, decision-makers, and other stakeholders.
This project marks the first in a series of critical analyses aimed at improving how scientific models are used in decision-making and public involvement processes.
