Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T17:27:16.877Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS & CASE STUDIES: Cooperative Modeling to Promote Systems Thinking in Applying the National Environmental Policy Act

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2010

Kristan Cockerill
Kristan Cockerill*
Affiliation:
University College at Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina
*
Address correspondence to: Kristan Cockerill, University College at Appalachian State University, ASU Box 32080, Boone, NC 28608; (phone) 828-262-7252; (fax) 828-262-6400; (e-mail) cockerillkm@appstate.edu
Get access

Abstract

When the National Environmental Policy Act was passed in 1969, it presupposed that there were clear ways to identify and then address environmental impacts from federal actions. Since then, it has become evident that environmental issues are grounded in complex systems, which are often difficult to “see” in traditional venues for gathering public input and informing decision makers. To address this, practitioners have been exploring collaborative modeling using system dynamics as a method for promoting systems thinking in a variety of decision venues. Historically applied in the business world, system dynamics has expanded into other arenas, including natural resource management. Cooperative modeling combines principles of collaboration with system dynamics to link relevant physical and social systems. In this approach, a multidisciplinary team convenes to engage in dialogue, to identify key variables for a particular issue, to identify relevant data, and to construct a systems-based computer model that helps team members “see” the complexity inherent in the system. Results from these experiences suggest that participants develop a deeper level of understanding about the policy issue, increase their agreement about root problems, and generate sound information about the issue being addressed. This article suggests that cooperative modeling can be an effective tool to meet both the letter and the spirit of the National Environmental Policy Act.

Environmental Practice 12:127–133 (2010)

Type
Features
Information
Environmental Practice , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , June 2010 , pp. 127 - 133
Copyright
Copyright © National Association of Environmental Professionals 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Blumm, M.C. 1990. Symposium on NEPA at Twenty: The Past, Present and Future of the National Environmental Policy Act. Environmental Law 20(3):447–482.Google Scholar
Botkin, D.B. 1990. Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the Twenty-first Century. Oxford University Press, New York, 241 pp.Google Scholar
Bronstein, D.A., Bear, D., Bryan, H., DiMento, J.F., and Narayan, S.. 2005. The National Environmental Policy Act at 35. Environmental Practice 7(1):3–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldwell, L. 1998. Statement of Lynton K. Caldwell, Professor of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana. In Problems and Issues with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Committee on Resources, House of Representatives, 105th Congress, 2nd session, Washington, DC, pp. 65–104. Available at http://ftp.resource.org/gpo.gov/hearings/105h/47866.pdf (accessed February 22, 2010).Google Scholar
Cates, C. 1979. Beyond Muddling: Creativity. Public Administration Review 39(6):527–532.Google Scholar
Cockerill, K., Daniel, L., Malczynski, L., and Tidwell, V.. 2009. A Fresh Look at a Policy Sciences Methodology: Collaborative Modeling for More Effective Policy. Policy Sciences 42(3):211–225.Google Scholar
Cockerill, K., Passell, H., and Tidwell, V.. 2006. Cooperative Modeling: Building Bridges between Science and the Public. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 42(2):457–471.Google Scholar
Cockerill, K., Tidwell, V., and Passell, H.. 2004. Assessing Public Perceptions of Computer-Based Models. Environmental Management 34(5):609–619.Google Scholar
Cockerill, K., Tidwell, V., Passell, H., and Malczynski, L.. 2007. Cooperative Modeling Lessons for Environmental Management. Environmental Practice 9(1):28–41.Google Scholar
Costanza, R., and Ruth, M.. 1998. Using Dynamic Modeling to Scope Environmental Problems and Build Consensus. Environmental Management 22(2):183–195.Google Scholar
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. The National Environmental Policy Act: A Study of Its Effectiveness after Twenty-five Years. CEQ, Washington, DC, 51 pp. Available at http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/nepa25fn.pdf (accessed February 22, 2010).Google Scholar
den Exter, K. 2004. Integrating Environmental Science and Management: The Role of System Dynamics Modelling. PhD thesis, CRC Sustainable Tourism School of Environmental Science and Management, Southern Cross University, Queensland, Australia, 170 pp. Available at http://epubs.scu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=theses (accessed April 1, 2010).Google Scholar
Eccleston, C.H. 2006. Lynton Caldwell, a Founding Father of America's “Environmental Magna Carta.” Environmental Practice 8(4):206–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, A. 1999. Modeling the Environment: An Introduction to System Dynamics Modeling of Environmental Systems. Island Press, Washington, DC, 415 pp.Google Scholar
Forrester, J.W. 1961. Industrial Dynamics. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 479 pp.Google Scholar
Forrester, J.W. 1971/1995. Counterintuitive Behavior of Social Systems. Technology Review 73(3):52–68. Available at http://sysdyn.clexchange.org/sdep/Roadmaps/RM1/D-4468-2.pdf (29 pp.) (accessed April 1, 2010).Google Scholar
Forrester, J.W. 1992. System Dynamics and the Lessons of 35 Years. In A Systems-Based Approach to Policymaking, De Greene, K.B., ed. Kluwer Academic, Boston, 199–240.Google Scholar
Hellstrom, T., and Jacob, M.. 1996. Uncertainty and Values: The Case of Environmental Impact Assessment. Knowledge and Policy: International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization 9(1):70–84.Google Scholar
Hjorth, P., and Bagheri, A.. 2006. Navigating towards Sustainable Development: A System Dynamics Approach. Futures 38(1):74–92.Google Scholar
Howick, S. 2005. Using System Dynamics Models with Litigation Audiences. European Journal of Operational Research 162:239–250.Google Scholar
Karkkainen, B.C. 2002. Toward a Smarter NEPA: Monitoring and Managing Government's Environmental Performance. Columbia Law Review 102(4):903–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, J.L., and Kraemer, K.L.. 1992. Models, Facts, and the Policy Process: The Political Ecology of Estimated Truth. Working Paper URB-006. Center for Research on Information Systems and Organizations (CRITO), University of California, Irvine, CA, 16 pp. Available at http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1c31s58g# (accessed February 22, 2010).Google Scholar
Lewis, J. 1985, November. The Birth of EPA. EPA Journal. Available at http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/epa/15c.htm (accessed February 22, 2010).Google Scholar
Molles, M.C. Jr. 1999. Ecology: Concepts and Applications. McGraw-Hill, Boston, 509 pp.Google Scholar
Nicolson, C.R., Starfield, A.M., Kofinas, G.P., and Kruse, J.A.. 2002. Ten Heuristics for Interdisciplinary Modeling Projects. Ecosystems 5(4):376–384.Google Scholar
Palmer, R.N., Keyes, A.M., and Fisher, S.. 1993. Empowering Stakeholders through Simulation in Water Resources Planning. In Water Management for the '90s: A Time for Innovation. Hon, K., ed. (Proceedings of the 20th Anniversary Conference).American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 451–454.Google Scholar
Renger, M., Kolfschoten, G.L., and de Vreede, G.-J.. 2008. Challenges in Collaborative Modeling: A Literature Review. In Advances in Enterprise Engineering I: 4th International Workshop CIAO! and 4th International Workshop EOMAS, held at CAISE 2008, Montpellier, France, June 2008, Proceedings, Dietz, J.L.G., Albani, A. and Barjis, J., eds. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing 10.Springer, Berlin, pp. 61–77.Google Scholar
Repenning, N.P. 2003. Selling System Dynamics to (Other) Social Scientists. System Dynamics Review 19(4):303–327.Google Scholar
Rouwette, E.A.J.A., Vennix, J.A.M., and van Mullekom, T.. 2002. Group Model Building Effectiveness: A Review of Assessment Studies. System Dynamics Review 18(1):5–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruth, M., Davidsdottir, B., and Amato, A.. 2004. Climate Change Policies and Capital Vintage Effects: The Cases of US Pulp and Paper, Iron and Steel, and Ethylene. Journal of Environmental Management 70(3):235–252.Google Scholar
Stave, K. 2002. Using System Dynamics to Improve Public Participation in Environmental Decisions. System Dynamics Review 18(2):139–167.Google Scholar
Thrower, J. 2006. Adaptive Management and NEPA: How a Nonequilibrium View of Ecosystems Mandates Flexible Regulation. Ecology Law Quarterly 33(3):871–895.Google Scholar
Tonn, B.E. 2000. Comments on the State of American Environmental Decision Making. Environmental Practice 2(2):135–138.Google Scholar
Turina, F. 2001. NEPA Reform: Effects on Citizen Participation in Environmental Decision Making. Environmental Practice 3(3):179–188.Google Scholar
United States Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources (IWR). 2007. CADRe: Computer Aided Dispute Resolution. IWR, Washington, DC. http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/cadre/ (accessed February 22, 2010).Google Scholar
United States Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources (IWR). 2009. Shared Vision Planning. IWR, Washington, DC. http://www.svp.iwr.usace.army.mil/index.cfm (accessed February 22, 2010).Google Scholar
United States Department of Energy (USDOE). 1997. An Introduction to System Dynamics: A Systems Approach to Understanding Complex Policy Issues, version 1.0. Washington, DC. Available at http://www.systemdynamics.org/DL-IntroSysDyn/ (accessed February 22, 2010).Google Scholar
van den Belt, M. 2004. Mediated Modeling: A System Dynamics Approach to Environmental Consensus Building. Island Press, Washington, DC, 296 pp.Google Scholar
van Eeten, M.J.G., Loucks, D.P., and Roe, E.. 2002. Bringing Actors Together around Large-Scale Water Systems: Participatory Modeling and Other Innovations. Knowledge, Technology & Policy 14(4):94–108.Google Scholar
Vennix, J.A.M. 1996. Group Model Building: Facilitating Team Learning Using System Dynamics. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, 312 pp.Google Scholar
Vennix, J.A.M. 1999. Group Model-Building: Tackling Messy Problems. System Dynamics Review 15(4):379–401.Google Scholar
Wildavsky, A. 1979. Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis. Little, Brown, Boston, 431 pp.Google Scholar
Winz, I., Brierley, G., and Trowsdale, S.. 2009. The Use of System Dynamics Simulation in Water Resources Management. Water Resources Management 23(7):1301–1323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, J., and Loucks, O.L.. 1995. From Balance of Nature to Hierarchical Patch Dynamics: A Paradigm Shift in Ecology. Quarterly Review of Biology 70(4):439–466.Google Scholar