[Federal Register: October 17, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 200)]
[Notices]
[Page 58812-58817]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17oc07-35]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[FY2009-FY2014]
National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science Human Dimensions
Strategic Plan
AGENCY: National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS), National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce
(DOC).
ACTION: Notice of availability of the NCCOS Human Dimensions Strategic
Plan (FY2009-FY2014) and responses to public comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NOAA publishes this notice to announce the availability of the
NCCOS Human Dimensions Strategic Plan (FY2009-FY2014) and provide
responses to public comments requested through a Federal Register
Notice (Notice of availability and solicitation of public comments on
the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science Draft Human Dimensions
Strategic Plan (FY2008-FY2013), 72 FR 7418-7419 (Feb. 15, 2007)).
DATES: The NCCOS Human Dimensions Strategic Plan is effective FY2009-
FY2014.
ADDRESSES: The NCCOS Human Dimensions Strategic Plan (FY2009-FY2014) is
available electronically at http://coastalscience.noaa.gov/human/strategy/NCCOSHDPlan.pdf.
Hard copies of the plan may be obtained by sending a request to nccos.hd@noaa.gov..
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marybeth Bauer, PhD, by e-mail at
nccos.hd@noaa.gov (preferred) or mail at NOAA National Ocean Service,
National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, 1305 East-West Highway, NOS
HQTR Route N/SCI, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The mission of NCCOS is to provide coastal
managers and other decisionmakers with scientific information and tools
needed to balance society's environmental, social, and economic goals
in mitigating and adapting to ecosystem stressors such as climate
change, extreme natural events, pollution, invasive species, and
resource use. Humans are integral to ecosystems, and the human
dimensions of ecosystems are an integral focus of the science needed to
achieve this mission. Understanding the impact of humans on the ocean,
the impacts of the ocean on humans, and the human aspects of ocean
governance provides the scientific basis for ensuring ocean health and
quality of life for this and future generations.
Marine science and policy institutions in the United States and
worldwide recognize that a deeper understanding of the human dimensions
of ecosystems--human causes, consequences, and responses to ecosystem
stress--is needed to foster improved support for coastal and ocean
decisionmaking. Examples include the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean
Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Integrated Management of Ocean
Resources, United States Commission on Ocean Policy, Pew Oceans
Commission, and NOAA's External Ecosystem Task Team.
The NCCOS Human Dimensions Strategic Plan (FY2009-FY2014)
establishes goals and objectives for fostering improved support of
coastal and ocean decisionmaking by integrating human dimensions into
the NCCOS's science program. It provides the basis for subsequent
development of an implementation plan specifying programmatic elements
such as strategies, outcomes, partnerships, and fiscal and human
resources needs.
Comments and Responses: On February 15, 2007, NCCOS published a
notice of availability and solicitation of public comments on a Draft
Human Dimensions Strategic Plan (Notice of availability and
solicitation of public comments on the National Centers for Coastal
Ocean Science Draft Human Dimensions Strategic Plan (FY2008-FY2013), 72
FR 7418-7419 (Feb. 15, 2007)). During the 30-day public comment period,
NCCOS received the following comments from the City of Craig, Alaska;
Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education; Island Resources
Foundation; New Jersey Marine Science Consortium; NOAA's National
Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Science and Technology; NOAA's
National Ocean Service, Coastal and Ocean Resource Economics Program;
NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, Office of Weather
and Air Quality and Climate Program Office; NOAA's Research Council;
and University of Massachusetts-Amherst Human Dimensions of Marine and
Coastal Ecosystems Program. In response to comments received, NCCOS
revised the Draft Human Dimensions Strategic Plan as follows.
General Comments
Comment 1: Several commenters commended NCCOS on taking this first
step toward integrating the human element into coastal management and
the required supporting scientific efforts.
Response: NCCOS appreciates this encouragement and advocacy from
its coastal science and management partners, and looks forward to
working with them to implement human dimensions research priorities.
Comment 2: Several commenters stated that the document is too long
and recommended eliminating redundancy.
Response: NCCOS considerably reduced the length of the document and
eliminated redundancy. To accommodate diverse levels of interest, NCCOS
formatted the plan to describe each strategic objective at four levels
of detail: A title, summary statement, concise rationale, and
discussion. The discussion sections provide justification and
explanation of strategic objectives at a level of detail that NCCOS
believes is critical to cultivate a workforce that understands,
appreciates, and facilitates the mission value of human dimensions
research.
Comment 3: Several commenters stated that the document includes
excessive social science jargon.
Response: NCCOS minimized social science jargon. However, NCCOS
included and defined key technical terms such as socioeconomic driver,
ecosystem service, mitigation, non-market value, and resilience. In
doing so, NCCOS is responsive to the finding of the Social Science
Review Panel to NOAA's Science Advisory Board that developing social
science capacity in NOAA is challenged by ``a lack of formal
understanding of what social science is and what its contributions can
be, leading to an organizational culture that is not conducive to
social science research.'' By including and defining key technical
terms, NCCOS aims to foster the human dimensions literacy and common
language needed to develop an integral human dimensions focus within
its science program.
Comment 5: Several commenters stated that the plan should include
programmatic elements such as projects, timelines, fiscal and human
resource needs, and deliverables.
Response: As explained in the ``Future Directions'' section of the
``Overview,'' NCCOS wishes to clarify that this plan provides the basis
for a
[[Page 58813]]
follow-up implementation plan specifying programmatic elements such as
those recommended.
Comment 6: Several commenters recommended discussing specific
programs, projects, or partnerships.
Response: NCCOS affirms that this level of detail is beyond the
scope of this plan, which is intended to establish broad human
dimensions research priorities critical to achieve NCCOS' mission.
Comment 7: Several commenters stated that the scope of work
outlined in the plan is overly ambitious for its time frame and
unrealistic given NOAA budgets.
Response: NCCOS wishes to clarify that this plan does not outline a
scope of work. It is intended to provide high-level strategic guidance
as a basis for programmatic development responsive to changing fiscal
conditions, legislative requirements, and other constraints and
opportunities.
Comment 8: One commenter recommended clarifying how this plan will
change human behaviors.
Response: NCCOS revised Objective 1.2, ``Human Causes and
Socioeconomic Drivers of Ecosystem Stress,'' to emphasize that
``reducing stress on coastal systems generally requires accommodating
or encouraging change in human behavioral patterns such as exurban
development, agricultural practices, and resource use. Developing
effective intervention strategies requires understanding behavioral
patterns requiring remediation and their complex natural and
socioeconomic drivers.'' In addition, understanding the human impacts
of changes in ecosystem services (as discussed in Objectives 1.3,
``Societal Consequences of Policy and Management Options,'' and 2.1,
``Integrative Ecosystem Models and Decision Support Tools'') provides
the impetus for behavioral change.
Comment 9: One commenter recommended clarifying how the plan
captures the role of climate change in ecosystems.
Response: NCCOS emphasizes that the goals and objectives
established in this plan cut across multiple stressors such as climate
change, extreme natural events, pollution, invasive species, and
resource use. The document discusses specific stressors in so far as
needed to illustrate cross-cutting research needs.
Comment 10: One commenter recommended explaining the process used
to develop the plan and including an appendix that lists contributors
and their contact information. This commenter stated that the National
Ocean Service Social Science Team should have been involved in
development of the plan.
Response: NCCOS has amended the ``Message from the Director'' to
explain that the plan was developed through an internal NCCOS process
including content analysis of significant coastal and ocean science and
management documents, vetted throughout NOAA, and substantively revised
in response to public review and comments solicited through a Federal
Register Notice. NCCOS relied upon the NOS Social Science Plan and
subsequently requested comments from the National Ocean Service Social
Science Team before finalizing the document. NCCOS has provided contact
information for comments on the plan.
Comment 11: One commenter expressed concern that the objectives are
loosely defined and thus allow flexibility in interpretation of what
will be accomplished.
Response: NCCOS intentionally framed its human dimensions research
goals and objectives in broad terms to enable flexibility in
implementation as NCCOS priorities and capabilities change.
Comment 12: One commenter recommended that the document put greater
emphasis on the need to evaluate tradeoffs inherent to ecosystem
management.
Response: In the discussion of the ``Human Dimensions of
Ecosystems,'' which has been moved from an appendix to the
``Overview,'' NCCOS emphasizes that evaluating tradeoffs is fundamental
to coastal management. In addition, NCCOS reconceptualized Objective
1.1, retitled ``Coastal Decisionmaking,'' from (in the draft) the need
for stakeholder assessment to (in the final document) the need for
decision support tools guiding stakeholder participation in
decisionmaking confronting challenges such as tradeoffs.
Comment 13: One commenter noted that the document does not aim to
facilitate improved methods for cost-benefit analysis such as new tools
to identify, describe, and quantify benefits; improvements on cost
assessments; and non-economic analyses that can enhance traditional
approaches.
Response: NCCOS revised Objective 1.3, ``Societal Consequences of
Policy and Management Option,'' to recommend economic impact analysis
as an approach to help decisionmakers anticipate the cononomic
consequences of alternative courses of action. As revised, this
objective states that methods for putting a dollar figure on the costs
and benefits of alternative management actions require improvement,
e.g., accounting for the true costs and benefits of alternative actions
for non-market values.
Comment 14: One commenter noted that a systems approach is implicit
in the document and recommended making it more explicit.
Response: NCCOS is responsive to criticism that the plan is overly
theoretical. In an effort to balance simultaneous recommendations for
elaboration and elimination of theoretical discussion, NCCOS responded
to this recommendation by adding the following text and associated
references to the ``Purpose'' section of the ``Overview'': ``Expanding
human dimensions research will enhance NCCOS' ecosystem science and
foster improved support for coastal and ocean decisionmaking. As early
as 1935, ecologists cautioned that limiting analysis to environmental
systems is neither scientifically sound nor practically useful
(Tansley, 1935). As with any system, understanding an ecosystem
requires understanding complex interactions among system components. An
ecosystem is defined by interactions between human and environmental
systems (elaborated below). Recognizing these interactions, ecology is
increasingly adopting a systems approach focusing on coupled social-
ecological systems (also called human-environmental systems) (e.g.,
Collins et al., 2007; Colding et al., 2000; Berkes et al., 1998).
Expanding NCCOS' scientific focus from interactions within
environmental systems to interactions between couple social-ecological
systems will foster holistic ecosystem understanding.''
Comment 15: One commenter stated that as this plan moves to other
areas of NOAA (particularly related to fisheries and habitat
management), NCCOS needs to ensure that its implementation is properly
vetted to ensure fair and balanced use in the regulatory process.
Response: NCCOS addressed this comment in Objective 1.1, ``Coastal
Decisionmaking.'' This objective seeks to inform and facilitate
decision processes that combine scientific analysis and broad-based
stakeholder deliberation to elicit diverse societal values, establish
clear objectives linking values to resource outcomes, develop
measurable indicators, and examine tradeoffs. In addition, NCCOS notes
that this plan has been vetted by public review through a Federal
Register Notice (72 FR 7418-7419). Finally, NCCOS is part of NOAA and
produces science that is used by other parts of NOAA in the context of
managing multiple uses of coastal and ocean resources. In producing
scientific
[[Page 58814]]
information and facilitating its use, NCCOS makes every effort to
ensure validity, fairness, and regulatory compliance.
Comments on the Summary
Comment 16: Several commenters recommended rewriting the
``Summary.'' Specifically, commenters recommended eliminating the list
of NCCOS and NOAA strategic definitions/missions and summary of goals/
objectives established in the plan, and including a statement of
purpose in the beginning.
Response: NCCOS created an ``Overview'' section that begins with a
statement of purpose, specifies future directions, summarizes key
drivers, provides background on the human dimensions of ecosystems,
defines human dimensions research, and lists the goals and objectives
put forth in the plan. NCCOS believes that the list of goals and
objectives is critical to provide an at-a-glance summary of the plan,
and has incorporated this list into a considerably shortened
``Summary'' section. NCCOS moved the list of NCCOS and NOAA strategic
definitions/missions to Appendix 2.
Comment 17: One commenter recommended including National Ocean
Service strategic elements in the list of strategic definitions/
missions.
Response: NCCOS added the National Ocean Service mission to this
list, which was moved to Appendix 2.
Comments on the Overview
Comment 18: One commenter recommended including a comparative
discussion of the terms ``human dimensions'' and ``social science.''
Response: NCCOS added the following text to the ``Human Dimensions
Research'' section of the ``Overview'': The distinction between the
terms `human dimensions' and `social science' often generates
confusion. `Human dimensions' refers conceptually to the roles of
humans in ecosystems and resource management. `Social science' denotes
a subset of the disciplines useful for describing, explaining, and
predicting these role.''
Comment 19: One commenter suggested giving greater emphasis to
NCCOS's role in providing feedback to the greater scientific community
on the information needs of coastal managers.
Response: NCCOS expanded its list of customers in the ``National
Centers for Coastal and Ocean Science'' section to include the greater
coastal and ocean scientific community.
Comment 20: One commenter stated that the discussion of NCCOS's
fundamental strategy, the Integrated Assessment, ``sounds like
puffery'' without empirical evidence of its value.
Response: NCCOS added a reference to an example Integrated
Assessment, Integrated Assessment of Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of
Mexico (Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, 2000) to the
``Integrated Assessments'' section of the ``Overview.''
Comment 21: One commenter questioned the use of a fifteen-year-old
National Research Council framework for understanding the human
dimensions of ecosystems.
Response: NCCOS believes that its adaptation of the National
Research Council framework to conceptualize human dimensions of
ecosystems (in terms of human causes, consequences, and responses to
ecosystem stress) is round and useful. This model resonates with NCCOS
scientists because of its simplicity and focus on stressors (an
organizing feature of NCCOS' science program). NCCOS will continue to
evaluate and develop its approach to conceptualizing the human
dimensions of ecosystems and socio-ecological systems.
Comment 22: One commenter recommended a more targeted definition of
human dimensions research.
Response: NCCOS believes that the plan itself embodies a targeted
definition by providing numerous examples of human dimensions research
topics and methods.
Comment 23: One commenter suggested mentioning that discussions
with decisionmakers will influence NCCOS' delivery of services.
Response: NCCOS revised the ``Future Directions'' section of the
``Overview'' to emphasize that NCCOS' research agenda will be
established through customer-informed strategies that identify
complementary human dimensions and environmental research priorities.
In addition, in the ``National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science''
section, NCCOS added a statement that ``NOAA created NCCOS in 1999 to
strengthen and integrate its coastal programs in ways that encourage
strong external partnerships, increase and protect their integrity, and
ensure they focus on NOAA's coastal ocean missions.''
Comment 24: One commenter recommended mentioning that this plan
updates NCCOS' contribution to the (2005) National Ocean Service Social
Science Plan.
Response: NCCOS amended the ``Human Dimensions Research Drivers''
section of the ``Overview'' to state that this plan represents the
development of NCCOS' human dimensions vision since its contribution to
the (2005) National Ocean Service Social Science Plan.
Comment 25: One commenter recommended providing an update on
specific NCCOS projects proposed in the National Ocean Service Social
Science Plan. This commenter also recommended discussing how this plan
will be integrated into the National Ocean Service Social Science Plan,
the NOAA Research Plan, and NOAA's Planning, Programming, Budgeting,
and Execution System.
Response: NCCOS affirms that this level of detail is beyond the
scope of the plan.
Comment 26: One commenter stated that the figure representing the
diversity of disciplines integral to human dimensions research is
misleading because it treats these diciplines as ``equally impacting.''
Response: NCCOS believes that the figure clearly represents the
diversity of disciplines integral to human dimensions research without
making a statement regarding their relative importance.
Comment 27: One commenter stated that the discussion of NCCOS human
dimensions accomplishments is defensive in tone. This commenter
questioned the apparent historical emphasis on economics and
recommended eliminating discussion of ongoing projects and other
highlights.
Response: NCCOS wishes to acknowledge its accomplishments in
providing human dimensions information critical to supporting coastal
and ocean management. These include new capacities, key publications,
ongoing projects, and other highlights. NCCOS does not agree that this
section should be eliminated. In addition, NCCOS believes that this
plan corrects any historical overemphasis on economics by establishing
goals and objectives that draw on a wide diversity of mission-critical
human dimensions disciplines.
Comment 28: Several commenters recommended including NCCOS' work on
the development of a human use/socioeconomic indicator for
eutrophication in the discussion of NCCOS human dimensions
accomplishments.
Response: NCCOS regrets the omission of this important work from
the draft plan, and has added the requested information in the ``NCCOS
Human Dimensions Research'' section of the ``Overview.''
Comment 29: One commenter recommended including NCCOS'
socioeconomic monitoring work in southeast Florida in the discussion of
[[Page 58815]]
NCCOS human dimensions accomplishments.
Response: NCCOS regrets the omission of this important work from
the draft plan, and has added the requested information in the ``NCCOS
Human Dimensions Research'' section of the ``Overview.''
Comment 30: Several commenters recommended eliminating a reference
(to Bergen and Carr, 2003), stating that the article does not provide a
balanced description of the Channel Islands marine reserves network
planning process.
Response: NCCOS does not support the commenters' judgment that the
article cited is not balanced. However, in the course of responding to
Comment 12, NCCOS eliminated this reference.
Comment 31: One commenter expressed concern that the plan contains
``historical overtones of a need to understand an environment being
destroyed by humans (e.g., stressors).'' This commenter stated that
such an approach downplays the management opportunities provided by
human dimensions understanding.
Response: NCCOS believes that the plan provides many examples of
management opportunities facilitated by human dimensions understanding.
To ensure that these opportunities are sufficiently emphasized, NCCOS
added the following text to the ``Purpose'' section of the
``Overview'': ``* * * Human dimensions understanding enhances coastal
decisionmaking and its scientific support. The plan provides many
examples. It begins by highlighting the effectiveness of coastal
decisionmaking that integrates ecosystem understanding with meaningful
stakeholder engagement. Social science offers techniques and
approaches, based on an understanding of human and organizational
behavior, that help decisionmakers work with diverse stakeholders to
define and achieve management priorities in the face of challenges such
as conflicting and changing societal values, multi-agency authorities,
and scientific uncertainty.'' NCCOS disagrees that the concept of
stressors is inappropriate.
Comments on Objective 1.1
Comment 32: One commenter recommended including economic value as a
distinct type of value.
Response: NCCOS eliminated the referenced discussion of values to
preserve space in the process of revising Objective 1.1, re-titled
``Coastal Decisionmaking,'' as described in Comment 12. Instead, the
document defines values by providing examples in the ``Human Dimensions
of Ecosystems'' section of the ``Overview'', e.g., security from
natural disasters, health, good social relations, and freedom to pursue
personal and cultural interests (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment,
2005).
Comment 33: One commenter recommended acknowledging that
stakeholder values change over time.
Response: NCCOS revised Objective 1.1, re-title ``Coastal
Decisionmaking,'' to acknowledge that decisionmakers are challenged by
conflicting and changing societal values.
Comment 34: One commenter noted the need to assess preferences for
specific management options in addition to values.
Response: NCCOS revised Objective 1.1, re-titled ``Coastal
Decisionmaking,'' to acknowledge the importance of assessing
stakeholders' preferences for specific management options.
Comment 35: One commenter recommended discussing the relationships
among values, norms, user expectations, satisfaction, intentions to
behave, management preferences, and attitudes.
Response: NCCOS amended the ``Human Dimensions of Ecosystems''
section of the ``Introduction'' to state that ``stakeholders' values
influence their attitudes, intentions, management preferences,
satisfaction levels, and norms for behavior. Values differ among
individuals, but can be studied at the group level. For example, groups
engaging in similar activities at similar locations and rates of
participation, and using similar equipment can be expected to share
values. Stakeholder values is an important topic of human dimensions
research, enabling understanding of: (1) How coastal resource
conditions and management decisions are likely to be perceived by
different groups; (2) how differing value systems interact to affect
coastal resource management planning and effectiveness; and (3)
interactions among changing value systems, management decision
processes and outcomes, and resource conditions (e.g., Dietz et al.,
2005).''
Comments on Objective 1.2
Comment 36: One commenter stated that discussion of Objective 1.2
is vague.
Response: NCCOS agrees that this objective is vague and partly
redundant with other objectives established in the plan. For these
reasons, NCCOS eliminated the objective and incorporated references
cited into other objectives as appropriate.
Comment 37: One commenter recommended eliminating mention of the
National Ocean Economics Program, stating that the program ``does not
represent good social science'' and will ``seriously compromise the
integrity'' of the plan.
Response: NCCOS eliminated this objective for reasons explained in
the response to Comment 36.
Comments on Objective 1.4
Comment 38: One commenter stated that Objective 1.4 recommends
specific research projects whereas the other objectives are more
general.
Response: NCCOS does not agree that Objective 1.4 recommends
specific research projects. This objective recommends building on
NCCOS' success documenting and utilizing traditional and local
ecological knowledge to enhance coastal and ocean science.
Comments on Objective 1.5
Comment 39: Several commenters noted that Objective 1.5 is unclear.
Response: NCCOS substantively revised this objective (now reordered
as Objective 1.7) to enhance clarity and reduce length. As revised, a
large portion of the objective is incorporated into the ``Overview''
(in ``Human Dimensions of Ecosystems'') and Objective 1.1 (``Coastal
Decisionmaking''). The second section, ``Ethical Questions Raised by
the Implementation and Use of Science,'' has been considerably
shortened.
Comment 40: One commenter noted that there is already a wealth of
social science research regarding best practices for promoting
community development in the context of environmental restoration. This
commenter questioned whether social scientists participated in the
Coastal Response Research Center workshop discussing this topic.
Response: In an effort to reduce the length of this objective,
NCCOS eliminated discussion of specific conclusions from this workshop.
However, NCCOS notes that social scientists were present at the
workshop. These participants were aware of the wealth of social science
research related to community development, and played an important role
in introducing restoration practitioners to the topic.
Comments on Objective 1.6
Comment 41: One commenter stated that the distinction between
organizations and institutions (quoted from the International Human
Dimensions Program) is ``conceptually thin,'' and that the examples
provided in the definition are ``less than eye-opening.'' Another
commenter stated that Objective 1.6 is not understandable to a non-
social scientist.
[[Page 58816]]
Response: NCCOS addressed these comments by replacing this quote
with a less technical definition of institutions and referring the
reader to additional sources for a more sophisticated discussion. NCCOS
notes that this objective has been reordered to Objective 1.5.
Comment 42: Several commenters recommended mentioning the need for
institutionalized social science data collection and sharing.
Response: NCCOS revised this objective to state that the
institutionalization of social science data collection, storage,
management, and mining is a fundamental problem for incorporating human
dimensions consideration into coastal decisionmaking.
Comments on Objective 2.2
Comment 43: One commenter questioned the emphasis on economics
reflected in NOAA's External Ecosystem Task Team's summary of core
social science capabilities needed to integrate human dimensions
information into Integrated Ecosystem Assessments.
Response: NCCOS eliminated this summary to reduce the length of the
document. NCCOS notes that the External Ecosystem Task Team's summary
stands on its own (i.e., independently of NCCOS' views) as a
description of the Team's vision.
Comment 44: One commenter raised the question whether Integrated
Ecosystem Assessments are to be revisited to determine their success in
predicting consequences of alternative management actions.
Response: NCCOS revised this objective to clarify that ``Integrated
Ecosystem Assessments are iteratively developed and revisited.
Subsequent assessments evaluate past success in predicting the
consequences of alternative management strategies as well as
implementing previously identified research needs.''
Comments on Objective 3.1
Comment 45: One commenter stated that Goal 3 should focus on
resilience to ecosystem stressors (rather than hazards) because the
focus on hazards excludes ecosystem stressors.
Response: NCCOS wishes to clarify that a focus on hazards does not
exclude ecosystem stressors. Rather, the potential for any ecosystem
stressor is a hazard. However, NCCOS agrees that the objective is too
narrowly focused on the impacts of disasters. It also does not
adequately emphasize the need to help coastal decisionmakers anticipate
the consequences of ecosystem stress in relation to alternative
intervention strategies. In response to these deficiencies, this
objective has been reconceptualized to develop Objective 1.3,
``Societal Consequences of Policy and Management Options.''
Comment 46: One commenter stated that Objective 3.1 ignores over
fifty years of research on disasters and espouses myths such as the
notion that disasters result in social disruption and conflict. Another
commenter stated that Objective 3.1 should mention spouse battery (an
example of social disruption and conflict) as a consequence of
disasters.
Response: NCCOS notes that these comments are contradictory. One
highlights social disruption caused by coastal disasters, while another
denies it. In responding to Comment 45, NCCOS eliminated this
discussion and captured key points in Objective 1.3, ``Societal
Consequences of Policy and Management Options.''
Comment 47: One commenter requested that NCCOS specify key factors
considered in risk and vulnerability assessments and whether NCCOS will
consider environmental or human impacts or both.
Response: NCCOS notes that the draft provides a list of key
components of risk and vulnerability assessments. NCCOS revised the
text to clarify that environmental and human impacts will both be
considered.
Comment 48: One commenter stressed the importance of noting the
unique requirements of small islands regarding vulnerability and
resilience.
Response: NCCOS amended the discussion of Goal 3, ``Promote
Ecosystem Resilience,'' to state that the vulnerability of small island
communities is heightened by factors such as the infeasibility of
migrating out of danger zones and extreme land values.
Comments on Objective 3.2
Comment 49: One commenter noted that Objective 3.2 ignores changes
that occurred to the risk communication process as a result of cell
phones, the internet, and cable television.
Response: NCCOS amended this objective to explain that development
of communication messages and strategies should take into consideration
changes to the risk communication process as result of modern
technology such as cell phones and the internet.
Comment 50: One commenter stated that the relationship between an
audience's belief in risk information and its level of trust in the
communicating agency is ``old hat.''
Response: NCCOS is committed to developing the capacity of its
workforce to understand, appreciate, and facilitate the mission value
of human dimensions research. NCCOS believes that this commitment
requires fostering an understanding of key concepts and methods that
are familiar to social scientists, but new to many natural scientists.
This commitment is responsive to the finding of the Social Science
Review Panel to NOAA's Science Advisory Board that developing social
science capacity in NOAA is challenged by ``a lack of formal
understanding of what social science is and what its contributions can
be, leading to an organizational culture that is not conducive to
social science research.''
Comments on Objective 3.3
Comment 51: One commenter noted that local, regional, and national
agencies rarely have the finances for risk communication research and
typically lack the understanding that they need it.
Response: Through this plan, NCCOS aims to foster understanding of
the need for risk communication research to develop scientific products
and tools that foster public understanding of risks, trust in the
communicating agency, and risk-protective behavior. As explained in
this objective, NCCOS will work with coastal managers and other
customers to develop and test products, and facilitate their use in
decisionmaking, to achieve these ends.
Comment 52: One commenter raised the question of how effective
communication is defined.
Response: NCCOS points out that the existing text defines effective
risk communication as communication that fosters public understanding
and trust, and prompts at-risk populations to respond appropriately to
mitigate and adapt to undesirable environmental, sociocultural, and
economic consequences of ecosystem stress.
Comments on Objective 4.1
Comment 53: One commenter recommended clarifying the role of NCCOS'
cooperative research institutes in implementing this plan.
Response: NCCOS revised this objective to state that ``providing
human dimensions understanding critical to support coastal
decisionmaking will require retooling of many activities across NCCOS'
component research centers, laboratories, and partnerships with
cooperating institutions such as NCCOS' coral reef research
institutes.'' NCCOS similarly amended the ``Future Directions'' section
of the ``Overview'' to specify that a follow-up implementation plan
will specify program- and project-level actions and
[[Page 58817]]
other programmatic elements ``to develop an integral human dimensions
research focus in NCCOS--including its component research centers,
laboratories, and partnerships with cooperating institutions such as
NCCOS' coral reef research institutes.''
Comment 54: One commenter noted that the workforce needed to
support ecosystem science must be interdisciplinary.
Response: NCCOS agrees with this comment. This objective focuses on
development of human dimensions capabilities that complement NCCOS'
existing technical workforce, which is predominantly comprised of
biological, physical, and ecological scientists.
Comments on Appendix 1
Comment 55: One commenter stated that the 2006 National Research
Council report, Facing Hazards and Disasters, does not (as described in
the draft) recommend ``that future social science research treat
hazards and disaster research interchangeably and view the five core
topics of hazards and disaster research within a single overarching
framework.''
Response: NCCOS points out that this is a direct quote from an
Executive Summary of Facing Hazards and Disasters provided by the
National Research Council Committee on Disaster Research in the Social
Sciences: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11671.html. However, NCCOS
eliminated this quote in the process of reducing the length of the
document.
Comment 56: One commenter recommended expanding the discussion of
``Balancing Societal Objectives'' and moving it to the front material
of the document.
Response: As recommended, NCCOS moved a substantive part of this
section to a discussion of the ``Human Dimensions of Ecosystems'' in
the ``Overview.''
Comments on Appendix 2
Comment 57: One commenter noted that the entry for the 2006
National Research Council report, Facing Hazards and Disasters,
mistakenly includes information related to a 2005 National Science and
Technology Council report, Grand Challenges for Disaster Reduction.
Response: NCCOS regrets this mistake and eliminated the misplaced
information from the entry for the 2006 National Research Council
report, Facing Hazards and Disasters.
Comment 58: One commenter recommended duplicating the entry for the
Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act in the table
of drivers related to pollution (in addition to harmful algal blooms).
Response: As recommended, NCCOS included the Harmful Algal Bloom
and Hypoxia Research and Control Act in the table of drivers related to
pollution.
Comments on Appendix 3
Comment 59: Several commenters requested inclusion of specific
additional references.
Response: NCCOS included suggested references where appropriate.
NCCOS notes that this document is not intended to provide an exhaustive
literature review.
Gary C. Matlock,
Director, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science.
[FR Doc. 07-5111 Filed 10-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-JE-M