EPA/600/R-15/248| January 2016

www.epa.gov/ord

United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

Oce of Research and Development

National Health and Environmental

 Eects Research Laboratory

Atlantic Ecology Division

Narragansett, RI 02882

Ocial Business

Penalty for Private use

$300

Recycled/Recyclable

Printed with vegetable-based ink on paper that 

contains a minimum of 50% post-consumer 

fiber and is processed chlorine free.

 
EPA 600/R-15/248 | January 2016

www.epa.gov/ord

Application of a Structured Decision Process 

for Informing Watershed Management Options 

in Guánica Bay, Puerto Rico

by 

Patricia Bradley1, William Fisher2, Brian Dyson3, Susan Yee2, John Carriger4, 

Gerardo Gambirazzio5, Justin Bousquin6 and Evelyn Huertas7

1Atlantic Ecology Division, NHEERL, ORD, 33 East Quay Road, Key West, FL 33040

2Gulf Ecology Division, NHEERL, ORD, 1 Sabine Island Drive, Gulf Breeze, FL 32561

3Land Remediation and Pollution Control Division, National Risk Management 

Research Laboratory, ORD, Cincinnati, OH 45268

4Oak Ridge Institute for Science Education (ORISE) Fellow

(formerly employed by EPA/ORD/NHEERL/GED), Gulf Ecology Division, NHEERL, ORD

1 Sabine Island Drive, Gulf Breeze, FL 32561

5Marine Corps Activity Guam (formerly employed by EPA/ORD/NERL/ESD)

PSC 488 Box 105, FPO, AP 96537-1005

6Oak Ridge Institute of Science Education (ORISE) Fellow 

Atlantic Ecology Division, NHEERL, ORD, 27 Tarzwell Drive, Narragansett, RI 02887

7Region 2, Caribbean Environmental Protection Division 

City View Plaza II – Suite 7000, #48 Rd. 165 km 1.2, Guaynabo, PR 00968-8069 

Contract #EP-C-08-007, Task Order 64

Neptune and Company, Inc.

National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory

Office of Research and Development

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Narragansett, RI 02887
ii

Notice and Disclaimer

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its Office of Research and Development 

(ORD) funded and collaborated in the research described herein under Contract #EP-C-08-

007, Task Order 64, to Neptune and Company, Inc. It has been subjected to the Agency’s 

peer and administrative review and has been approved for publication as an EPA 

document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute 

endorsement or recommendation for use.

This is a contribution to the EPA ORD Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research 

Program. Research for this report was also conducted under the Ecosystem Services 

Research Program and the Safe and Sustainable Waters Research Program.

The appropriate citation for this report is:

Bradley P, Fisher W, Dyson B, Yee S, Carriger J, Gambirazzio G, Bousquin J and Huertas E. 

2015. Application of a Structured Decision Process for Informing Watershed Management 

Options in Guánica Bay, Puerto Rico. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Research and Development, Narragansett, RI. EPA/600/R-15/248.
iii 

Table of Contents 

Notice and Disclaimer............................................................................................................................ ii 

List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................ vi 

List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................... ix 

Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................. xi 

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ xiii 

Chapter 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 

 1.1 Sustainability, the watershed approach and structured decision-making ............................... 2 

Chapter 2. The Formal Decision Process ............................................................................................... 5 

 2.1 Background on values and decision-making ............................................................................. 5 

 2.2 Description ................................................................................................................................ 7 

 2.3 Why SDM is needed .................................................................................................................. 9 

 2.4 How SDM is used ....................................................................................................................11 

 2.5 Guánica Bay, Puerto Rico, case study .....................................................................................14 

Chapter 3. Clarify the Decision Context ..............................................................................................15 

 3.1 The decision landscape ...........................................................................................................15 

 3.2 Initial decision context for coral reef protection at Guánica Bay ...........................................18 

 3.2.1 Initial decision context ..................................................................................................22 

 3.2.2 Decision-maker: U.S. Coral Reef Task Force ..................................................................23 

 3.3 Systems thinking and systems diagrams.................................................................................25

 3.4 Coral reef and coastal ecosystems decision-support workshop .............................................28 

 3.4.1 Framing the decision .....................................................................................................29 

 3.4.2 Developing the sketch ...................................................................................................30 

 3.4.3 Planning the consultation and analysis .........................................................................33 

 3.5 Archival research.....................................................................................................................36 

 3.5.1 Geographical setting: Guánica Bay ................................................................................36 

 3.5.2 Historical perspective ....................................................................................................37 

 3.5.3 Operation Bootstrap: Industrialized agriculture and manufacturing............................39 

 3.5.4 Puerto Rico, a Free Associated State (Commonwealth) ...............................................40 

 3.5.5 Guánica Bay and southwestern Puerto Rico .................................................................41 

 3.5.6 The Southwest Puerto Rico Project and the Lajas Valley Irrigation System .................43 

 3.5.7 The rise of sun-grown coffee production ......................................................................43 

 3.5.8 Erosion and sediment distribution ................................................................................44 

 3.5.9 Analysis - economic independence and self-determination .........................................46 

 3.6 Summary .................................................................................................................................48 

Chapter 4. Define Objectives and Develop Alternatives .....................................................................49 

 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................49 

4.1.1 Defining objectives ........................................................................................................49 

 4.1.2 Developing decision alternatives ..................................................................................54 

 
iv

4.2 Decision-making workshop.....................................................................................................55

4.2.1 Decision issues in Guánica Bay watershed....................................................................57

4.2.2 Non-market values of ecosystem resources.................................................................62

4.2.3 Summary .......................................................................................................................66

4.3 Public Values Forum................................................................................................................67

4.3.1 Summary......................................................................................................................81

4.4 Summary of the workshops....................................................................................................82

Chapter 5. Estimate Consequences and Evaluate Tradeoffs...............................................................85

5.1 Estimating consequences........................................................................................................85

5.2 Identifying information needs ................................................................................................86

5.3 Scientific investigations to reduce uncertainties....................................................................89

5.3.1 Coral reef condition.......................................................................................................89

5.3.2 Ecosystem goods and services production....................................................................94

5.3.3 Social and economic benefits of coral reefs ................................................................101

5.3.4 Effects of water quality and availability on human health..........................................106

5.4 Decision-support tools for evaluating alternatives...............................................................107

5.4.1 Bayesian networks.......................................................................................................108

5.4.2 Spatially dynamic modeling with Envision ..................................................................112

5.5 Evaluating trade-offs, implementation and monitoring.......................................................115

5.6 Summary ...............................................................................................................................117

Chapter 6. Tools Supporting the Decision Process............................................................................119

6.1 Practical approaches to support decision-makers................................................................119

6.2 Decision-support tool design: considerations and characteristics.......................................121

6.3 Decision-support illustration: DASEES ..................................................................................122

6.4 Benefits from decision-support tools...................................................................................128

Chapter 7. Evaluating the Formal Decision Process in Guánica Bay .................................................129

7.1 Guiding information collection .............................................................................................130

7.2 Improving communication....................................................................................................134

7.3 Stakeholder involvement......................................................................................................136

7.4 Interconnecting decisions.....................................................................................................137

7.5 Guiding strategic thinking .....................................................................................................140

7.6 Creating alternatives.............................................................................................................142

7.7 Additional benefits................................................................................................................143

7.8 Challenges.............................................................................................................................144

7.9 Future research.....................................................................................................................145

7.10 Afterwards ..........................................................................................................................146

Appendix A. The Guánica Bay Watershed–An Historical Perspective...............................................149

Appendix B. Guidance for Selecting the Decision Context and Developing the 

Decision Landscape.....................................................................................................................156

Appendix C. 2010 Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision-Support Workshop Participants...163

Appendix D. 2010 Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision-Support Workshop Agenda..........165
v 

Appendix E. 2012 Decision-Making Workshop Agenda ....................................................................171

Appendix F. 2012 Decision-Making Workshop Participants .............................................................175

Appendix G. 2013 Public Values Forum Participants........................................................................176

Appendix H. Guidance and Sample Agendas for Public Values Forum and Objectives Workshops .178

Appendix I. Glossary ..........................................................................................................................192

References.........................................................................................................................................213
vi

List of Figures 

1-1. A watershed is an area of land that drains the streams and rainfall to a common 

outlet, such as the mouth of a bay. ............................................................................... 4 

2-1. Relationship between Alternative-Focused Thinking (AFT) and Value-Focused 

Thinking (VFT) for decision-making. .............................................................................. 5 

2-2. Approaching decision-making by thinking about values before developing 

alternatives, informs every dimension of the decision process..................................... 6 

2-3. The structured decision-making (SDM) formal decision process................................... 9 

2-4. SDM supports better informed decision-making. .......................................................10

3-1. Components and key relationships in an environmental management 

Decision Landscape. ......................................................................................................17

3-2. Coral reefs fringe the southwestern coast of Puerto Rico and provide coastal 

recreation and tourism opportunities. .........................................................................18

3-3. Images of coral reefs in the areas of La Parguera and Guánica illustrate 

their natural beauty. .....................................................................................................18

3-4. Reef-building stony corals formed the structure of Caribbean reefs 

(e.g., Orbicella annularis and Acropora palmata). .......................................................22

3-5. The 2008 Guánica Bay Watershed Management Plan identified potential 

sources of pollution and proposed a series of management actions. .........................24

3-6. The DPSIR (Driving Forces, Pressures, State, Impacts, Responses) framework 

and conceptual relationships among DPSIR sectors.....................................................26

3-7. A coral reef DPSIR (Driving Forces, Pressures, State, Impacts, Responses) 

conceptual map developed by EPA using information from workshops held 

in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and the Florida Keys, discussions with 

expert focus groups, and literature. .............................................................................27

3-8. Forty-three representatives from Federal and Commonwealth government agencies, 

non-governmental organizations and academic institutions, and citizens from the 

Guánica Bay watershed participated in the 2010 Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems 

Decision-support Workshop at La Parguera, Puerto Rico. ...........................................28

3-9a. Guánica-specific DPSIR (Driving Forces, Pressures, State, Impacts, Responses) 

concept map developed by EPA based upon information from the Decision-support 

Workshop, showing details for Driving Forces, Pressures, and 

Responses to each proposed decision alternative. ......................................................31

3-9b. Guánica-specific DPSIR (Driving Forces, Pressures, State, Impacts, Responses) 

concept map developed by EPA based upon information from the Decision-support 

Workshop, showing details for State, Impact, and benefits to Driving Forces............32

3-10. Key urban and natural areas of the Guánica Bay Watershed. .....................................37

3-11. Depiction of U.S. troops landing at Guánica in 1898 by artist Howard 

Chandler Christy. ...........................................................................................................38

3-12. Operation Bootstrap shifted Puerto Rican labor from agriculture to 

manufacturing and tourism. .........................................................................................40
vii

3-13. Central Guánica, a major sugar cane processing plant was on the west shore

of Guánica Bay. .............................................................................................................42

3-14. Ochoa Fertilizer Company, Inc. was on the east shore of Guánica Bay. ......................42

3-15. The Southwest Puerto Rico Project consisted of five dams, three of which 

reversed watershed flow from north to south. ............................................................44

3-16. Mountain farm near Yauco, Puerto Rico, cleared to plant sun-grown coffee.............45

3-17. Water and sediment leaving Guánica Bay enter the coastal zone and are 

swept to the west towards La Parguera by prevailing ocean currents. .......................46

4-1. Example objectives hierarchy (OH) for one of the proposed fundamental 

objectives for the Guánica Bay Watershed. ................................................................. 51 

4-2. Means-end network for the Guánica Bay watershed based on expected effects 

of recommended actions from the Watershed Management Plan on 

fundamental objectives proposed in Carriger et al. 2013. ..........................................53

4-3. Workshop participants included farmers, fishermen, and representatives of local 

and Commonwealth government agencies and non-governmental organizations. ....57

4-4. Public Values Forum participants included academics; representatives of 

government agencies, non-government organizations and businesses

and citizens. ..................................................................................................................68

4-5. Day 1 breakout groups for establishing an initial list of values in the social category 

and economics category at the Public Values Forum held for the Guánica Bay 

watershed in Puerto Rico. ............................................................................................71

4-6. Social Network Analysis (SNA) of workshop participants at the

Public Values Forum......................................................................................................77

4-7. Prioritization results for the actions identified by the Economics workgroup for 

restoring the Guánica Bay watershed and coastal zone, differentiated by 

knowledge of current initiatives in the watershed.......................................................79

4-8. Prioritization results for the actions identified by the Social workgroup for 

restoring the Guánica Bay watershed and coastal zone, differentiated by 

knowledge of the 2008 watershed management plan.................................................80

5-1. Display of stony coral density results from reef assessment surveys completed 

at St. Thomas and St. John and St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands. .............................90

5-2. Generalized Biological Condition Gradient (BCG).........................................................91

5-3. Photos from EPA coral reef stations reflect a range of coral reef conditions, 

from good, to intermediate quality, to severely degraded..........................................92

5-4. Structure to trace changes in ecosystem services values based on a 

management option. ....................................................................................................96

5-5. Maps of predicted reef ecosystem service production around St. Croix, 

U.S. Virgin Islands. .......................................................................................................100

5-6. Illustrations depicting: High Condition, Medium Condition, and Low Condition, 

to be used as visual aids during the economic valuation surveys..............................104

5-7. The economic valuation of Puerto Rico’s coral reef-based tourism and recreation 

will be analyzed and reported at the whole territory scale, as well as for five (5) 

sub-regions: northeast, southeast, northwest, southwest, and the islands of 

Vieque and Culebra. ...................................................................................................105
viii

5-8. Volunteer 4-H Club members take water samples for the Region 2 Citizen 

Science Program testing for water quality in southwestern Puerto Rico. .................107

5-9. Nodes in a Bayesian belief network (BBN) represent random variables, and arcs 

are used to indicate a conditional relationship between the parent and child 

nodes...........................................................................................................................108

5-10. Lago Lucchetti in southwestern Puerto Rico receives water from its watershed 

as well as through a tunnel from upstream reservoirs. .............................................109

5-11. Conceptual diagram of model to estimate the life expectancy of Lago Lucchetti 

under two management options: coffee conversion and reservoir dredging. ..........110

5-12. Bayesian belief network (BBN) model derived from the conceptual model and 

showing distributions of probabilities for life expectancy (in years) of Lago 

Lucchetti under two management options: conversion to shade-grown coffee 

(Conversion Implementation node) and reservoir dredging (Start Water 

Storage Capacity node, reflecting potential dredging levels).....................................111

5-13. Screenshot of Envision decision-support tool............................................................113

5-14. Envision’s conceptual framework...............................................................................114

5-15A/B/C/D. Illustration of Envision input models for the Guánica Bay watershed.........115

6-1. Decision analysis conceptual approach to requisite model development using 

decision-support tools. ..............................................................................................120

6-2. Categorization of decision-support system (DSS) options based on degree of 

problem structure and support delivered. ................................................................. 121

6-3. Generic architecture for a decision-support system. .................................................122

6-4. Contextual information for the Guánica Bay Decision Landscape in Decision 

Analysis for a Sustainable Environment, Economy, and Society (DASEES). ...............123

6-5. SystemSketch tool in Decision Analysis for a Sustainable Environment, 

Economy, and Society (DASEES) showing a linkage between the Pressure (P) 

Landscape Changes, States (S) such as Terrestrial Habitat, Built Environment, 

and Abiotic State.........................................................................................................124

6-6. Segment of the Guánica Bay Objective Hierarchy focusing on aquatic ecology........125

6-7. Means objectives Minimize sediment runoff associated with the fundamental 

objective Improve Water Quality and management option Subsidize 

Shade-grown Coffee developed by Guánica Bay stakeholders.................................. 126

6-8. An influence diagram for a Bayesian Belief Network showing the management 

option (subsidize Shade-grown Coffee), the environmental state variables 

(nutrient runoff, precipitation, and sediment runoff), and the corresponding 

measures (nutrients, coliforms, solids in suspension and turbidity)..........................127

6-9. The Decision Analysis for a Sustainable Environment, Economy, and Society 

(DASEES) sharing interface provides a place for storing all the data and 

information needed to make a decision. ...................................................................128

7-1. The Watershed Management Plan graphically illustrating its primary objective 

of restoring high ecological integrity to coral reefs....................................................141

7-2. Elaboration of objectives and benefits of proposed management actions 

derived from discussions during the 2010 Decision Support Workshop. .................141
ix

A-1. Paintings of Christopher Columbus and Juan Ponce de León. ...................................149

A-2. Workers cutting sugar cane in a field in Puerto Rico..................................................150

A-3. Cigars have been produced in Puerto Rico for centuries. ..........................................151

A-4. A large coral boulder marked with the carved words, “3rd Battalion, 1st U.S.V. 

Engineers, September 16, 1898”, commemorates the invasion................................152

A-5. Women working in a garment factory in San Juan, Puerto Rico, in 1942. .................155

B-1. The DPSIR (Driving Forces, Pressures, State, Impacts, Responses) framework. ........158

B-2. Example DPSIR (Driving Forces, Pressures, State, Impacts, Responses) 

framework linking watershed and coastal ecosystems..............................................160

H-1. An influence diagram is a tool to separate means and ends. ....................................183

H-2. Example objectives hierarchy for one of the proposed fundamental objectives

from the Guánica Bay Watershed...............................................................................184

List of Tables

2-1. A generic formalized decision process consistent with values-based 

decision-making illustrating the Decision Analysis (DA) concept. .................................. 8 

2.2. Examples of possible SDM processes of varying levels of budget and timeline. .........13

3-1. Preliminary objectives list created through workshop discussions during the 

2010 Decision-support Workshop................................................................................33

3-2. Management options developed by participants during the 

2010 Decision-support Workshop................................................................................33

3-3. Information gaps and research studies suggested by participants at the 

2010 Decision-support Workshop................................................................................34

4-1. Priorities for natural resource management and associated objectives

developed by participants at the 2012 Decision Workshop. .......................................59

4-2. Transparency and access concerns raised by participants at the 

2012 Decision Workshop..............................................................................................62

4-3. Economic sectors and challenges to economic sustainability, as identified 

by participants during the 2012 Decision Workshop. ..................................................66

4-4. Categories used for targeting stakeholders for the Guánica Bay watershed 

Public Values Forum. ...................................................................................................68

4-5. Initial objectives generated from four breakout groups in the first day

of the Public Values Forum. ..........................................................................................72

4-6. Initial priority management actions from different breakout groups shown 

with potential performance measures and the values served.....................................75

4-7. Illustrative consequence table developed interactively for Guánica Lagoon 

restoration, showing objectives in rows and possible management alternatives 

in columns.....................................................................................................................78

4-8. Priority actions identified by each of the four work groups in the Public 

Values Forum. ...............................................................................................................81
x 

5-1. Issues in a DPSIR-based framework, sample research questions from 

stakeholder discussions, and targeted EPA research activities....................................87

5-2. Coral reef attributes of a very good to excellent site and a poor site. .........................92

5-3. Fish species assigned to attribute 2‒highly sensitive or specialist taxa. ......................93

5-4. Categories and examples of ecosystem goods and services........................................94

5-5. Identification of ecosystem goods and services that align with stakeholder 

objectives identified in the Guánica Public Values Forum. ..........................................95

5-6. Quantitative methods for linking reef ecosystem attributes to production of 

ecosystem services. ......................................................................................................97

5-7. List of key terrestrial ecosystem services for the Guánica watershed and production 

function methods for linking them to changes in environmental condition. ..............99

5-8. Identification of performance measures related to valuation of ecosystem 

goods and services that align with stakeholder objectives identified in the 

Public Values Forum. ..................................................................................................101

5-9. Economic benefits provided by coral reefs. ...............................................................102

5-10. A subset of objectives that reflect the social concerns of stakeholders at the 

three EPA Guánica Workshops. ..................................................................................106

5-11. Life expectancy of Lago Lucchetti reservoir under different management 

scenarios. ....................................................................................................................112

5-12. Example of how the predicted change in performance measures from the 

worst-case scenario to best-case scenario might be considered in a 

swing-weighting exercise............................................................................................116 

H-1. Hypothetical consequence table. ...............................................................................187

H-2. Example of how the predicted change in performance measures from the 

worst-case scenario to best-case scenario might be considered in a 

swing-weighting exercise. ...........................................................................................190
xi

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the effort of the peer reviewers who took the time to carefully read and 

greatly improve the report: Lisamarie Carrubba (NOAA), Kasey Jacobs (Caribbean 

Landscape Conservation Cooperative), Paul Sturm (Ridge to Reefs, Inc.), Charles LoBue 

(EPA Region 2), and Marilyn ten Brink, Peg Pelletier and Giancarlo Cicchetti (EPA ORD). 

We also recognize several people for their outstanding contributions to this effort: 

in particular Paul Sturm (Ridge to Reefs, Inc.), and Roberto Viquiera and Louis Meyer 

Comas (Protectores de Cuencas), all of whom have hosted tours, introduced us to 

stakeholders and shared their extensive knowledge of the watershed.

2010 Decision-support workshop - Richard Appeldoorn and Francisco Pagan (University 

of Puerto Rico, Caribbean Coral Reef Institute) hosted the workshop and dedicated staff 

and resources for planning, logistics, and communications. Ann Vega, Joe Williams and 

Walt Galloway (EPA ORD), and Kelly Black and Tom Stockton (Neptune & Company) 

assisted in all aspects of planning. Jorge Garcia-Sais (University of Puerto Rico, 

Mayagüez), Paul Sturm (Center for Watershed Protection), José Castro (USDA/NRCS), 

Kelly Black (Neptune & Company), Tom Stockton (Neptune & Company) and Amanda 

Rehr (Carnegie-Mellon University) provided valuable background presentations. Walt 

Galloway (EPA ORD) facilitated the workshop. Kelly Black (Neptune & Company, Inc.), 

Deb Curaco (Center for Watershed Protection), Leah Oliver (EPA ORD), and Amanda 

Rehr (Carnegie-Mellon University) led the breakout groups. 

2012 Decision-making workshop - Roberto Viquiera (Protectores de Cuencas) graciously 

helped with planning, logistics and facilities. 

2013 Public Values Forum – Roberto Viquiera (Protectores de Cuencas) and Paul Sturm 

(Ridge to Reefs, Inc.) helped identify stakeholders and coordinated logistics. Robin 

Gregory and Julian González (Value Scope Research) deftly facilitated the Forum in both 

English and Spanish. Richard Appeldoorn (University of Puerto Rico, Caribbean Coral 

Reef Institute), Manuel Valdés Pizzini (University of Puerto Rico), and Roberto Viquiera 

(Protectores de Cuencas) provided valuable background information. 

Information on the Biological Condition Gradient was generated through two EPAsponsored workshops that brought together scientists from Puerto Rico, the United 

States’ Virgin Islands, Florida and the Mesoamerican Reef who have expertise in coral 

reef taxonomic groups (e.g., stony corals, fishes, sponges, gorgonians, algae, seagrasses 

and macroinvertebrates), as well as community structure, organism condition, 

ecosystem function and ecosystem connectivity. Debbie Santavy (EPA) and Jeroen 

Gerritsen (TetraTech) facilitated and gave workshop presentations.
xii

Information on economic valuation was provided by Bob Leeworthy (NOAA Office of 

National Marine Sanctuaries), who in partnership with EPA, the University of Puerto 

Rico, Puerto Rico Sea Grant and local agencies and communities are conducting a study 

to provide the economic valuation information for Puerto Rico’s reef-associated tourism 

and recreation. The results can help decision- makers to better understand the real 

costs and benefits of decisions.

Cover photo credit: Deborah Santavy, US EPA, ORD.
xiii

Executive Summary

This report demonstrates the application of a structured decision-making (SDM) process 

in the Guánica Bay watershed (GBW) in southwestern Puerto Rico. SDM is an organized 

approach for helping people, especially groups, identify creative options and make 

informed, defensible and transparent choices. It is particularly useful in complex 

decision situations. SDM has six steps: 1) clarify the decision context; 2) define 

objectives and evaluation criteria; 3) develop alternatives; 4) estimate consequences; 

5) evaluate trade-offs and select alternatives and 6) implement, monitor and review.

Key to the SDM process is the engagement of stakeholders, experts and decision-makers 

in a deliberative environment that deals rigorously with facts and values in 

decision-making.

The Guánica Bay watershed has been a priority for research, assessment and 

management since the 1970s, and since 2008, has been the focus of a U.S. Coral Reef 

Task Force (USCRTF) research initiative involving multiple agencies assembled to address 

the effect of land management decisions on coastal resources. Municipal and 

agricultural growth in the Guánica Bay watershed has provided social and economic 

value but has led to changes in forest cover (highly valued for biodiversity, endangered 

species and ecotourism), declining quality and availability of drinking water, and 

increased sediment and nutrient runoff that adversely affects coastal seagrasses, 

mangroves and coral reefs. Communities in the coastal region, such as the city of 

Guánica, rely partially on fishing and tourism economies, both of which are adversely 

affected by diminishing coastal water quality. In 2008, with funding from NOAA’s Coral 

Reef Conservation Program, the Center for Watershed Protection developed a

Watershed Management Plan (WMP) that included a suite of proposed management 

actions to reduce sediment runoff and its harmful effects in the coastal zone. The WMP 

served as the initial SDM decision context for EPA’s research to generate tools and 

procedures to better inform the decisions made across the watershed and to facilitate 

complementary actions.

Application of SDM in Guánica Bay included archival research on social and economic 

history of the region and three workshops with stakeholders, experts and decisionmakers to explore past decisions, characterize the decision landscape for the WMP, 

and better understand what stakeholders value in the watershed. The workshops 

included detailed discussions of the effects of human activity in the watershed on 

downstream environmental condition and ecosystem services. 
xiv

The outcomes of this investigation and these workshops include: 

• An improved understanding of multiple values and perceptions of citizens

in different communities of the watershed,

• A broader, more comprehensive decision landscape (beyond coral reef

protection), and

• A clearer understanding of the decision alternatives and how they might support

or conflict with different objectives.

Through this process, EPA scientists and members of the USCRTF gained important 

insights to the value of engaging stakeholders early and often in the decision process. 

This report is intended to serve as a demonstration of the techniques and procedures 

used in SDM. 
1 

Chapter 1. Introduction

This report will assist watershed managers, agencies, and organizations involved in 

watershed management to use structured decision-making (SDM). SDM is an organized 

approach for identifying and evaluating alternatives and making defensible choices in 

complex decision situations. SDM has six steps: 1) clarify the decision context; 2) define 

objectives and evaluation criteria; 3) develop alternatives; 4) estimate consequences; 

5) evaluate trade-offs and select alternatives and 6) implement, monitor and review

(Gregory et al. 2012). A key aspect of SDM is the engagement of stakeholders, experts and 

decision-makers to create a deliberative environment that deals rigorously with both facts 

and values in decision-making (Keeney 1992; Gregory and Keeney 2002; Failing et al. 

2007; Gregory et al. 2012). 

Objectives are statements of stakeholders’ values. Objectives can:

• Help determine what information to seek

• Help explain the final decision(s) to others

• Determine a decision’s importance, and consequently, how much time

and effort it deserves

• Help define evaluation criteria for identifying and evaluating alternatives

SDM is expected to serve multiple purposes:

1) It will assist decision-makers and stakeholders to assemble information in an

organized manner, using a systems framework (in this case the DPSIR [Driving

Force, Pressure, State, Impact and Response] framework and the Decision

Landscape). Information and knowledge becomes a shared resource, leading to

better and more informed decisions.

2) It will provide a formal process to engage stakeholders early and often in the

decision process. Stakeholders hold a variety of values and perceptions that may

appear to be conflicting. Particularly valuable in this process is the ability of

stakeholders to hear other viewpoints in a constructive environment and to

recognize that there are ways to move through disagreements. Separating values

and objectives from science facts and knowledge is an important step in this

process.

3) It will also provide better communication between stakeholders and decisionmakers (and between the various federal and territorial agencies) and make

the decision-making process more transparent.
2

4) It will guide strategic thinking by helping decision-makers and stakeholders

to understand how decisions are inter-related and to see what tradeoffs might

occur under different alternatives.

5) Finally, it will support creation of new alternatives that are directly responsive to

stakeholder values, and have a better chance of acceptance and successful

outcome.

The process documented in this report serves as a model for future watershed or 

community studies. The U.S. Coral Reef Task Force members can implement the 

approaches demonstrated in the report in other priority watersheds. The Appendices 

provide tools and references that can be used when implementing SDM.

1.1 Sustainability, the watershed approach and structured 

decision-making 

Decisions are most often made within a very narrow context prescribed by the mission or 

objectives of the decision-maker and decision-making body. The cumulative result is 

multiple independent decisions made at various spatial and temporal scales with little to 

no relationship to each other or to a management plan, much less to a sweeping longterm goal like sustainability. 

Sustainability: “to create and maintain conditions, under which humans and 

nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit fulfilling the social, economic, 

and other requirements of present and future generations” EO 13514.

NRC (2011) provided an operational framework for integrating sustainability within the 

regulatory responsibilities of EPA and recommended that EPAs Office of Research and 

Development (ORD) develop scientific and analytic tools to support this framework. 

Suggested research areas included development of: 

• A suite of decision-support tools for long-term impact analysis and simple decision

tools for use by communities;

• System models capable of providing projections and develop alternative projections

for present and future outcomes for key types of issues; and

• Robust methods that could readily incorporate uncertainty, variability,

vulnerability, and resilience.

In 2011, ORD redesigned its research programs to advance the science of sustainability, 

creating six integrated research programs: Air, Climate and Energy; Safe and Sustainable 

Water Resources; Sustainable and Healthy Communities; Chemical Safety for 

Sustainability; Homeland Security; and Human Health Risk Assessment. In a systemsbased approach, EPA and its partners began to develop integrating decision support tools 
3

(models, methodologies, and technologies) and supporting data and analysis that will 

guide decision makers toward environmental sustainability and sustainable development. 

The Guánica Bay research is a case study under the Sustainable and Healthy Communities 

Research Program (SHCRP). The goal of SHCRP is to inform and empower decision makers 

to equitably weigh and integrate human health, socio-economic, environmental, and 

ecological factors to foster sustainability in the built and natural environments. The 

primary focus of the SHCRP is on developing tools and approaches to help local decision 

makers understand the effects on sustainability of alternative policies and actions 

(EPA 2012a).

Since the mid-1980s, EPA has been working with watershed organizations, tribes, and 

federal, state and territorial agencies to manage water quality through a watershed 

approach. A watershed is the area of land that contributes water flows to a lake, river, 

stream, wetland, estuary, or bay (Fig. 1-1). Land-based sources of pollution pose a major 

threat to water quality in the Nation. Land-based pollutants are transported in surface 

water runoff and by groundwater seepage into coastal waters.

The watershed approach incorporates a broader decision context with explicit 

consideration of social, economic and environmental values. The stakeholders in the 

watershed are actively involved in selecting the management strategies that will be 

implemented to solve the problems. The EPA “Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans 

to Restore and Protect Our Waters” (EPA 2008) provides information on developing and 

implementing watershed management plans that help to restore and protect water 

quality. While each watershed plan will address different issues and reflect unique goals 

and management strategies, every watershed planning process is iterative, holistic, 

geographically defined, integrated, and collaborative (EPA 2008).

EPA is conducting research to generate tools and procedures to better inform the 

decisions made across watersheds, and to facilitate complementary actions and optimal 

fulfillment of multiple objectives. This report introduces results from that research: an 

organizational framework (SDM), a method to elicit multiple stakeholder values and 

objectives, and a method to generate and weigh alternatives that optimally achieve the 

objectives. The report also provides tools to support the application of SDM in a 

watershed context.
4

Figure 1-1. A watershed is an area of land that drains the streams and rainfall to a common outlet, such as 

the mouth of a bay (credit: Whitewater River Alliance 2015). 

The SDM process represents a departure from conventional practices and methods of

regulatory and environmental management. SDM can help decision-makers in a variety 

of ways, including guiding strategic thinking and information collection, improving 

communication, engaging stakeholders, understanding the interconnectedness of 

decisions, and creating new alternatives that are directly responsive to stakeholder 

values. 

Successful decision-making is the result of having:

• Clear objectives

• Creative alternatives

• Defensible impact estimates

• Clarity about fundamental trade-offs

• Honest representation of uncertainty

• A way to update information, and perhaps revise decisions over time,

to reflect new knowledge.

SDM requires a dedicated management force with a thorough grasp of strategic thinking 

and structured decision-making. This requires continued exposure to the process, 

appropriate resources for workshops and public forums, and dedication to improving the 

manner and method of engaging stakeholders in balanced resource protection. 
5

Chapter 2. The Formal Decision Process 

2.1 Background on values and decision-making 

The Latin definition of ‘decision’ is ‘to cut off’ (Merriam-Webster 2013). When faced with 

a choice, a decision-maker considers alternatives from which one is selected and the 

others are cut off. Resources are then committed to the selected alternative (Howard 

1966). In an environment with multiple stakeholder perspectives and limited resources, 

the need to clearly establish what to consider (criteria) for choosing among alternatives is 

necessary to achieve creative, effective, defensible, and robust outcomes (Gregory et al.

2012). Making decisions based on ‘what is important’ is the basis of value-focused

decision-making and is fundamentally distinct from the more common alternative-focused

decision-making that emphasizes the range of possible routes to achieve a single, primary 

objective.

Key concepts: 

• Values are what we fundamentally care about

• Objectives define what matters in the decision and are based upon values

• Alternatives are means to achieve our objectives

Keeney (1992) describes the relationship (Fig. 2-1) between values and alternatives as: 

Values are what we fundamentally care about in decision-making. Alternatives are means 

to achieve our objectives, which are based upon our values. Alternative-focused decisionmaking does consider values, but often only implicitly. They may not be clearly stated and 

thus not fully considered when making a decision. 

Figure 2-1. Relationship between Alternative-Focused Thinking (AFT) and Value-Focused Thinking (VFT) 

for decision-making. The common tendency is to start with AFT without first clarifying and explicitly stating 

the values and criteria that will be used for making a decision. Starting with VFT leads to a more transparent 

and inclusive decision-making process (adapted from Corner et al. 2001).

Alternatives Criteria

AFT VFT
6

Explicitly stating the values, and by extension the objectives and criteria used to define 

and measure their attainment, promotes a more transparent, inclusive, and defensible 

process. It helps to create an environment for fostering options with better prospects for 

desired outcomes and minimal negative impacts (Gregory 1999; Gregory et al. 2012). For 

a decision-maker faced with a multi-faceted decision context involving several viewpoints 

across stakeholder groups, it is beneficial that the identification, creation, evaluation and 

selection of decision alternatives be grounded in the common values of the interested 

parties. Common values are those that most stakeholders will agree upon, i.e., values that 

they share even if at different magnitudes. A decision process that incorporates ValuesFocused Thinking (VFT) (Fig. 2-2) will work toward finding those common values. Although 

adding an extra step in the decision process, VFT gives decision-makers greater flexibility 

in finding acceptable solutions to problems.

Figure 2-2. Approaching decision-making by thinking about values before developing alternatives, 

informs every dimension of the decision process. This leads to better alternatives, greater acceptance by 

stakeholders, and improved chances for successful decision outcomes (adapted from Keeney 1992). 

In brief, these advantages include (Keeney 1992):

• Guiding information collection: Values help prioritize the spending of limited

resources on gathering information relevant to what is important to the

stakeholders;

• Improving communication: VFT keeps the discussion on what is important to the

whole group (all stakeholders) and not on specific, technical aspects of

alternatives;
7

• Involving stakeholders: All parties, regardless of education or socio-economic

status know what is important to them and can communicate those values in VFT;

• Recognizing interconnectedness: Decision-makers make decisions in different

contexts. It is important to be able to see if decisions in one context affect how a

decision will be made in another;

• Guiding strategic thinking: Inter-related decisions show the necessity of clarity of

values for strategic level decision-making;

• Creating alternatives: New alternatives can be created that are directly responsive

to stakeholder values. These have a better chance of acceptance and successful

outcome;

• Avoiding common traps: common traps including anchoring on the first proposed

alternative can hamper decisions, accepting constraints as immoveable, avoiding

discussions of controversial tradeoffs, and rushing to premature solutions

(Gregory et al. 2012).

2.2 Description

In many cases, single issue, well-defined decisions do not need a formal methodology for 

successful outcomes. Everyday decisions (e.g., when to hold a meeting or the best travel 

route to work) are quickly made with available information and common sense guided by 

experience. For most environmental decision-making, however, experience alone is 

insufficient. There are significant information inputs required from environmental, 

economic, and social sciences, coupled with the inherent uncertainty of natural systems. 

Keeney (1982) described the emerging discipline of Decision Analysis (DA) as “a 

formalization of common sense for decisions that were too complex for the informal use of 

common sense.” 

Applying the ideas of value-based decision-making to complex environmental 

management problems requires a conceptual framework or formalized process to ensure 

that a decision is consistent with stakeholder values, cognizant of tradeoffs among 

alternatives, and accounts for associated uncertainties and risks. While there are several 

formulations for decision analysis (Gregory et al. 2006; Gregory and Keeney 2002) two 

formal processes are highlighted here as examples. Table 2-1 shows the sequential steps 

in a generic DA process with a brief description of what is entailed in each step.
8

Table 2-1. A generic formalized decision process consistent with values-based 

decision-making illustrating the Decision Analysis (DA) concept (source: Carriger 

and Benson 2012). 

Generic steps in a decision analysis process

Decision context The reason for a decision opportunity

Objectives Expressions of what is valued in the decision opportunity

Alternatives The choices needed to fulfill the objectives

Prospects The potential outcomes from the decisions and their uncertainties

Trade-offs The willingness of stakeholders to accept more or less of one objective 

for another

Recommendations The optimal strategy for achieving the objectives

Any decision with personal and/or societal ramifications has intended or unintended 

consequences. The consequences that stakeholders care about are considered values. 

The decision analysis field provides tools and frameworks for identifying values and 

making them explicit in a decision context with important ramifications. In multistakeholder deliberation processes, the objectives step can be regarded as an opportunity 

to elicit and include the values of stakeholders within a decision analysis.

The aim of DA is to construct a model of the decision that is amenable to analysis and 

computation for the evaluation of alternatives (Howard 1966). An overall decision process 

(e.g., Table 2-1) makes the goals of DA possible and is consistent with value-based 

decision-making, as shown in the Objectives step (expressions of what is valued). A 

decision process facilitates these goals through the integration of science and fact-based 

information with stakeholder-derived values in an analytic-deliberative structure (Gregory 

et al. 2006; Failing et al. 2007).

The SDM approach in Fig. 2-3 (Gregory et al. 2013) is very similar to the process outlined 

in Table 2-1. The SDM formulation includes the additional step of implementing the 

decision and monitoring to evaluate the results against stated values. Thus, each 

management decision sets the context for the next round of decision-making. It is this 

emphasis on the adaptive nature of environmental decision-making that makes SDM the 

operational framework for decisions that will be used throughout this report. 
9

Figure 2-3. The structured decision-making (SDM) formal decision process. This approach exemplifies the 

iterative nature of environmental decision-making and the need to monitor and adapt to changing

conditions (adapted from Gregory et al. 2012). 

2.3 Why SDM is needed

A generation ago, environmental degradation had become so widespread that concerted 

government-mandated remedies became a necessity. For the most acute problems (e.g. 

untreated sewage in waterways, smog-filled cities and unchecked industrial pollution), 

science-based, straightforward technical solutions yielded rapid and relatively effective 

results. Such results were deemed successful when end-of-pipe single pollutant levels in 

a single medium (i.e. suspended solids in effluent, or sulfur oxides in exhaust) met 

legislated levels.

As these readily defined, acute problems were being addressed, more intractable 

problems came into focus with unpopular trade-offs resulting from mandated approaches 

(Gamper and Turcanu 2007). Increased and better science, and technological innovation 

can help offset some of the trade-offs, but the future role of science and technology for 

environmental management will require clarity of values (Gregory et al. 2006) and a 

logical process for linking values to alternative development and risk-based evaluation 

(Reckhow 1994; EPA 2009; Rehr et al. 2012). 

Clarify the 

decision 

context

Define 

objectives and 

measures

Develop 

alternatives

Estimate 

consequences

Evaluate 

tradeoffs and 

select

Implement, 

monitor and 

review
10

There is increasing recognition that top-down regulatory and technology-driven responses 

are not sufficient (Grossarth and Hecht 2007) to address current and emerging 

environmental challenges such as climate change, sustainable communities and 

environmental justice (Fig. 2-4). Rittel and Weber (1973) describe pervasive 

environmental problems with economic constraints and conflicting social values as 

“wicked” in contrast to the “tame” problems that are amenable to regulation and 

technical solutions. Management of the Guánica Bay watershed is an example of a 

“wicked’ problem. 

Figure 2-4. SDM supports better informed decision-making. People will be better equipped to make tough 

choices when they have the best alternatives and analyses available (photo credit: Diane O’Keefe). 

Such problems require new ways to understand the scientific, economic and social 

interactions, to develop sustainable solutions and to foster effective environmental 

decision-making. These new approaches neither negate nor reduce the role of biophysical 

science; rather there is a need to better integrate biophysical science into an appropriate 

context for more effective decision-making. Recognizing this need, EPA, a federal agency 

mandated to regulate and control pollution, is adopting practices to promote 

sustainability through stewardship and collaborative problem solving (Grossarth and 

Hecht 2007). Central to these practices is ongoing research into development and use of 

processes, ideas and tools for incorporating decision, behavioral, and social sciences into 

existing environmental research (EPA 2009; EPA 2012b). 
11

2.4 How SDM is used

The SDM decision process is “...the facilitated and collaborative application of 

multi-objective decision-making and group deliberation methods to environmental 

management...” and is encapsulated in two broad aims (Gregory et al. 2012):

• Build common understanding of a complex problem

• Identify and evaluate management alternatives

The usefulness of an SDM process is based on the rigor it applies to structuring and 

analyzing the values and preferences of stakeholders. Without this structure, decisionmakers may run the risk of applying resources to the wrong problem and potentially 

exacerbating an already contentious management issue (Carriger and Benson 2012). 

The broad aims listed are both qualitative (building common understanding) and 

quantitative (evaluate alternatives), so the tools for SDM include both. 

Some of the tools and concepts include:

• Driving Force, Pressure, State, Impact and Response (DPSIR) model: This is

a conceptual systems modeling approach that seeks to graphically and

comprehensively capture the socio-economic, environmental and human health

relationships for a decision context (Yee et al. 2011, 2012a, 2014a; Rehr et al. 2012;

Bradley et al. 2014b). It also provides a means to begin thinking about remedial

actions (Responses) and how they fit in the overall system.

• Objectives Hierarchies: A formalized method to identify, describe, and structure the

key objectives stemming from the decision context (Gregory and Keeney 2002). An

objectives hierarchy organizes objectives from broad, overarching goals

(fundamental objectives) to narrower, more specific objectives (means objectives).

This formal structure allows decision-makers to view each alternative in context of

the broader objective to which it contributes, and also to the specific objectives that

contribute to it (Bradley et al. 2014b).

• Swing Weighting: A rigorous way to rank and assign relative stakeholder

preferences for objectives to be used in a quantitative assessment of alternatives

(Gregory et al. 2012). In the swing weight method, stakeholders describe the worst

consequences of a decision and then are asked to identify which attribute they

would prefer most to change from its worst outcome to its best outcome. Swing

weighting ranks objectives by “swinging” the value measure from its worst to

its best level.
12

• Influence Diagram: An intuitive visual display of a decision problem that depicts the

key elements, including decisions, uncertainties and objectives as nodes of various

shapes and colors. It shows influences among them as arrows. Implemented in

software applications, they are a powerful way to conduct quantitative assessment

of alternatives through the use of multi-objective decision models.

The use of these tools and others within a SDM process have been applied to a wide range 

of decision problems including management of lake eutrophication (Reckhow 1994), 

watershed management (Ohlson and Serveiss 2007), dolphin conservation (Conroy et al. 

2008), municipal solid waste management (Chambal et al. 2003) and coral reef 

management (Rehr et al. 2012). With increasing opportunities for collaboration via the 

Internet, web-based decision-analytic architectures are developing for e-participation in 

decision-making (French et al. 2007; Black and Stockton 2009). EPA is also involved in this 

area of research with the ongoing development of a web-based application Decision 

Analysis for a Sustainable Environment, Economy, and Society DASEES (EPA 2012b). The 

DASEES approach is consistent with SDM and utilizes many of the same decision tools in 

the overall process. 

Concerns raised about an SDM process are that it sounds expensive and time consuming 

(Gregory et al. 2012). Because SDM places emphasis on problem structuring, it can 

ultimately reduce costs, or minimally shift costs, by helping to focus expensive data 

gathering efforts on the information most needed for the decision at hand. SDM is a 

flexible framework that can be adapted to a variety of budgets and timelines (Table 2-2), 

and numerous examples exist of SDM processes ranging from 1 day to 2 years (Gregory et 

al. 2012). While it is true that an SDM process may require more time in the early stages, 

the time spent building a common understanding and prioritizing information needs and 

help streamline later steps. 
13

Table 2-2. Examples of possible SDM processes of varying levels of budget and timeline

(source: Gregory et al. 2012).

Timeline or 

Budget SDM Meeting Plan

Fast timeline

(<6 months)

Small budget

1. Decision sketching: Quickly sketch through decision context, objectives,

alternatives, consequences, tradeoffs; identify “low hanging fruit” that can be

initiated quickly

Medium 

timeline

(6-18 months)

Medium 

budget

1. Clarify decision context, objectives, & alternatives: Develop a work plan; confirm

roles and responsibilities; confirm objectives that will be used as evaluation

criteria; develop menu of alternatives

2. Review existing information with technical experts: Identify key uncertainties

where more information is needed

3. Work with technical experts to conduct assessment of alternatives: Identify

performance measures; conduct evaluations (expert opinion, quantitative

analyses) to compare alternatives

4. Review consequences of alternatives and make draft recommendations: Uncover

tradeoffs and find balance across competing objectives;

5. Make a decision and develop a strategy for implementing the plan: Develop

a plan, including plans for monitoring and addressing critical uncertainties

moving forward

Slower timeline

(1-5 years)

Larger budget

1. Decision process: Develop a work plan; confirm roles and responsibilities

2. Decision sketching: Build a common understanding of the scope of the problem

3. Define objectives: Confirm objectives that will be used as evaluation criteria

4. Specify performance measures: Define the evaluation criteria with help from

expert judgment

5. Develop alternatives: Develop a preliminary menu of alternatives

6. Identify information needs: Identify key uncertainties where more information is

needed

7. Technical working group: Identify technical needs and process

8. Technical field work and analysis: Conduct field work, modeling, or expert groups

as needed to evaluate consequences

9. Round 1 alternatives & consequences: Review outcomes from technical

evaluations; identify potential tradeoffs; revise objectives, performance

measures, or alternatives as necessary; conduct additional technical evaluations

as necessary to revise;

10.Round 2 alternatives & consequences: Explore tradeoffs; identify areas

of agreement;

11.Make a decision and develop a strategy for implementing: Develop a plan,

including plans for monitoring and addressing critical uncertainties moving

forward

12.Monitor and review: Conduct technical monitoring and field work to evaluate

success of plan; adapt as necessary moving forward
14

2.5 Guánica Bay, Puerto Rico, case study

In this report, we provide an example of the decision process for an ongoing case study in 

the Guánica Bay watershed, in southwest Puerto Rico. EPA became involved in this study

when the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force (USCRTF) selected Guánica Bay as the first priority

watershed in its multi-agency initiative to reduce watershed impacts on coral reefs. The

report includes results from a 2010 stakeholder workshop to clarify the decision context

(Chapter 3), information from archival research into the economic and political history

related to the decision context (Chapter 3), summaries of two workshops that 

characterized historical decision-making and better defined stakeholder objectives and 

values (Chapter 4), an overview of ongoing EPA research to provide data, information and

tools to forecast the potential outcomes of different decision options (Chapter 5) and a 

synopsis of the Guánica Bay decision landscape as captured by the EPA tool DASEES in a 

stepwise decision analytic process (Chapter 6). A summary evaluation of the process and 

its apparent utility in the Guánica Bay watershed study is also provided (Chapter 7). 

The Appendices provide supplemental information and tools that can be used in the

SDM process.
15

Chapter 3. Clarify the Decision Context

Environmental decisions, particularly complex intractable decisions with unpopular 

tradeoffs, will commonly have multiple stakeholder perspectives and require a variety of 

data and information from environmental, economic and social sciences. Decision-makers 

can follow a reasonably structured process that assembles information in a manner that 

facilitates examination of the decision alternatives and likely tradeoffs. Gathering and 

organizing information relevant to the decision is creating a decision landscape. As the 

decision landscape is shaped, the decision context should transform to a clearer and more 

workable focus.

3.1 The decision landscape 

The decision landscape is a characterization of issues surrounding a potential decision, 

such as the scale, science underpinnings, decision-makers and affected stakeholders

(Rehr et al. 2012). The first step in describing the decision landscape is to frame the 

decision context, which is the problem, issue, or reason for making a decision, all of which 

defines the scope of the information that will be needed (Gregory et al. 2012). The 

decision context can be narrow (nutrient loadings from a wastewater treatment plant are 

too high) or broad (unsustainable management of watershed resources), but the context 

must be relevant to the decision-making potential. For example, context for the narrow 

case above (nutrient loadings) must have some potential for nutrient management within 

the available options and context for the broader case (watershed sustainability) must 

have some potential for influencing socioeconomic policy. The decision context is 

probably easier to develop first in communication with a few key stakeholders; it may be 

adapted and refined throughout the ensuing process with information gained from 

others, but a thoughtful initial attempt will save later controversy and challenge. This 

initial stage can also help define who needs to be involved in the process and what role 

will they play. For example, a collaborative multi-stakeholder committee may be deeply 

involved in all the SDM steps, consulting periodically with technical experts or public 

representatives, and ultimately providing recommendations to a decision-maker. 

The decision landscape is drawn from and constrained by the decision context; it is 

intended to identify and organize information relevant to the problem, values, 

alternatives and tradeoffs in a decision context. 
16

Initial characterization of a decision landscape should include: 

a) Scale of the decision: How big an area, how long a time, how many communities,

will be affected?

b) Facts and current knowledge: What is known about relationships between pieces

of the decision puzzle (i.e., effects of stressors and potential benefits of reducing 

them)? 

c) Current condition: What is the status of the issue and why is a decision needed

now instead of later?

d) Unintended consequences: What else, other than its intended purpose, will the

decision affect?

e) Decision-makers: Who would be making the decision or components of the

decision? Who would be funding the actions if decisions were made? Who 

authorizes the different steps of a potential action?

f) Stakeholders: Who will be positively affected and who will be negatively affected?

How have stakeholders been engaged in the past?

g) Legal status: Who owns or is responsible for property that might be altered by

decisions? What laws are applicable and who is responsible for enforcing them?

h) History: What decisions have been made in the past and how did they lead to the

current situation? Are planning or visioning documents already developed that are

relevant to the issue?

The decision landscape is useful only if it can be communicated to decision-makers and 

stakeholders. A graphic representation (e.g., Fig. 3-1) or flow chart of the issue to be 

resolved and the likely effects of different decisions on the things that people care about 

is very useful. Another possibility is an issue paper (or ‘white paper’) that describes the 

decision context and provides an overview of the issues affecting decision alternatives 

and tradeoffs. The overview can be at a basic level to satisfy most stakeholders with 

appendices or additional material available to technical experts and those who want 

greater detail. Characterization and communication of the decision landscape should be 

unbiased (i.e., should present information without predisposition for a particular decision 

outcome). 
17

Figure 3-1. Components and key relationships in an environmental management Decision Landscape 

(source: Rehr et al. 2012).

The following is the process used to characterize the decision landscape for the Guánica 

Bay watershed in southwestern Puerto Rico. It describes the initial decision context 

(Section 3.2), a systems framework for generating a comprehensive decision landscape 

(Section 3.3), a workshop summary that led to better understanding and a ‘sketch’ of the 

decision landscape (Section 3.4), a summary of archival literature research to characterize 

the broader landscape and tradeoffs that covered a range of environmental, economic, 

and social outcomes (Section 3.5) and a re-casting of the decision context in the broader 

scope (Section 3.6). Additional historic information is provided in Appendix A. 

This Guánica Bay watershed example illustrates a decision context that is initially limited 

in scope (i.e., one or two focused objectives). When a systems framework is used to 

examine these objectives, it leads to a comprehensive assessment of issues, a broader list 

of objectives, multiple decisions, and a broader group of stakeholders. Anticipating these 

multiple decisions and including them in the discussion can reasonably be expected to 

satisfy more stakeholders. Guidance to develop the decision landscape is provided in 

Appendix B. 
18

3.2 Initial decision context for coral reef protection at 

Guánica Bay 

Coral reefs are present along the entire southern coast of Puerto Rico and some of the 

most attractive reefs for snorkeling and diving occur on and around the cays near La 

Parguera in the municipality of Lajas, which is west and down current of Guánica Bay. 

Coral reefs in the areas of La Parguera and Guánica are a valued natural resource and a 

mainstay of the coastal recreation and tourism economy (Fig. 3-2). 

Figure 3-2. Coral reefs fringe the southwestern coast of Puerto Rico and provide coastal recreation and 

tourism opportunities. 

Puerto Rico has used images of their pristine coral reefs and biologically diverse mountain 

forests to promote ecotourism (Fig. 3-3). 

Figure 3-3. Images of coral reefs in the areas of La Parguera and Guánica illustrate their natural beauty

(photo credits: Alan Humphrey, EPA and Jon McBurney, Lockheed Martin). 
19

The Puerto Rico legislature has passed several laws to promote the ecotourism industry: 

• 1998 - Law 340 that established a public policy for promoting ecotourism with the

intention to create an Ecotourism Board.

• 2006 - Law 254 “Law for the Sustainable Development of Tourism in Puerto Rico”,

which is administrated by the Puerto Rico Tourism Company (PRTC).

In June 2013, the PRTC formed an Interagency Commission to coordinate efforts at the 

Commonwealth government level for optimal development and promotion of sustainable 

tourism, as well as ecotourism throughout the island. In the southwest, the PRTC has 

established a tourism route through the towns of Yauco, Utuado, Guánica, Sabana 

Grande, Maricao and Las Marías to highlight the natural ecologies and habitats of 

the region.

The presence of coral reefs has made the Guánica Bay area a priority for investigation, 

assessment and management. 

• 1978: The Puerto Rico Coastal Zone Management Program (PRCZMP) designated

eight areas as Special Protection Areas (SPA), including the Southwest, which was

divided into three sectors – La Parguera, Guánica and Boquerón (DRNA et al. 2008).

The PRCZMP also recommended the designation of 12 areas as natural reserves

because of the quality and extent of coral reefs, including the Guánica State Forest.

Guánica State Forest was added to the PRCZMP in 1988 (DRNA et al. 2008;

NOAA et al. 2009).

• 1978: The Federal Court approved the first Order of Consent between EPA and

PRASA for violation to the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 88 of 97 wastewater treatment

plants (WWTPs) owned at the time by PRASA (91% of the WWTPs). Guánica and

Lajas WWTPs were subject to the original 1978 Court Order (U.S. v. PRASA,

Civil Action 78-0038 (CC) 1978)

• 1985: The U.S. District Court amended the 1978 Court Order and imposed sewer

connection limitations to about 40 WWTPs. Guánica and Lajas WWTPs were subject

to this ban (U.S. v. PRASA, Civil Action 78-0038 (TR), 83-0105 (TR) 1985).

• 1997: The Federal Court approved a stipulation requiring PRASA to identify WWTPs

that needed Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT) (U.S. v. PRASA, Civil Action 78-

0038 (CC) and 83-0105 (CC) 1997). Lajas WWTP was required to either be upgraded

or to relocate its outfall to a larger stream with an increased assimilative capacity

(Vincenty Heres & Lauria et al. 1997). The plant was upgraded to tertiary treatment.
20

• 1997: EPA filed a criminal case and civil suit against the Copamarina Beach Resort

and its operators for discharging sanitary sewage directly into the Caribbean Sea

without a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. In 2000

EPA and Copamarina signed a Consent Decree that required Copamarina to pay a

civil penalty of $200,000 to the U.S. and permanently barred the resort from

discharging any pollutants.

• 1998: Gregory Morris & Associates, Inc. conducted two studies on the impacts of

restoring the historic Guánica Lagoon for the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and

Environmental Resources (DNER), which was funded by EPA (GMA 1999a&b).

• 1999-2002: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Puerto

Rico Coral Reef Monitoring Program (PRCRMP), administered by Puerto Rico DNER,

was implemented in nine reserves (Mayagüez Bay, Desecheo Island, Mona Island,

Rincón, Guánica, Caja de Muerto Island, Ponce Bay, La Parguera, Cordillera de

Fajardo, and the islands of Culebra and Vieques) to provide a baseline

characterization of Puerto Rico’s coral reefs and to monitor water quality (GarcíaSais et al. 2001a, 2001b, 2001c, 2001d, 2004, 2005, 2006; Hernández-Delgado 2003).

• 2002: The USCRTF identified the need for action at the local level to reduce key

threats to coral reefs in the seven states and territories with significant coral reef

resources (Florida, Hawai’i, American Samoa, CNMI, Guam, Puerto Rico and USVI).

PR DNER formed an interagency partnership to develop the Local Action Strategy.

• 2004: NOAA’s Coral Reef Conservation Program and the Center for Watershed

Protection (CWP) held a capacity building workshop in San Juan that focused on the

Local Action Strategies for each jurisdiction. Workshop participants decided that

each jurisdiction should have a watershed of emphasis to serve as a demonstration

that could be tied to effects of land-based sources of pollution on coral reefs. NOAA

and CWP chose Guánica Bay Watershed because of prior coral reef work by NOAA’s

PRCRMP; the strong DNER leadership and stakeholder engagement at the Guánica

State Forest; and former studies of the historic Guánica Lagoon (personal

conversations with Jen Kozlowski and Anne Kitchell).

• 2004: The University of Puerto Rico (UPR – M), in collaboration with the Puerto Rico

DNER and funded by NOAA, established the Caribbean Coral Reef Institute (CCRI) at

the Magueyes Island Marine Laboratory in La Parguera, PR. CCRI has been

conducting research and ecosystem assessment activities around Puerto Rico,

including the coastal areas near Guánica and La Parguera.
21

• 2005-2007: NOAA conducted the Coral Reef Habitat Assessment for Puerto Rico

at 40 Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) including the Guánica State Forest Natural

Reserve and Biosphere Reserve. As part of the assessment, NOAA mapped and

calculated the areal extent of the benthic habitats (NOAA 2009).

• 2006: EPA closed the 1978 Court Order and other administrative open orders issued

to PRASA. The same year EPA and PRASA signed a Consent Decree that addressed

PRASA's CWA violations involving discharges in violation of its NPDES permits; failure

to operate and properly maintain all 61 wastewater treatment plants in Puerto Rico;

and discharges of raw sewage from seven collection systems. Under the terms of the

Consent Decree, PRASA paid a $1 million penalty, undertook a Supplemental

Environment Project valued at $3 million, and implemented injunctive relief valued

at approximately $1.7 billion. PRASA agreed to complete 145 short-term, mid-term

and/or long-term capital improvement projects at its wastewater treatment plants

(including construction of a new Biological Nutrient Removal [BNR] treatment plant

providing tertiary treatment in Guánica) over the next 15 years.

• 2007: PRASA was able to construct a BNR module for the Guánica WWTP with

a capacity of 1.25MGD.1

• 2008: EPA issued an administrative compliance order against Puerto Rico

National Parks Company from the Caña Gorda Public Beach WWTP for discharging

pollutants into the sea without an NPDES permit.2

1 The BNR didn’t have enough inflow to operate because the projects for the new hookups were not completed. In 

2011, PRASA decided to start operations of the BNR since part of the hookup projects have been completed. 

However, the BNR needed to undergo through some repairs in order to starts operations because several parts have 

been deteriorated due to the years that was out of service. In August 2015, the BNR finally started up. 2 The NPDES permit was issued on 2009. On 2014, EPA sent to the PR National Parks Company (NPC) a letter to show 

cause for failure to comply with its permit effluent limits. The PR NPC opted to stop their discharge and to haul their 

effluent into PRASA Guánica WWTP.
22

3.2.1 Initial decision context

Across the Caribbean, coral reefs are dying from the cumulative effect of global and local 

factors (Hughes 1994; Jackson et al. 2001, 2012, 2014; Knowlton 2001; Morelock et al. 

2001; Pandolfi et al. 2003; García-Sais et al. 2005; Pandolfi and Jackson 2006; Alvarez-Filip 

et al. 2009). Among the local factors are sediment, nutrient and contaminant efflux from 

human activities in the adjacent watershed. This is the case for Guánica Bay. Coral reefs

near Guánica and La Parguera have declined, with dramatic reductions in living colonies of 

reef-building stony corals like the Boulder Star Coral, Orbicella annularis (Fig. 3-4). 

Figure 3-4. Reef-building stony corals formed the structure of Caribbean reefs (e.g., Orbicella annularis

[left] and Acropora palmata [right]) (photo credits: left - Charlie Veron; right - Alfredo Montañez Acuña, 

UPR). 

Bleaching events in 1981, 1987, 1990, 1998 and 2005 caused by elevated sea surface 

temperature have also adversely affected stony corals (Williams and Bunkley-Williams 

1989, 1990; Williams et al. 1987; Goenega et al. 1989; Velazco-Domínguez et al. 2003; 

García-Sais et al. 2006, 2008; Miller and Lugo 2009). Disease outbreaks have increased in 

number, prevalence and spatial distribution (Gladfelter 1982; Weil et al. 2003, 2009; Weil 

and Rogers 2011; Bruckner and Bruckner 1997, 2006; Cróquer and Weil 2009; Harvell et 

al. 2009), causing further decline in stony coral communities. 

Furthermore, other coral reef assemblages have shown signs of disease and have been 

affected by bleaching, including octocorals and hydrocorals (Weil et al. 2002; Weil 2004; 

Toledo-Hernández et al. 2007, 2009; Prada et al. 2009; Flynn and Weil 2009), crustose

coralline algae (Weil 2004; Ballantine et al. 2005), zoanthids and sponges (Weil 2004; Weil 

et al. 2006; Weil et al 2009).
23

Massive fishing pressure has also adversely impacted Puerto Rico’s coral reefs. Large 

vertebrates (e.g., the green turtle, hawksbill turtle, manatee and Caribbean monk seal) 

have been decimated in the central and northern Caribbean Sea, herbivores and 

predators were reduced to very small fishes and sea urchins (Jackson 1997).

The problem (issue) is that coral reefs, which are highly valued for tourism and recreation, 

fisheries, shoreline protection and natural products (i.e., sources and templates for 

pharmaceuticals, biochemicals, and biomaterials), are declining from the effects of 

multiple stressors (Warne et al. 2005; CWP 2008). Some of these stressors (e.g., landbased sources of pollution) might be reduced or alleviated through changes in human 

activities in the watershed. 

The decision-maker in the initial decision context is the USCRTF (see below). There is a 

reasonable presumption by the USCRTF that many, if not most, stakeholders would prefer 

to preserve the services delivered by healthy reefs. The SDM process should include all 

those alternatives (management options) that might be employed to stop or reverse the 

decline. The reason for making a decision now rather than later is to reverse the trend 

before the damage is irreparable and the valuable services provided are lost forever. 

3.2.2 Decision-maker: U.S. Coral Reef Task Force

The USCRTF is responsible for assisting U.S. jurisdictions (States, Territories and 

Commonwealths) in protecting the coral reef ecosystem. Based on the results of the 

2007 workshop and discussions with DNER and CWP, NOAA contracted the CWP to 

develop a WMP for the Guánica Bay Watershed (Fig. 3-5). 

The CWP conducted interviews with natural resource managers, academics, local farmers 

and residents to better understand Guánica Bay and its watershed. CWP compiled the 

findings of the interviews with the results of a weeklong field survey, including assessment 

of stream channels and point sources, and visits to representative areas to evaluate 

restoration and conservation opportunities. The resulting report Guánica Bay Watershed 

Management Plan (CWP 2008) not only identified potential sources of pollution but 

proposed several actions to reduce pollution in watershed runoff, including agricultural 

practices, river- and stream-bank erosion and improved sewage treatment at the Guánica 

wastewater treatment plant. The WMP also identified actions to reduce sediment loads in 

reservoirs and restoration of an historic lagoon in the Lajas Valley to filter pollutants from 

waters entering Guánica Bay. The rationale for all proposed actions was to reduce 

physical, chemical and biological stressors in effluent waters with the objective of 

protecting resources in the watershed, including coral reefs, from land-based sources 

of pollution.
24

Figure 3-5. The 2008 Guánica Bay Watershed Management Plan identified potential sources of pollution 

and proposed a series of management actions.

In 2009, the USCRTF initiated a Watershed Initiative to better incorporate land-based 

sources of pollution and socio-economic considerations of those living in the watershed 

into strategies for coral reef protection. During its 2009 meeting in San Juan, Puerto Rico, 

the USCRTF selected Guánica Bay as the location of its first multi-agency priority 

watershed. A driving force for the selection of Guánica Bay was the availability of the 

WMP (CWP 2008). 

In Guánica, the USCRTF has combined the efforts of NOAA, CWP, EPA, US Department of 

Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA/NRCS), US Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS), Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (DNER), 

Puerto Rico Department of Agriculture (PRDA), Puerto Rico Land Authority (PRLA), US 

Geological Survey (USGS), University of Puerto Rico (UPR), Puerto Rico Electric Power 

Authority (PREPA), and Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA). The 

consortium of agencies has therefore become a stakeholder and decision-maker in the 

Guánica Bay watershed. 

The USCRTF watershed initiative and the WMP demonstrate alternative-focused thinking

(i.e., seeking alternatives on a particular issue prior to formally characterizing the broader 

values and objectives of stakeholders). The driving force for the WMP was to guard 

against and reverse the effects of land-based sources of pollution in the watershed. While

care was taken to incorporate the concerns of many stakeholders, particularly farmers, 

into the WMP, the focus was identifying and characterizing alternative actions rather than 

stakeholder values. In value-focused thinking (and SDM), the values and objectives of 

stakeholders, in a formal elicitation process, would have been documented before 

alternatives were proposed. 
25

3.3 Systems thinking and systems diagrams

Scientists often take an analytic or reductionist approach to solving problems: splitting 

complex phenomena into elementary parts to better understand the individual processes

(e.g., molecular biology). But modern environmental decision-making cannot be about 

individual processes or isolated issues. ‘Systems thinking’ is an approach to problem 

solving that is based on the belief that the component parts of a system are best 

understood not in isolation but in the context of relationships and interactions with one 

another and with other systems (von Bertalanffy 1972). The USCRTF focus in Guánica Bay 

is an example of a reductionist approach, applying resources to address a single issue (i.e., 

coral reef protection) relatively isolated from consideration of impinging factors and 

unintended outcomes. A systems approach considers more than one issue and broadens 

the decision context. While it is more costly and time consuming, the systems approach

should ultimately provide better information for decision-making. 

There are several core principles about how systems function (AST 2008):

• Feedback: performance of organizations and systems is largely determined by a web

of interconnected circular (not linear) relationships;

• Delay: actions have both immediate and delayed consequences;

• Unintended consequences: today's problems are too often yesterday's solutions;

• Awareness: comprehending the relative benefits of the various options, as well

as the underlying factors and trade-offs; and

• Leverage: systems will improve with a few key coordinated changes sustained

over time.

A systems approach is built on the understanding that everything affected by a change is 

connected to something else that may also be affected. Not every effect will be 

important, but it is worth going through the process to make sure all possible 

consequences have been considered. 

One framework supporting a systems approach is the DPSIR, which has been a valuable 

tool for organizing and communicating complex environmental issues. The DPSIR 

framework was developed by the European Environmental Agency (EEA 1999) and has 

been used by the United Nations (UNEP 2007).

The framework (Fig. 3-6) assumes cause-effect relationships among interacting 

components of social, economic, and environmental systems (Pierce 1998; Smeets and 

Weterings 1999). These are:

• Driving Forces: Socio-economic sectors that describe basic needs of human society

(i.e., food, water, fuel and shelter) and secondary needs (i.e., recreation, cultural

heritage and sense of place)
26

• Pressures: Driving Force-generated emissions and land use changes that affect the

environment

• State: Status of the environment and ecological resources, including attributes that

provide services

• Impacts: Changes in delivery of ecosystem goods and services as a consequence of

changes in ecological state

• Responses: Societal reactions to changes in ecosystem services, values and

sustainability (e.g., management actions)

Figure 3-6. The DPSIR (Driving Forces, Pressures, State, Impacts, Responses) framework and conceptual 

relationships among DPSIR sectors (source: Bradley et al. 2014b). 

EPA’s ORD has used the DPSIR approach to generate conceptual maps for examining

socioeconomic implications of coral reef management actions (Yee et al. 2011). 

Information gained from a decision-support workshop in Puerto Rico (described in 

Section 2.4), from two previous workshops in U.S. Virgin Islands and the Florida Keys, and 

from discussions with expert focus groups and literature reviews, has led EPA to develop a

coral reef DPSIR conceptual map (Fig. 3-7) that is presented in greater detail at EPA’s 

ReefLink web site (EPA 2014a). A DPSIR tutorial prepared by EPA is also available (EPA 

2014b). EPA is also developing a DPSIR technical support document (Bradley and Yee 

2015).
27

Figure 3-7. A coral reef DPSIR (Driving Forces, Pressures, State, Impacts, Responses) conceptual map 

developed by EPA using information from workshops held in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico 

and the Florida Keys, discussions with expert focus groups, and literature. (Note: the Driving Forces, 

Pressures, Impacts and Responses boxes have been collapsed. More detail is included 

at www.epa.gov/ged/coralreef. Boxes are color-coded to follow the scheme used in Fig. 3-6 (e.g., light 

green=Driving Forces; dark green=Pressures; orange=State; pink=Impacts; and purple=Responses).
28

3.4 Coral reef and coastal ecosystems decision-support 

workshop 

In 2010, the U.S. EPA and the CCRI hosted a Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decisionsupport Workshop at La Parguera, Puerto Rico (Bradley et al. 2014b). Forty-three 

representatives from Federal and Commonwealth government agencies, nongovernmental organizations and academic institutions, and citizens from the Guánica Bay 

watershed participated (Fig. 3-8), (Appendix C). 

Figure 3-8. Forty-three representatives from Federal and Commonwealth government agencies, nongovernmental organizations and academic institutions, and citizens from the Guánica Bay watershed 

participated in the 2010 Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision-support Workshop at La Parguera, 

Puerto Rico.

The workshop served as an exercise in decision-sketching (Gregory et al. 2012) which is a 

means to quickly identify preliminary information on objectives and possible measures, a 

range of possible management actions and their consequences, and key pieces of 

information and their uncertainties. Sketching can help to identify what key stakeholder 

groups or decision-makers are needed for participation in future workshops and what 

kinds of information may be needed for future analysis. 

The three key steps to decision sketching are (modified from Gregory et al. 2012):

1. Framing the decision: What is the decision? Who are the decision-makers?

What is the relationship to other decisions? What is the goal?

2. Developing the sketch: What is the range of objectives and alternatives under

consideration? What information is known and are there critical gaps? What

trade-offs or uncertainties are likely to be most critical?

3. Planning the consultation and analysis: Given what you've learned, what tools

and information are needed?

Academic

Federal

Commonwealth

Municipal

NGO

Citizen

Corporate
29

The workshop was designed to garner stakeholder and decision-maker input to develop a 

decision analysis framework for addressing problems related to human activities (e.g., 

agriculture, urbanization, sediment and nutrient loads, stormwater run-off and wetland 

loss) believed to be damaging to coastal resources (Appendix D). The workshop was 

invaluable for fleshing out the decision landscape (Bradley et al. 2014b). 

3.4.1 Framing the decision

Three presentations were given at the outset of the workshop, each designed to help 

frame the decision context. These included an overview of declining coral reefs in 

southwestern Puerto Rico (presented by Jorge Garcia-Sais, Department of Marine 

Sciences, UPRM), an overview of plans by USDA/NRCS to reduce soil erosion in the 

watershed (presented by José Castro, USDA/NRCS), and a summary of the alternatives 

proposed by CWP in the WMP to protect coral reefs from further degradation (presented 

by Paul Sturm, Center for Watershed Protection). This information provided a common 

basis of understanding for the participants. 

The next session was initiated with a presentation on systems thinking and the DPSIR 

framework. This set the stage for three facilitated breakout groups to discuss and 

characterize specific decision scenarios that had been outlined in the management plan; 

these were (Bradley et al. 2014b): 

1) Change Agricultural Practices

- Removal of historic irrigation system

- Stream bank riparian plantings near farms

- Cover crops at high elevation farms

- Switch from sun to shade grown coffee [through subsidies]

2) Restore Guánica Lagoon

- Re-flooding of the lagoon

- Restoration of wetland vegetation

- Monitoring of discharge into the lagoon

3) Low Impact Development

- Rainwater collection systems

- Stormwater runoff treatment centers

- Hydroseeding of bare soil associated with roads and homes

- Enhanced wetlands for sewage treatment

- Pet waste cleanup ordinances in coastal cities

A facilitator and a DPSIR conceptual mapping note-taker led each breakout group to 

generate a concept map using the DPSIR framework as a guide. The transparency of DPSIR 

was an asset in this exercise—participants could easily see how different factors affected 

others and there were many discussions on the strengths of these relationships; 

moreover, many new relationships were revealed. By the end of the allotted time, the 

groups had developed a relatively detailed concept map for each set of alternatives (see 

Bradley et al. 2014b). 
30

3.4.2 Developing the sketch

EPA merged the DPSIR concept maps from the three breakout groups, and participants 

were provided an opportunity to comment, revise, and make further suggestions to the 

developing sketch. Although participants originally completed all of the concept maps

during the workshop, EPA ultimately refined the input into a single Guánica Bay concept 

map (Fig. 3-9a & Fig. 3-9b). 

The importance of this step was to link the different decision alternatives into a common 

framework that showed the possible consequences and the likely tradeoffs. Several 

examples include:

• Converting mountain farms from sun-grown to shade-grown coffee would require 

money and time for farmers to convert to the new strains and new methods. 

It would however, eventually provide increased vegetative cover and habitat 

for wildlife. 

• Restoration of the lagoon would remove it from agricultural production and could 

bring mosquito problems to the community of Fuig, which has grown out to the 

lagoon area since it was drained. However, the lagoon restoration would increase 

nutrient cycling, trap sediments and provide new tourism and recreational 

opportunities (i.e., boating, fishing and bird-watching).

• There are benefits of reducing sediment efflux not only to coral reef condition 

but also to stream habitats and preventing agricultural soil loss. Additionally, 

sediments are filling the reservoirs and reducing the availability of drinking water

and irrigation water. 

The integrated concept maps also illustrated how several different actions could have an 

effect on a single endpoint, and how one action could have an effect on several 

endpoints.
31

Figure 3-9a. Guánica-specific DPSIR (Driving Forces, Pressures, State, Impacts, Responses) concept map 

developed by EPA based upon information from the Decision-support Workshop, showing details for 

Driving Forces, Pressures, and Responses to each proposed decision alternative (source Bradley et al. 

2014b). Boxes are color-coded to follow the scheme used in Fig. 3-6 (e.g., light green=Driving Forces; dark 

green=Pressures; orange=State; pink=Impacts; and purple=Responses). The nodes presented here link with 

those in Fig. 3-9b.
32

Figure 3-9b. Guánica-specific DPSIR (Driving Forces, Pressures, State, Impacts, Responses) concept map 

developed by EPA based upon information from the Decision-support Workshop, showing details for 

State, Impact, and benefits to Driving Forces (source Bradley et al. 2014b). Boxes are color-coded to follow 

the scheme used in Fig. 3-6 (e.g., light green=Driving Forces; dark green=Pressures; orange=State; 

pink=Impacts; and purple=Responses). Grey boxes identify some possible performance measures identified 

by the group. The nodes presented here link with those in Fig. 3-9a. 
33

3.4.3 Planning the consultation and analysis

Information gathered in the early steps of decision sketching is used to inform the 

information needs for the decision landscape. While considering the conceptual maps 

they had developed, workshop participants provided information that was later organized 

into a preliminary list of objectives (Table 3-1). 

Table 3-1. Preliminary objectives list created through workshop discussions during the 

2010 Decision-support Workshop (source: Bradley et al. 2014b).

Objective Sub-objective

Land-use planning - Environmentally sensitive development

- Soil conservation and farm land quality

Water quality - Bay (water and sediment)

- Inland

- Drinking

- Marine

Law and regulation enforcement

Community awareness/education

Quality of life - Recreation

- Aesthetics

Economic well-being - Fisheries

- Tourism

Response to oil spills/boat groundings

Also discussed were measurable attributes for these objectives that could be used to 

gauge their performance. Workshop participants created preliminary lists of management 

options (Table 3-2) and information gaps requiring further research (Table 3-3). 

Table 3-2. Management options developed by participants during the 2010 Decisionsupport Workshop

Water Management

• Restoration of Guánica Bay 

• Develop a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for the Rio Loco 

• Establish non-point source monitoring stations in the Guánica Bay Watershed 

• Monitor additional beaches for water quality

• Vessel grounding program 

• Additional mooring buoys

• Enforce use of mooring buoys

• Additional channel markers

• Improved navigational charts to reflect water depth, coral reefs and other sensitive resources

• Enforcement of the Clean Water Act 

• Enforcement of fishing regulations

• Long-term monitoring of water quality and biotic condition of the coral reefs and Guánica Bay

• Scientific studies to measure or model base flow, ground water, water replacement times, 

and currents

• Implement stressor identification procedures

• Restoration of the historic Guánica Lagoon
34

Terrestrial Management

• Reforestation

• Forest management plans

• Forest Legacy Program 

• Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program

• Land use management plan to guide future development

• Beach cleaning program

• Riparian restoration throughout the Guánica Bay watershed

• Enforce the requirement for runoff controls and other Best Management Practices at construction 

sites

Waste Management

• Construct wastewater treatment wetlands

• Enforcement of wastewater treatment systems

• Enforcement of residential on-site septic systems

Social/Political

• Education and outreach

• Process to manage stakeholder conflicts

• Education program to address the cultural component of some management practices

• Education and outreach on mosquito control

• Enforce existing regulations and laws

• More resources for law enforcement

• Research planning process

Table 3-3. Information gaps and research studies suggested by participants at the 2010 

Decision-support Workshop (source: Bradley et al. 2014b).

Issue Research Tasks

Pollutant Sources • Land use – hydrology studies

• Wet vs. dry weather sampling of streams

• Lake/Rio Loco/other surface water flow path studies

Pollutant Loadings • Model scenarios for watershed mgmt. options

• Stream gauging in Rio Loco

• Calibration & use of SPARROW (hydrology model)

• Monitoring sediment & nitrogen in Rio Loco

Pollutant Fate • Stream sediment studies

• Marine stable isotope studies

Coral Reef Impacts • Coral reef toxicological studies

• Coral reef ecological studies

Stakeholder Participation/Deliberation • Stakeholder engagement in effect mgmt. options

• Survey residents and visitors for their values

• Survey of decision-makers (interviews)

• Decision flow charting

Human Activity Studies • Mapping current uses and impacts

• Tracking temporal trends in uses and impacts
35

Information from the workshop strongly influenced the decision sketch. Information was 

gained from stakeholders that characterized many concerns, identified several additional 

alternatives related to the initial decision context (protecting coral reefs) and laid a path 

for describing broader, more comprehensive goals for the watershed. 

Participants at the Decision-support Workshop elevated several important factors for 

developing a complete decision landscape:

• Communities in the Guánica Bay watershed are linked by a complex hydrologic

system that brings pollutants, in the form of sediment and nutrients, from

agricultural economies to the coastal waters that support fishing economies.

Sediment and nutrients originate in mountain ridges (coffee farming) and valley

farms (vegetables and pastureland) and are transported by a man-made construct of

dams, reservoirs, tunnels and canals. Both the infrastructure and agricultural

practices influence the quality and quantity of water moving downstream.

Moreover, municipal development in the foothills (Yauco) and coastal region

(Guánica and La Parguera) has affected water uses and water quality.

• While it is generally understood that sediment and nutrient efflux from Guánica Bay

can adversely affect coral reef condition, it is not known how much local activities

are contributing to reef decline nor what level of local management actions will be

required to reverse the trend.

• Alternatives proposed by the WMP (CWP 2008) were consistent with the USCRTF

goal of reducing sediment efflux into Guánica Bay, but except for monetary costs,

other potential tradeoffs were not described.

• The positive effects of reducing sediment in the watershed reach far beyond

protection of coral reefs. Positive effects include (among others) reduced soil loss

from farms, reduced sedimentation in reservoirs, improved stream and river water

quality, improved fish and bird habitat and greater tourism and recreation potential.

• It was not always clear where the authority lay to permit, delay or deny an action.

Also, there are actions that Federal and Commonwealth agencies can take without

consulting local stakeholders. An integrated decision-making framework for the

watershed could circumvent some of these inconsistencies and avoid future

confusion.

• These factors were instrumental in guiding the next step of developing a decision

landscape—archival research on past decisions and policies. To understand where

we stand now, we have to see where we’ve been.
36

3.5 Archival research 

Archival research is a type of primary research that involves locating, evaluating, and 

systematically interpreting and analyzing information from original archival records 

(Corti 2004; Schmidt 2011). Interpretation and analysis of past decisions requires a 

historical context. Consequently, EPA’s archival research included a broad search for 

historical information on Puerto Rico and particularly for policies that affected 

communities in southwestern Puerto Rico. Based upon information gleaned from the 

2010 workshop and further discussions with several Federal, Commonwealth and local 

decision-makers, the archival research was initially focused on 1) the construction of 

hydrologic infrastructure (hydroelectric plants, dams; sanitary sewer systems, municipal 

stormwater systems; irrigation and drinking water) and 2) agriculture (sugar cane , shadegrown and sun-grown coffee), draining the historic Guánica Lagoon, and the 

establishment of the Lajas Valley agricultural reserve. 

Reviews of historical information provided a means to further focus archival research on 

specific decisions related to land and water use. Ultimately, the most relevant historical 

decision that emerged was the construction of a massive reservoir and irrigation system in 

the 1950s to supply water for agriculture irrigation. To interpret this event requires some 

recognition of the history and economy of Puerto Rico, which is summarized below. 

(Additional historical background is provided in Appendix A.) Existing perceptions of past 

decisions and the decision-making process were then elicited from stakeholders during a 

workshop held in 2012 (see Section 4.2). The information gathered during the archival 

research has been used throughout the research project. 

3.5.1 Geographical setting: Guánica Bay Guánica Bay is a narrow body of water south of the town of Guánica in southwestern 

Puerto Rico (Fig. 3-10). The Bay has a narrow opening (about 1⁄4 mile [440 m] across), 

which is less than 2 miles (3 km) from the mouth of the Rio Loco. There are low, rugged 

hills on both sides of the Bay and three areas—Guánica downtown, Ensenada ward and La 

Pieza sector—on its shores. The hills on each side of the mouth of the Bay comprise the 

Guánica Dry Forest, a United Nations Biosphere Reserve since 1981 (Miller and Lugo 

2009). Coral reefs occur outside the mouth of the Bay as they do across most of southern 

Puerto Rico (García-Sais et al. 2005). To the west of Guánica is a coastal plain, (Lajas 

Valley) and La Parguera, a coastal town that is a tourism destination for divers, boaters 

and fishers. Northeast of Guánica lies the city of Yauco. 
37

Figure 3-10. Key urban and natural areas of the Guánica Bay Watershed (adapted from Carriger et al. 

2013). Black shading = developed areas, medium grey shading=cultivated crops & pasture, spotted grey 

shading=terrestrial protected areas, offshore hatched shading=seagrass, coral, and rubble benthic habitats, 

stars=locations of Loco and Luchetti dams. Credit for map layers: The hydrography layers came from the 

USGS National Hydrography dataset (Simley and Carswell Jr. 2009) (downloaded from http://nhd.usgs.gov/); 

and land cover came from the 2001 National Land Cover Database (Homer et al. 2004) (downloaded from 

http://www.mrlc.gov/). Additional map layers were downloaded from Florida International University’s Map 

Imagery User Service, which included Kendall et al. (2001) and Keel (2005).

3.5.2 Historical perspective

Guánica Bay and Puerto Rico have a rich history. Taíno Indians inhabited the island when 

Christopher Columbus landed in 1493 and Juan Ponce de León established a Spanish 

settlement at (what is now) Guánica in 1508. During this time, the economy of Puerto 

Rico, and that of the Guánica Bay area, was shaped by gold mining and subsistence 

farming of tobacco, coffee and sugar cane, relying on slave labor. While slaves were 

present in Puerto Rico for nearly four centuries, it was not until the large-scale 
38

development of the sugar industry that slaves were imported in mass numbers (Bowman 

2002): in 1765 there were only about 5,000 slaves in the colony; by 1830 there were more 

than 30,000 slaves. In 1873 slavery was abolished, however, their contributions and 

heritage are reflected in Puerto Rico's art, music, cuisine, and religious beliefs. 

Tobacco became the dominant product in the mid-1600s (Carrión 1983). The amount 

of coffee grown in Puerto Rico was insignificant until 1736 and blossomed by the 

mid-1800s with the immigration of Corsican coffee growers to the Yauco region. 

But after nearly 400 years of Spanish rule, many Puerto Ricans desired autonomy. In 1897 

Puerto Rico was granted constitutional autonomy and representation in the Spanish 

parliament. But this limited autonomy was short-lived. In February 1898, over 16,000 U.S. 

soldiers landed at Guánica Bay as an offensive in the Spanish-American War. By August, 

Spain had ceded Puerto Rico to the American forces (Fig. 3-11). 

Figure 3-11. Depiction of U.S. troops landing at Guánica in 1898 by artist Howard Chandler Christy

(source: Wikipedia 2014).

Under U.S. influence, Puerto Rico quickly underwent many changes, often to the benefit 

of U.S. economic interests rather than the well-being of Puerto Ricans. It was not until 

1917 that the U.S. Congress passed the Jones Act granting U.S. citizenship for all Puerto 

Ricans and provided unrestricted entry to the U.S. mainland. Two months later Congress 

passed the Selective Service Act, which brought nearly 20,000 young Puerto Ricans into 

U.S. military service during World War I.
39

Heavy U.S. investment in sugar cane began to pay off by the 1920’s when sugar became 

the main export crop of Puerto Rico. For Puerto Ricans, however, sugar cane provided a 

static monoculture economy that employed most of the population at extremely low 

wages. By 1938, per capita income for Puerto Ricans had not risen above $100 a year. 

An important aspect of this historical context (see greater detail in Appendix A) is that 

U.S. sugar interests owned most of the land, controlled the economy and sold over 90% of 

the sugar produced to the U.S. market. When the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

eventually eliminated sugar subsidies the industry waned. Because much of the land that 

fell out of production was still in U.S. ownership, Puerto Rico was forced to import most of 

its food from U.S. markets. Prices were held artificially high by U.S. tariffs, so the island 

became more and more indebted and dependent. The land monopoly was not broken 

until 1941, when the Land Reform Act limited ownership to 500 acres. By this time, 

however, there were few Puerto Ricans who could afford to buy land.

3.5.3 Operation Bootstrap: Industrialized agriculture and 

manufacturing

The term bootstrap refers to a leather loop used to pull a boot on and is commonly used 

to mean an ability to help oneself without the aid of others. The U.S. Congress determined 

that Puerto Rico would be less dependent and more able to fend for itself in the world 

economy if it had a modern industrial infrastructure. The Industrial Incentives Act of 1947, 

commonly called “Operation Bootstrap”, was intended to replace the failing sugar 

economy by incentivizing industrialization in agriculture and manufacturing. At this time 

Puerto Rico was one of the poorest islands in the Caribbean with a high population 

density (600 per square mile) that had not (and could not, it was believed) subsist as an

agrarian system (Davis 1948). 

The result of Operation Bootstrap was to shift Puerto Rican labor from agriculture to 

manufacturing and tourism. Manufacturing that occurred on the island shifted from 

labor-intensive (e.g., apparel, tobacco) to capital-intensive industries, particularly 

pharmaceuticals, chemicals, machinery and electronics (Fig. 3-12). It wasn’t the intent 

of Operation Bootstrap to eliminate the agrarian economy. Some economists emphasized 

manufacturing while others had argued for a balanced approach that included 

manufacturing and ‘industrial’ agriculture, using modern agriculture technologies 

and water delivery systems for irrigation.
40

Figure 3-12. Operation Bootstrap shifted Puerto Rican labor from agriculture to manufacturing and 

tourism. On the left, Governor Luis Muñoz Marín is laying the first stone for the Puerto Rican Can Company 

as part of Operation Bootstrap (1962). On the right, women are working in a textile factory (source: 

Wikipedia 2014). 

The resulting strategy was drawn from capitalistic, free enterprise models of production, 

which included economic incentives to hold down labor wages, train the labor force in 

new technologies, and create an infrastructure (roads, water systems, airports) to support 

a strong export-based economy. If the government provided the infrastructure, the 

private sector would provide the production, distribution and transportation of goods. 

The program consisted of three inter-related components: Market-oriented export 

manufacturing, export-based natural resource industries (agriculture) and labor reform. 

Although modeled specifically for Puerto Rico, this was similar to economic plans of other 

Caribbean nations. 

The U.S. consequently infused millions of dollars to build factories for industries that 

would benefit from the large labor pool and low wages. Under the Industrial Incentives 

Act, goods could enter the U.S. without tariff and profits were not taxed. By 1950, there 

were over 80 large industrial plants in Puerto Rico and the rural agricultural society was 

transformed into an industrial working class (Wells 1969). However, funding was also 

made available for industrialized agriculture, including a massive dam construction project 

for southwestern Puerto Rico. 

3.5.4 Puerto Rico, a Free Associated State (Commonwealth)

In 1950, the Governor of Puerto Rico, Luis Muñoz Marin, successfully requested that 

the U.S. Congress declare Puerto Rico a Free Associated State (Commonwealth). This 

agreement preserved strong ties to the U.S. but allowed Puerto Rico its own constitution, 

legislature and elections. The Governor’s political party (Populares) won the first true 

election (1952) by an overwhelming majority despite concerns the party was too close, 

and too often acquiesced, to U.S. interests. 
41

In 1954, the U.S. Congress revoked the Puerto Rico exemption for the Federal Labor 

Standards Act, forcing wages for needlework and manufacturing dramatically higher and

causing many factory employers to leave the island. Poor economic conditions and few 

opportunities drove large numbers of Puerto Ricans to emigrate to the U.S., mostly to 

New York City. There was such a huge emigration that even with a high birth rate the 

population of Puerto Rico declined. A new boom in manufacturing was engineered 

through the 1976 Federal Tax Reform offering tax exemptions to U.S. corporations. 

Nonetheless, unemployment sometimes reached 20% during this period and Puerto Rico 

remained heavily subsidized. The tax exemptions were curtailed in 1996 and over 16,500 

manufacturing jobs were lost within a few short years (Miller and Lugo 2009).

Puerto Rico passed an “Agricultural Reserve Law” in 1999 in attempt to reverse the trend 

of declining agriculture. Lands used for agriculture in Puerto Rico declined during the 20th

century from 2 million to only 500,000 acres. Many farmers abandoned their farms and 

these had reverted back to forest (Gellis et al. 1999). The law was intended to protect land 

for agricultural use by requiring farmers who received irrigation water to keep acreage in 

production. In most places, including Lajas Valley, the law has failed due to the Puerto 

Rico government’s inability to collect the penalty of $50 per acre not in production.

3.5.5 Guánica Bay and southwestern Puerto Rico

Towns and communities around Guánica Bay, although culturally and geographically 

isolated from San Juan and the U.S. political agenda, were not unchanged by the events of 

the 20th century. Ensenada, on the west coast of the Bay, was home to Central Guánica, at 

one time the largest sugar processing plant in the world (Fig. 3-13). The central remained 

in operation, despite a declining sugar industry, until 1982. Across the Bay, a fertilizer 

plant, Ochoa Fertilizer Co. (Fig. 3-14), which is still in existence, was built in 1948 with 

storage silos and a pier for shipping. People living in the area worked as laborers in the 

sugar cane fields or mountain coffee farms. Unlike sugar production, Puerto Ricans owned 

many of the coffee farms. These were generally small farms on steep mountain slopes 

north of Yauco. Others in the area lived by subsistence artisanal fishing or by small fruit 

and vegetable farms scattered throughout Lajas Valley.

Likewise, the historical events shaped the attitudes of the people living in the area. Many 

were delighted that the U.S. invasion in 1898 removed elite Spanish farm managers 

(hacendados) who had rigorously maintained a system of agricultural serfdom and kept 

rural Puerto Ricans in perpetual servitude. They were also excited about the concept of 

U.S. democracy and the right to free elections. Unfortunately, voting was limited to male 

landholders until the 1950s and the economic outlook never really changed. For some, 

especially for members of the Nationalist Party headquartered in nearby Ponce, the U.S.

was viewed as an unwanted oppressor with no right to rule a sovereign island state. Even 
42

Puerto Rican leaders in San Juan were viewed suspiciously for their apparent compliance 

with and adherence to U.S. policy. 

Figure 3-13. Central Guánica, a major sugar cane processing plant (top photo) was on the west shore 

of Guánica Bay (photo credit: Herbert A. French, 1947). 

Figure 3-14. Ochoa Fertilizer Company, Inc. was on the east shore of Guánica Bay (photo credit: Yongping 

Yuan, EPA, ORD).
43

3.5.6 The Southwest Puerto Rico Project and the Lajas Valley 

Irrigation System

A component of Operation Bootstrap was to industrialize agriculture along the southern 

coast of Puerto Rico by providing irrigation and cheap hydroelectric energy for pumping 

water onto fields. As early as 1908, the South Coast Irrigation Service was formed to 

maximize farming potential, but under its aegis only small irrigation projects were 

completed. In 1915 the first reservoir was built at Carite (southeast Puerto Rico), which 

fostered sugar cane production and provided hydroelectric power for water pumps. 

Similar plans had been prepared for the southwest by the Puerto Rico “Utilization of the 

Water Resources” department, but these never matured, usually for lack of funding. 

In 1941, the department was changed to a public-private entity (Puerto Rico Water 

Resources Authority) and, with better funding, planned and implemented the Southwest 

Puerto Rico Project (SWP) and the Lajas Valley Irrigation System (LVIS), a series of five 

dams and an extensive irrigation canal and drainage system (Fig. 3-15). The intent of these 

projects, at an anticipated cost of $32 million (1950 dollars), was to improve sugar cane 

production in the southwest coastal plain and provide inexpensive hydroelectric power 

for farmers to pump irrigation water. The dams were completed from 1951-1956 and the 

irrigation system, including drainage of a large lagoon (Guánica Lagoon, northwest of the 

Bay), was completed by 1961. 

The SWP and LVIS were both complementary and contradictory to Operation Bootstrap. 

Electrifying rural areas was a step toward industrialization, but jobs were moving from the 

fields to the factories, leaving fewer laborers for sugar cane harvesting. Agricultural

employment for Puerto Rico declined from over 200,000 to only 120,000 between 1950‒

1960. Sugar cane was still harvested by machetes and required cheap, plentiful labor. By 

the mid 1960’s the growth of the sugar cane industry across most of Puerto Rico had all 

but stopped. The soil had become depleted of nutrients and stalks yielded only about 1⁄2 

the sugar yielded in 1950. However, in Lajas Valley sugar cane production increased until 

about 1972 and the Central Guánica stayed in operation until 1982. The newly irrigated, 

fertile lands sustained sugar cane production during this period, but were ultimately 

unable to save it as the underpinning of an agricultural economy. 

3.5.7 The rise of sun-grown coffee production 

With sugar production in decline, coffee production was elevated in importance. Coffee 

cultivation had existed in the mountains of Puerto Rico since the mid-1700s and was its 

most lucrative export by the end of the 19th century (Wilson 1899). However, hurricanes 

and storm events continually decimated coffee farms to the extent that the government 

of Puerto Rico was forced to step in with protective taxes, inflated farm prices, crop
44

insurance and even direct payments to farmers. Often these incentives benefited larger 

farms over smaller.

Figure 3-15. The Southwest Puerto Rico Project (blue arrows) consisted of five dams, three of which 

reversed watershed flow from north to south (adapted from Bousquin et al. 2014). The Lajas Valley 

Irrigation System (red arrows) consisted of a long canal that diverted water from Lago Loco across the Lajas 

Valley for irrigation, with a return ditch for drainage into Guánica Bay. The natural flow of Rio Loco and Rio 

Boquerón is shown (gold arrows).

In an effort to increase coffee production, Puerto Rico’s Agricultural Experiment Station 

advocated a strategy to increase coffee yield by eliminating shade trees (canopy) and 

raising sun-tolerant coffee varieties in full sunlight (Vicente-Chandler et al. 1968). ‘Sungrown’ coffee was not immediately adopted, despite government encouragement and 

incentives, until the 1980s (Borkhataria et al. 2011). Part of the reason was that the 

transition required not only elimination of the canopy, but also destruction of shadecoffee trees and replanting with sun-tolerant varieties (Fig. 3-16). For small farmers, 

time out of production causes a major lapse in cash flow. Consequently, widespread 

conversion to sun-grown coffee did not occur until the latter half of the 1980s.

3.5.8 Erosion and sediment distribution

Little by little, in the mountain ridges surrounding the five reservoirs of the SWP, the landuse transition began to take effect. Here, as elsewhere in Puerto Rico, sun-grown coffee 

cultivation began to replace shade-grown. This resulted in reduced biodiversity (from loss 

of canopy habitat) and increased soil erosion from the steep, and now poorly 
45

 Figure 3-16. Mountain farm near Yauco, Puerto Rico, cleared to plant sun-grown coffee (photo credit: Ross 

Lunetta, EPA, ORD). 

vegetated, slopes. Soil began to wash from hillsides into streams and ultimately into the 

reservoirs and irrigation canals.

But, coffee farming practices are not the only land-use activity that generates sediment in 

the Guánica watershed. Water delivery systems have altered the path of streams, 

riparian zones have been stripped of vegetation and municipal areas have grown. 

Although sedimentation is always a concern for reservoir longevity, the rate of sediment 

strapping and accumulation in Puerto Rico reservoirs has quickened dramatically. Today, 

the reservoirs of the SWP, only 60 years old, have about 1⁄2 their original water storage 

capacity (Soler-López 2002). 

Continuing sedimentation threatens the ability to meet future water needs, which include 

irrigation, hydro-electric power generation, drinking water, wastewater diluent, 

downstream aquatic ecosystems and in-stream and in-reservoir recreational activities. 

Sediment accumulation in reservoirs also reduces the capacity to protect downstream 

communities from floods during severe rain events.

The increased sediment loads in the SWP reservoirs and aqueducts has led to increased 

sediment deposition in Guánica Bay (Bousquin et al. 2014). Increasing sediment deposits 

over the last several decades have changed the bathymetry of the Bay (Miguel Canales Jr. 

personal communication) and, after rain events, plumes of sediment can be seen 
46

dispersing from Guánica Bay into the nearby coastal zone and travelling west on prevailing 

currents toward La Parguera (Fig. 3-17). The occurrence of sediment plumes in coastal 

zones harboring valued coral reef ecosystems led to a concern that corals were 

experiencing inhospitable conditions caused by land use practices and instigated the 

USCRTF Guánica Bay Watershed Initiative. 

Figure 3-17. Water and sediment leaving Guánica Bay enter the coastal zone and are swept to the west 

(see sediment trail) towards La Parguera by prevailing ocean currents (photo credit: NOAA). 

3.5.9 Analysis - economic independence and self-determination 

The EPA analysis of the literature located during the archival research determined that 

Operation Bootstrap and the development and implementation of plans for the SWP and 

LVIS were key decisions that have influenced the Guánica Bay Watershed. Operation 

Bootstrap was also the subject of analysis by Gordon K. Lewis (1963), who observed both 

the decision process and its aftermath. Lewis documented the efforts of the Spanish and 

the U.S. military governments to alleviate poverty and support economic growth in Puerto 

Rico through a series of failed attempts to develop agricultural exports, notably sugar, 

coffee and tobacco. The strategy was to generate an export-oriented economy 

46

dispersing from Guánica Bay into the nearby coastal zone and travelling west on prevailing 

currents toward La Parguera (Fig. 3-17). The occurrence of sediment plumes in coastal 

zones harboring valued coral reef ecosystems led to a concern that corals were 

experiencing inhospitable conditions caused by land use practices and instigated the 

USCRTF Guánica Bay Watershed Initiative. 

Figure 3-17. Water and sediment leaving Guánica Bay enter the coastal zone and are swept to the west 

(see sediment trail) towards La Parguera by prevailing ocean currents (photo credit: NOAA). 

3.5.9 Analysis - economic independence and self-determination 

The EPA analysis of the literature located during the archival research determined that 

Operation Bootstrap and the development and implementation of plans for the SWP and 

LVIS were key decisions that have influenced the Guánica Bay Watershed. Operation 

Bootstrap was also the subject of analysis by Gordon K. Lewis (1963), who observed both 

the decision process and its aftermath. Lewis documented the efforts of the Spanish and 

the U.S. military governments to alleviate poverty and support economic growth in Puerto 

Rico through a series of failed attempts to develop agricultural exports, notably sugar, 

coffee and tobacco. The strategy was to generate an export-oriented economy 
47

(like postwar Japan) through industrialization of both manufacturing and agriculture

(similar to Latin American models, but designed specifically for Puerto Rico). However, 

there was political resistance because an island like Puerto Rico was perceived to emulate 

a more ‘natural’ existence and should depend on subsistence economy rather than an 

‘artificial’ manufacturing economy. 

In his analysis, Lewis (1963) presents evidence that Operation Bootstrap was economically 

beneficial but, in balance, the benefits favored the landowners and investors rather than 

the workers. This in fact perpetuated, rather than remedied, the cycle of poverty for most 

Puerto Ricans. Lewis also concluded that plans for economic development were too 

closely linked to the U.S. economy. The industries that benefitted from the Industrial 

Incentives Act were U.S. companies that relocated to Puerto Rico to take advantage of 

the low wages, low environmental regulation and tariff and tax reductions. The 

beneficiaries were more the U.S. companies and less the Puerto Rican communities. 

An anonymous author (1949), highly knowledgeable of Operation Bootstrap and likely one 

of its early strategists, presented some different perspectives. This author also described 

the plan as a strategy to reduce poverty through subsidies (tax incentives), land reform 

and labor reform. The challenges were finances, attitude and programmatic structure. 

To run the program, new agencies were formed with staffs of newly trained technical 

experts. Success of the program was, according to this author, tied to the abilities of these 

public managers to achieve a level of cooperation with private interests. But an additional 

concern was the ‘whims’ of the U.S. Congress in manipulating trade markets. There was a 

fear that changing economic policies could only deepen the “precarious condition” of 

Puerto Rican dependency on the U.S.

Archival evidence thus indicates that the most significant issue affecting the watershed of 

Guánica Bay was at its core a dedicated effort to reduce poverty and foster economic 

independence across Puerto Rico. Unfortunately this purpose did not materialize and 

today the U.S. taxpayers still heavily subsidize Puerto Rico. The unsuccessful attempts 

in agriculture and manufacturing have spurred greater interest in the tourism and 

recreation sectors of the Puerto Rican economy. The enactment of Law in 254 in 1998 

in an attempt to form an Ecotourism Board is evidence of a continued desire to be 

economically independent. The promise for ecotourism relies on pristine, natural coral 

reefs, tropical forests and other natural resources. 

The SWP and LVIS permanently altered the hydrology of the Guánica Bay watershed 

for the promise of economic development. But the failure of Operation Bootstrap to bring 

prosperity to Puerto Rico has resulted in the inability to maintain the infrastructure built 

for that very purpose. Maintaining the SWP and flow of water through the LVIS for 

agriculture and other uses is still important to stakeholders, but has become increasingly 
48

difficult with limited funds for reducing or removing sediment that is filling the reservoirs 

and canals. The conundrum that they now face is that of competing economic sectors. 

Higher yield sun-grown coffee farms in the mountain ridges, through soil loss, are 

threatening the delivery of water to struggling farms in Lajas Valley; and the farms in both 

the mountains and the valley, through sediment and nutrient pollution, are threatening 

the existence of coral reefs and the fishing and tourism opportunities they provide. 

Another important factor that emerged from EPA’s archival research is the lack of 

self-determination for Puerto Ricans. With both Spanish and U.S. rule, external political 

bodies have made major decisions about the island’s economy and social structure. 

Puerto Ricans, certainly until the period of Governor Muñoz Marin, have been given little

influence over their own affairs. Predictably, imposed policies were more economically 

beneficial to the external parties than to Puerto Rico. As a consequence, the motives of

any external entity making decisions for Puerto Rico are viewed with some suspicion. 

3.6 Summary

Through the efforts of the USCRTF and the Guánica Bay WMP (CWP 2008), a narrow 

emphasis for protecting coral reefs was expanded to incorporate a broader set of issues in 

the watershed. This provided an opportunity to hold a Decision Workshop (2010) for 

further characterizing and organizing the multiple issues under consideration. The 

workshop provided preliminary guidance on concerns, values, management alternatives, 

and potential performance measures (Carriger et al. 2013; Bradley et al. 2014b). 

Additionally, archival research was conducted to better understand the social and 

economic history of the Guánica region. This research brought to light the drive of Puerto 

Ricans to achieve economic independence and the unintended consequences of that 

effort—an altered hydrology of the Guánica watershed and an infrastructure that is 

increasingly difficult to maintain. 

From the process, a better understanding of the broader decision context has emerged.

Decisions in the Guánica Bay watershed have been couched in tradeoffs among ridge 

agriculture, valley agriculture, tourism and fisheries. Because of these different economic 

interests, stakeholders from different sectors have different values to consider in making 

decisions. While coral reef protection and watershed pollution are important issues, they 

are now being considered more clearly in the context of other stakeholder values and 

concerns. 
49

Chapter 4. Define Objectives and Develop 

Alternatives

4.1 Introduction 

While the entire SDM process is collaborative, two aspects of the process—defining 

objectives and developing alternatives—are developed through direct interactions with 

stakeholders and decision-makers. Objectives reflect the values of stakeholders (what is 

important) and alternatives are means to achieve them (Keeney 1992). In environmental 

management, we are often interested in values at a societal level, which would include 

the consideration of values related to individuals, organizations, and society as a whole. 

Stakeholders are asked to think about values on each of those levels in a deliberative 

process (Gregory et al. 2012). 

4.1.1 Defining objectives

Objectives are statements of what is valued by stakeholders under a certain context 

(Keeney 1992). When informally making decisions, people often do not have a clearly 

defined or recognized set of objectives. While many decision-makers say they have clear 

objectives, what they really have is a messy mix of means and ends, targets, policies and 

vision statements, most of which are not useful for decision-making (Gregory et al. 2012). 

When decision-makers are developing policies and implementing decisions for 

a watershed, stakeholder objectives likewise may not have been fully considered or 

understood (Gregory and Keeney 1994). 

While many decision-makers say they have clear objectives, what they 

really have is a messy mix of means and ends, targets, policies and vision 

statements, most of which are not useful for decision-making 

(Gregory et al. 2012). 

Objectives in decision-making have a very specific purpose. They focus decision-makers on 

what matters in terms of outcomes and become the evaluation criteria for identifying and 

evaluating alternatives (Gregory et al. 2012). The process of thinking through and writing 

down objectives helps decision-makers to make more informed decisions. 
50

Objectives are usually described as something that matters (e.g., availability of quality 

habitat for important species, or quantity of sediment loads into Guánica Bay) and a verb 

indicating the preferred direction of change (e.g., maximize or minimize) (Mollaghasemi 

and Pet-Edwards 1997; Dunning et al. 2000; McDaniels 2000; Keeney 2007; Gregory et al. 

2012). One example might be to “Maximize the availability of quality habitat for a fish 

species”. Another example might be to “Minimize the sediment loading into Guánica Bay”. 

The item of value is the key part of the usefulness of objectives in reflecting values. 

The direction of preference further specifies whether the item of value should be 

achieved or avoided. Objectives are context specific: they are defined for the decision 

at hand, not for universal usage. 

Formal decision analysis includes tools to properly elicit and structure objectives from 

stakeholders and decision-makers in a way that is practical and useful for evaluating 

decisions and identifying new alternatives (Merrick et al. 2005). Together, the decisionmakers and stakeholders develop a set of objectives that everyone agrees will be used to 

evaluate alternatives. 

Objectives have a direction of preference and an item of value. 

• Maximize the availability of quality habitat for a fish species.

• Minimize the sediment loading into Guánica Bay.

Elicitation of objectives from workshop attendees was through development of DPSIR 

concept maps as described in Section 3.4 and covered in detail in Bradley et al. 2014b. 

Once elicited, stakeholder objectives can be organized into an objectives hierarchy (OH), 

which is a formalized method to identify, describe, and structure the key objectives 

stemming from the decision context (Gregory and Keeney 2002). OH is a structured 

representation of the values of stakeholders (Fig. 4-1) and is useful for understanding the 

trade-offs in decision-making. This formal structure allows us to view any alternative in 

context of a broader objective to which it contributes, and also to more the specific 

objectives that contribute to it. 

50

Objectives are usually described as something that matters (e.g., availability of quality 

habitat for important species, or quantity of sediment loads into Guánica Bay) and a verb 

indicating the preferred direction of change (e.g., maximize or minimize) (Mollaghasemi 

and Pet-Edwards 1997; Dunning et al. 2000; McDaniels 2000; Keeney 2007; Gregory et al. 

2012). One example might be to “Maximize the availability of quality habitat for a fish 

species”. Another example might be to “Minimize the sediment loading into Guánica Bay”. 

The item of value is the key part of the usefulness of objectives in reflecting values. 

The direction of preference further specifies whether the item of value should be 

achieved or avoided. Objectives are context specific: they are defined for the decision 

at hand, not for universal usage. 

Formal decision analysis includes tools to properly elicit and structure objectives from 

stakeholders and decision-makers in a way that is practical and useful for evaluating 

decisions and identifying new alternatives (Merrick et al. 2005). Together, the decisionmakers and stakeholders develop a set of objectives that everyone agrees will be used to 

evaluate alternatives. 

Objectives have a direction of preference and an item of value. 

• Maximize the availability of quality habitat for a fish species.

• Minimize the sediment loading into Guánica Bay.

Elicitation of objectives from workshop attendees was through development of DPSIR 

concept maps as described in Section 3.4 and covered in detail in Bradley et al. 2014b. 

Once elicited, stakeholder objectives can be organized into an objectives hierarchy (OH), 

which is a formalized method to identify, describe, and structure the key objectives 

stemming from the decision context (Gregory and Keeney 2002). OH is a structured 

representation of the values of stakeholders (Fig. 4-1) and is useful for understanding the 

trade-offs in decision-making. This formal structure allows us to view any alternative in 

context of a broader objective to which it contributes, and also to more the specific 

objectives that contribute to it. 

50

Objectives are usually described as something that matters (e.g., availability of quality 

habitat for important species, or quantity of sediment loads into Guánica Bay) and a verb 

indicating the preferred direction of change (e.g., maximize or minimize) (Mollaghasemi 

and Pet-Edwards 1997; Dunning et al. 2000; McDaniels 2000; Keeney 2007; Gregory et al. 

2012). One example might be to “Maximize the availability of quality habitat for a fish 

species”. Another example might be to “Minimize the sediment loading into Guánica Bay”. 

The item of value is the key part of the usefulness of objectives in reflecting values. 

The direction of preference further specifies whether the item of value should be 

achieved or avoided. Objectives are context specific: they are defined for the decision 

at hand, not for universal usage. 

Formal decision analysis includes tools to properly elicit and structure objectives from 

stakeholders and decision-makers in a way that is practical and useful for evaluating 

decisions and identifying new alternatives (Merrick et al. 2005). Together, the decisionmakers and stakeholders develop a set of objectives that everyone agrees will be used to 

evaluate alternatives. 

Objectives have a direction of preference and an item of value. 

• Maximize the availability of quality habitat for a fish species.

• Minimize the sediment loading into Guánica Bay.

Elicitation of objectives from workshop attendees was through development of DPSIR 

concept maps as described in Section 3.4 and covered in detail in Bradley et al. 2014b. 

Once elicited, stakeholder objectives can be organized into an objectives hierarchy (OH), 

which is a formalized method to identify, describe, and structure the key objectives 

stemming from the decision context (Gregory and Keeney 2002). OH is a structured 

representation of the values of stakeholders (Fig. 4-1) and is useful for understanding the 

trade-offs in decision-making. This formal structure allows us to view any alternative in 

context of a broader objective to which it contributes, and also to more the specific 

objectives that contribute to it. 

50

Objectives are usually described as something that matters (e.g., availability of quality 

habitat for important species, or quantity of sediment loads into Guánica Bay) and a verb 

indicating the preferred direction of change (e.g., maximize or minimize) (Mollaghasemi 

and Pet-Edwards 1997; Dunning et al. 2000; McDaniels 2000; Keeney 2007; Gregory et al. 

2012). One example might be to “Maximize the availability of quality habitat for a fish 

species”. Another example might be to “Minimize the sediment loading into Guánica Bay”. 

The item of value is the key part of the usefulness of objectives in reflecting values. 

The direction of preference further specifies whether the item of value should be 

achieved or avoided. Objectives are context specific: they are defined for the decision 

at hand, not for universal usage. 

Formal decision analysis includes tools to properly elicit and structure objectives from 

stakeholders and decision-makers in a way that is practical and useful for evaluating 

decisions and identifying new alternatives (Merrick et al. 2005). Together, the decisionmakers and stakeholders develop a set of objectives that everyone agrees will be used to 

evaluate alternatives. 

Objectives have a direction of preference and an item of value. 

• Maximize the availability of quality habitat for a fish species.

• Minimize the sediment loading into Guánica Bay.

Elicitation of objectives from workshop attendees was through development of DPSIR 

concept maps as described in Section 3.4 and covered in detail in Bradley et al. 2014b. 

Once elicited, stakeholder objectives can be organized into an objectives hierarchy (OH), 

which is a formalized method to identify, describe, and structure the key objectives 

stemming from the decision context (Gregory and Keeney 2002). OH is a structured 

representation of the values of stakeholders (Fig. 4-1) and is useful for understanding the 

trade-offs in decision-making. This formal structure allows us to view any alternative in 

context of a broader objective to which it contributes, and also to more the specific 

objectives that contribute to it. 

50

Objectives are usually described as something that matters (e.g., availability of quality 

habitat for important species, or quantity of sediment loads into Guánica Bay) and a verb 

indicating the preferred direction of change (e.g., maximize or minimize) (Mollaghasemi 

and Pet-Edwards 1997; Dunning et al. 2000; McDaniels 2000; Keeney 2007; Gregory et al. 

2012). One example might be to “Maximize the availability of quality habitat for a fish 

species”. Another example might be to “Minimize the sediment loading into Guánica Bay”. 

The item of value is the key part of the usefulness of objectives in reflecting values. 

The direction of preference further specifies whether the item of value should be 

achieved or avoided. Objectives are context specific: they are defined for the decision 

at hand, not for universal usage. 

Formal decision analysis includes tools to properly elicit and structure objectives from 

stakeholders and decision-makers in a way that is practical and useful for evaluating 

decisions and identifying new alternatives (Merrick et al. 2005). Together, the decisionmakers and stakeholders develop a set of objectives that everyone agrees will be used to 

evaluate alternatives. 

Objectives have a direction of preference and an item of value. 

• Maximize the availability of quality habitat for a fish species.

• Minimize the sediment loading into Guánica Bay.

Elicitation of objectives from workshop attendees was through development of DPSIR 

concept maps as described in Section 3.4 and covered in detail in Bradley et al. 2014b. 

Once elicited, stakeholder objectives can be organized into an objectives hierarchy (OH), 

which is a formalized method to identify, describe, and structure the key objectives 

stemming from the decision context (Gregory and Keeney 2002). OH is a structured 

representation of the values of stakeholders (Fig. 4-1) and is useful for understanding the 

trade-offs in decision-making. This formal structure allows us to view any alternative in 

context of a broader objective to which it contributes, and also to more the specific 

objectives that contribute to it. 

50

Objectives are usually described as something that matters (e.g., availability of quality 

habitat for important species, or quantity of sediment loads into Guánica Bay) and a verb 

indicating the preferred direction of change (e.g., maximize or minimize) (Mollaghasemi 

and Pet-Edwards 1997; Dunning et al. 2000; McDaniels 2000; Keeney 2007; Gregory et al. 

2012). One example might be to “Maximize the availability of quality habitat for a fish 

species”. Another example might be to “Minimize the sediment loading into Guánica Bay”. 

The item of value is the key part of the usefulness of objectives in reflecting values. 

The direction of preference further specifies whether the item of value should be 

achieved or avoided. Objectives are context specific: they are defined for the decision 

at hand, not for universal usage. 

Formal decision analysis includes tools to properly elicit and structure objectives from 

stakeholders and decision-makers in a way that is practical and useful for evaluating 

decisions and identifying new alternatives (Merrick et al. 2005). Together, the decisionmakers and stakeholders develop a set of objectives that everyone agrees will be used to 

evaluate alternatives. 

Objectives have a direction of preference and an item of value. 

• Maximize the availability of quality habitat for a fish species.

• Minimize the sediment loading into Guánica Bay.

Elicitation of objectives from workshop attendees was through development of DPSIR 

concept maps as described in Section 3.4 and covered in detail in Bradley et al. 2014b. 

Once elicited, stakeholder objectives can be organized into an objectives hierarchy (OH), 

which is a formalized method to identify, describe, and structure the key objectives 

stemming from the decision context (Gregory and Keeney 2002). OH is a structured 

representation of the values of stakeholders (Fig. 4-1) and is useful for understanding the 

trade-offs in decision-making. This formal structure allows us to view any alternative in 

context of a broader objective to which it contributes, and also to more the specific 

objectives that contribute to it. 

50

Objectives are usually described as something that matters (e.g., availability of quality 

habitat for important species, or quantity of sediment loads into Guánica Bay) and a verb 

indicating the preferred direction of change (e.g., maximize or minimize) (Mollaghasemi 

and Pet-Edwards 1997; Dunning et al. 2000; McDaniels 2000; Keeney 2007; Gregory et al. 

2012). One example might be to “Maximize the availability of quality habitat for a fish 

species”. Another example might be to “Minimize the sediment loading into Guánica Bay”. 

The item of value is the key part of the usefulness of objectives in reflecting values. 

The direction of preference further specifies whether the item of value should be 

achieved or avoided. Objectives are context specific: they are defined for the decision 

at hand, not for universal usage. 

Formal decision analysis includes tools to properly elicit and structure objectives from 

stakeholders and decision-makers in a way that is practical and useful for evaluating 

decisions and identifying new alternatives (Merrick et al. 2005). Together, the decisionmakers and stakeholders develop a set of objectives that everyone agrees will be used to 

evaluate alternatives. 

Objectives have a direction of preference and an item of value. 

• Maximize the availability of quality habitat for a fish species.

• Minimize the sediment loading into Guánica Bay.

Elicitation of objectives from workshop attendees was through development of DPSIR 

concept maps as described in Section 3.4 and covered in detail in Bradley et al. 2014b. 

Once elicited, stakeholder objectives can be organized into an objectives hierarchy (OH), 

which is a formalized method to identify, describe, and structure the key objectives 

stemming from the decision context (Gregory and Keeney 2002). OH is a structured 

representation of the values of stakeholders (Fig. 4-1) and is useful for understanding the 

trade-offs in decision-making. This formal structure allows us to view any alternative in 

context of a broader objective to which it contributes, and also to more the specific 

objectives that contribute to it. 
51

Figure 4-1. Example objectives hierarchy (OH) for one of the proposed fundamental objectives for the 

Guánica Bay Watershed (source: Carriger et al. 2013).

Objectives in the upper levels of the hierarchy reflect broad or inclusive values–the 

fundamental objectives. A fundamental objective is usually determined when the answer 

to “why is this important” is “...just because”.... meaning that it is simply something that 

humans need or want. “Maximize ecological integrity”, “maximize human health”, and

“minimize management costs” are good examples of broad, encompassing fundamental 

objectives. 

Evaluation measures, attributes that can be used to evaluate performance toward higherlevel objectives, are at the bottom of the OH (Keeney 1992). Effective attributes are 

characterized by their measurability, understandability, and operability. The objectives 

and their corresponding attributes form a common vision for what is valued (objectives) 

and what will be assessed (attributes). The transparency of this approach helps to avoid 

future confusion and disagreement. At first, the OH is normally very broad, and is further 

refined over time. 

Good objectives are:

• Fundamental

• Complete

• Concise

• Sensitive

• Understandable

• Independent (Gregory et al. 2012)
52

Progress towards these objectives is indicated by progress towards narrower, more 

specific objectives (means objectives). Means objectives answer, “How do I achieve this?” 

or “What are the means to achieve this?”. 

“Process objectives” are different than fundamental and means objectives because they 

focus on improving the decision process. They don’t describe what should be done, 

but rather how it should be done (Keeney 1992). An example of a process objective might 

be “utilize credible scientific data” when appraising decisions. The process objectives help 

achieve both fundamental and means objectives. 

Key types of objectives: 

• Fundamental objectives are the outcomes or ends you really care about,

no matter how they are achieved.

• Means objectives refer to particular ways of achieving the fundamental objectives.

• Process objectives describe how something should be done.

A “means-ends” network can more fully specify the relationship between fundamental, 

means and process objectives and help elucidate which objectives are fundamental and 

which are means (Fig. 4-2). The fundamental objectives are the end concerns while the 

means objectives are important for achieving them. As noted, the ends objectives are the 

fundamental objectives: They reflect concerns that are important for their own reasons 

and not because they contribute to something that is more valuable (Keeney 1992). The 

recognition of these types of means-ends relationships is very useful because it reinforces 

linkages and establishes a path for the alternatives to achieve the objectives. The relative 

positions for different objectives along the means-ends path can usually be guided by 

asking, “Why is this important?” when moving towards the end objectives and “How do I 

achieve this?” when moving away from the fundamental objectives. The means furthest 

away from the fundamental objectives in this path will imply potential management

actions. 

For example, the information gathered during the 2010 Decision-Makers Workshop was 

examined, analyzed, and consolidated by EPA to generate a preliminary OH and further 

refined into a means-end network for the watershed management plan (Fig. 4-2), 

(Carriger et al. 2013). The approach for developing the objectives relied on existing 

sources such as the 2010 workshop products (e.g., DPSIRs) created by the participants 

with the existing watershed management plan and policy or management documents 

relevant to the problem area. The fundamental objectives were organized with an 

objectives hierarchy and means objectives for achieving these fundamental objectives 

were identified for both the watershed and marine regions. 
53

Figure 4-2. Means-end network for the Guánica Bay watershed based on expected effects of 

recommended actions from the Watershed Management Plan (CWP 2008) on fundamental objectives 

proposed in Carriger et al. 2013. 

Key ideas:

• A fundamental objective is an end that you are trying to achieve

• A means objective is a way of achieving an end or fundamental objective

• A process objective is a way of improving the decision process itself

• Evaluation measures are attributes that can be used to evaluate performance

toward higher-level objectives

• Focusing on objectives helps find creative solutions to problems

• Objectives only need to state the thing that matters, and what direction you’d like

it to move in (i.e., increase or decrease)

Maximize economic benefits

Maximize social well-being 

Minimize adverse human 

health effects

Maximize ecological integrity

Reduce physical/chemical/ 

bacterial stressors

from municipal loadings

Reduce physical/chemical 

stressors from agricultural 

loadings

Fundamental objectives WMP means objectives

Meet political and legislative 

requirements 

Conserve freshwater supplies

Preserve farmland/ topsoil
54

There are many valuable aspects to an objectives hierarchy (Keeney 1992, 2007); one is 

that it represents a common vision—most stakeholders will agree on objectives high in 

the hierarchy even if not specific approaches for reaching an objective. The OH can be 

checked with stakeholders for consistency to ensure their values are being properly 

represented. Another is that objectives low in the hierarchy usually present opportunities 

for measuring performance. As with DPSIR, the transparency of an objectives hierarchy 

also helps to avoid future confusion and miscommunication. 

4.1.2 Developing decision alternatives

Decision alternatives describe the different avenues that might be taken to achieve a 

particular objective. As emphasized in Chapter 2, decision alternatives should be 

considered only after objectives are understood. Seeking stakeholder input to identify and 

define decision alternatives can be valuable because stakeholders have innovative ideas 

and a strong local sense of what is threatened, what is creating the threat, what 

responses are feasible in their community and who or what might be affected by different 

decisions. 

Decision alternatives can be examined for a variety of factors. Each decision alternative 

can be rated for complexity (which affects the amount of time or cost to implement), 

effectiveness for the proposed objective, and potential consequences to other objectives. 

The scale (how big a project is or might become), the number and level of decision-makers 

required, the funding, and the acceptability within the community all affect the 

complexity of a decision. Effectiveness partially requires factual information; this may 

require a best estimate of which alternative or combination of alternatives is more likely 

to achieve the objective. If alternatives are not achieving the objectives, it could imply 

that they should be reformulated. 

Most decisions will affect more than one objective. For example, establishing a marine 

protected area will serve to maximize the long-term health of fisheries, but depending on 

the restrictions imposed, could maximize or minimize tourism, recreation and scientific 

learning. It may also detract from economic opportunities because of interrupted shipping 

lanes or reduced short-term fish catch.

Key points about decision alternatives: 

• Decision alternatives describe the different avenues that might be taken

to achieve a particular objective.

• Each decision alternative should be evaluated for complexity, effectiveness

for the proposed objective, and potential consequences to other objectives.

• Most alternatives will affect more than one objective.
55

Objectives and decision alternatives were elicited at workshops in the Guánica Bay 

watershed. One workshop reviewed decision-making processes used in the watershed to 

characterize process objectives. The other was a Public Values Forum, which used the 

WMP as a backdrop for discussion of what is important in the watershed and how can it 

be achieved. Both workshops are described below. 

4.2 Decision-making workshop

EPA convened a decision-making workshop in Guánica, Puerto Rico, on August 16 and 17, 

2012. The purpose of the workshop was to examine and understand how decision-makers 

and natural resource users engage in the management of non-market resources (land, 

water quality, agriculture, fishing, urban redevelopment and tourism) in the Guánica Bay 

watershed. A particular emphasis at the workshop was the interaction between decisionmakers and stakeholders during the decision-making process. Intrinsic to this approach is 

a concept that stakeholders and decision-makers invest in preservation and conservation 

of ecosystems because of the non-market benefits provided. This differs from market 

values that lead to, for example, food and fuel products extracted from an ecosystem. 

Market and non-market goods and services: 

• Some environmental goods and services, such as fish and seaweed, are

traded in markets, thus their market value can be directly observed. 

• Conversely, a non-market good or service is something that is not bought

or sold directly. Therefore, a non-market good does not have an observable

monetary value. Examples of this include beach visits, wildlife viewing, or

snorkeling at a coral reef.

Qualitative research methods are widely used in the social sciences to investigate human 

behavior. In this study, EPA used participant observation research methods and openended questions administered in a workshop setting. Participant observation is the 

method in which the researcher participates with the research subjects. For example, in 

this case, the researcher (Gerardo Gambirazzio) participated in the workshop sessions and 

passively observed the dynamics among the participants. In addition, he spent two days 

working with fishermen and two days with small-farm coffee growers. 
56

Observations of local fishermen included documenting their daily activities, noting their 

expenses, work schedules, and use of equipment, and also included discussions 

concerning their work, fishing methods, routes, and markets. Observations of small-farm 

coffee growers included the location of farms, the type of coffee, their production, 

capacity, and losses from an infestation of coffee bean borers (“Broca”). Also discussed 

were management practices of small coffee growers, as well as the economic, social, 

environmental and political pressures that are perceived by the farmers as threatening 

the survival of coffee growing enterprises. 

The purpose of the research design was threefold: 1) collect information across various 

time periods and on different issues that have impacted the Guánica region; 2) better 

understand the physical, environmental, political and geographical boundaries of the 

region as they pertain to decision-making; and 3) better understand how users of natural 

resources and managers of those resources work toward sustainability within these social, 

political and economic boundaries. Data collected by these methods were used to 

interpret the role of decision-makers over time and on different types of resource 

management issues. Insight was also gained on how structures for decision-making are 

formed (decision-making bodies) and how they result in management plans for the users 

and stakeholders of natural resources in Guánica Bay. 

The EPA researcher, Gerardo Gambirazzio, was also the facilitator for the workshop, 

which was conducted in Spanish to facilitate discussions with and among the 

stakeholders. The workshop was structured around two complementary parts: 

a. Investigate how decision-makers were structured, or not, along a chain or

hierarchy, and identify who they were and what they did or did not do (Day 1)

b. Investigate how local users and managers used non-market natural resources

and the challenges they faced (Day 2; Appendix E).

Fifteen people attended the workshop (Fig. 4-3), including farmers, fishermen, and 

representatives of local and Commonwealth government agencies and NonGovernmental Organizations (Appendix F). 
57

Figure 4-3. Workshop participants included farmers, fishermen, and representatives of local and 

Commonwealth government agencies and non-government organizations.

4.2.1 Decision issues in Guánica Bay watershed 

Non-market resources are the environmental goods and services (e.g., clean air and 

water, and healthy fish and wildlife populations) that are not traded in markets. 

Workshop participants discussed the ways in which non-market natural resources, and 

activities using non-market natural resources, are managed and regulated at various 

levels of government. Partly because of who was present at the workshop, the discussions 

tended to focus on agriculture and fishing.

Decision-making structure. Workshop participants agreed that there is a confusing 

network of agency bodies at Federal, Commonwealth and local levels that are assigned to 

regulate natural resources and promote conservation practices. It was argued that 

agencies are stove-piped and rarely share data or collaborate on decisions with one 

another. The fishermen, for example, raised the issue that federal agencies (e.g., NOAA) 

and Commonwealth agencies (Puerto Rico DNER and Puerto Rico Department of 

Agriculture) regulate fishing. Puerto Rico Department of Agriculture also regulates

agriculture, and participants felt the Department of Agriculture supports farming practices 

without considering consequences to coastal resources that are critical to fishermen. 

Academic

Federal

Commonwealth

Municipal

NGO

Citizen

Corporate
58

Decisions concerning large projects have a disproportionate influence on environmental 

resources and non-market values. According to participants, these are conceived and 

planned at the Federal and Commonwealth levels, almost always excluding local 

stakeholders. Examples noted were the Lajas Valley Project, the draining of Guánica 

Lagoon, the wind project at Guánica Forest, and siting of polluting industrial plants along 

Guánica Bay. This has resulted in a sense of disenfranchisement and lack of local control. 

It was suggested that a strategic plan should be developed to determine which land 

should be kept in a natural state and which land should be developed. Locally developed 

plans however, are not integrated into the Federal/Commonwealth decision-making 

process, which has traditionally exploited market-value resources and consequently 

transformed the natural landscape. For example, the Land Use Management Plan for the 

town of Guánica reflected viable ongoing economic activities in Guánica (fishing, tourism, 

and recreation), emphasizing revitalization of the waterfront as a tourism destination. But 

the Federal/Commonwealth government issued permits to allow construction and 

operation of a fertilizer plant on the shores of Guánica Bay (i.e., Ochoa Fertilizer Plant, see 

Fig. 3-6), which ultimately, according to some participants, contributed to degradation of

the Bay and destruction of the town’s economy.

It was emphasized that local citizens must demand more accountability from their 

leaders. For example, the Puerto Rico Department of Agriculture promotes and 

incentivizes the cultivation of coffee. However, Puerto Rico imports large quantities of 

coffee—a practice that is ruining small coffee farms. The companies that import coffee 

are reaping benefits from imported coffee, and do not foster policies that support locally

grown coffee. 

Training and outreach. A separate discussion during the workshop centered on training 

for stakeholders on the use of natural resources. Managers stated that they provide 

training on certain practices and on new regulations such as soil uses and other farming 

techniques. However, fishermen said that they receive no training on best practices or on 

new regulations. The fishermen, who were all commercial fishermen, felt that 

recreational and subsistence fishermen were depleting the resource through 

unsustainable fishing practices and adversely affecting the commercial industry. From this 

discussion it was concluded training and education needs may be greatest for recreational 

and subsistence fishermen.

There are many agencies providing training and outreach, ranging from Commonwealth 

agencies such as DNER, to universities such as the University of Puerto Rico Extension 

Program located in Yauco, and to Federal agencies such as EPA, NOAA, USDA/NRCS and 

the US Army Corps of Engineers. According to the participants, these agencies do not 

appear to work together to plan and coordinate training and outreach activities.
59

Priorities for natural resource management. Participants were asked to discuss their 

priorities for the Guánica watershed. They engaged in a lively and sometimes heated 

exchange of ideas. From this discussion, a set of priorities and associated objectives was 

developed (Table 4-1). 

Table 4-1. Priorities for natural resource management and associated objectives 

developed by participants at the 2012 Decision Workshop. 

Priority Associated Objective

Provide economic and technical assistance to farmers,

Form coffee cooperatives

A healthy coffee-growing region (economically 

and ecologically) – the “Napa” of Puerto Rico

Establish a set of sustainability rules Guánica becomes a sustainable community

Manage natural resources as a “common” (including 

establishing a marine reserve) modeled after the 

island’s first ecotourism project at the Punta Santiago 

Nature Reserve in Humacao, Puerto Rico

The Guánica Bay watershed area becomes an 

ecotourism destination

Develop cultural tourism (i.e., the sugar industry and 

Sierra Bermeja mountains, south of Lajas Valley, 

which has 95 million-year-old serpentine rocks, 

considered the most ancient rocks of the Caribbean 

plate, and 88 archeological sites)

The Guánica Bay watershed area becomes a 

cultural destination

Increase enforcement of environmental laws

• Theft/destruction of lobster pots

• Recreational fishing licenses and limits

• Prohibited fishing practices (use of chlorine)

• Education for the DNER Rangers

Sustainable marine resources

Environmental research. It is important to understand how and why government and 

other researchers conduct research, and how they obtain and share information with the 

community regarding the use of natural resources. An exercise was used to elicit 

information on this topic. 

Fishermen said that the researchers from the University of Puerto Rico are common in the 

area of fisheries and fisheries management. A resource manager commented that 

researchers from universities and agencies conduct research in the Guánica Dry Forest, 

but the results are seldom shared with the community. Most of the participants agreed 

that research projects conducted in Guánica watershed, whether on fishing, agriculture or 

urban issues have been single-focus projects, isolated from other social, economic, 

environmental, and political processes at work in the watershed. 
60

Transparency and access. Another exercise elicited opinions on access to decision-makers 

and transparency in the decision-making process. One participant noted that the problem 

wasn’t so much transparency, but rather manipulation of information and issues by 

decision-makers (agencies) toward a preconceived end. In general, participants were 

unaware which issues decision-makers are addressing and why they chose those issues 

over others. This led to a discussion on the lack of communication between natural 

resource users and Federal and Commonwealth agency managers. This detachment leads 

to adverse political and economic effects to the community, the environmental landscape 

of the mountains, the town, the Bay, and the coral reefs. 

Fishermen spoke at length about the lack of understanding by Federal and

Commonwealth decision-makers about the economics of their business. Commercial 

fisheries in the Guánica Bay watershed are mainly artisanal, occurring mainly in coastal 

habitats or on the insular shelf. The main fishing gears used are: hand lines, fish traps (for 

reef fish), wooden cage lobster traps, gill nets and trammel nets, horizontal and vertical 

long lines, trawling, gathering by hand (e.g., queen conch), and using scuba-diving 

equipment with spear guns. Specific concerns were:

• Competition among fishers is brutal. For example, lobsters are a very profitable

catch and some fishermen cut the lines to others’ lobster pots. There is no

enforcement of laws that prohibit this. Also, fishermen have to retrieve their cut

pots by scuba diving, often in dangerous conditions.

• The market for locally caught fish is very limited. There are six companies in Puerto

Rico that control the fishing industry. The artisanal fishermen catch fish to feed their

families but also sell part of their catch, which puts them in direct competition with

commercial fishermen.

• Commercial fishermen must comply with fishery regulations. Regulations prohibit

catching certain fishes some months of the year and DNER Rangers are responsible

for enforcing the fisheries regulations. Recreational and artisanal fishermen must

also comply with fishery regulations, but there is no enforcement. According to

DNER they have established a permit system to regulate the recreational fishermen

but it is not yet implemented.

• Lack of conscientious behavior. The recreational fishermen see less benefit in

conserving coral reefs relative to commercial fishermen. For example, some

recreational or artisanal fishermen use chlorine when they fish, which also kills reef

building corals and other biological habitat.
61

Coffee growers, who indicated they are facing a desperate economic situation, voiced a 

different set of concerns. 

• Patronage and favoritism. The term “apadrinamiento” (godfather) describes

government officials who select certain farmers to receive benefits and incentives.

• Subsidization of large farms over small. Government farm incentive programs

commonly support large farms and neglect small farms. In some cases, the

government covers 100% of the farming costs for some large farms (i.e., provides

the coffee plants, guarantees the crop sales). This means that large farms have

minimal risks, don’t have to expand and don’t have to use farming practices (e.g.,

sun-grown coffee) that destroy the landscape and create erosion. This is similar to

when sugar was the dominant crop and the U.S. Government subsidized large

corporate farms.

• Small family-owned and operated farms are disappearing. The small growers have to

take more risky actions to make a profit, including actions that are damaging to the

environment (e.g., clearing tree canopy and exposing the soil). Funding should be

made available and accessible to small family-owned farmers and small

entrepreneurs.

• There is a severe shortage of coffee pickers.

The participants all agreed that local stakeholders feel disenfranchised. People making the 

decisions do not include resource users in the decision-making process. Likewise, there is 

little community engagement about decisions being made, and stakeholder objectives and 

ideas are rarely considered. Participants highlighted certain aspects related to 

disenfranchisement: 

• There is a need for a methodology or structure to manage the natural resources that

includes resource users. As an example, some participants felt that more

stakeholder involvement was needed in managing the Guánica Dry Forest Reserve.

• Federal agencies are detached from the stakeholders, since they are too far away

from the Guánica Bay watershed. There is a feeling of lack of control on the part of

local managers since they do not make the actual decisions. There is often confusion

about who is in charge and who truly is making the decisions. Sometimes local

managers don’t agree with the decisions that have been made by Federal managers.
62

• Local communities are sometimes not even aware of decisions that have been

made. According to workshop participants, a U.S. company had constructed a

platform (about 300’ X 150’) to receive natural gas at the Puerto Rico Electric Power

Authority (PREPA) facility. Once the platform was obsolete, the U.S. company was

required to dispose of it. They hired a fisherman to find a suitable location to dump

it offshore so it could not be found. According to participants, the U.S. company sank

it two miles offshore of the town of Salinas. No enforcement actions were taken

against the company or PREPA.

• Puerto Rico agencies are highly politicized.

• Decisions are not always consonant with the scientific studies.

• When stakeholders are asked to participate in decisions, their opinions

and recommendations are subsequently not considered.

Concerns about transparency and access are summarized in Table 4-2. 

Table 4-2. Transparency and access concerns raised by participants at the 2012 Decision 

Workshop. 

Fishermen Coffee Growers Shared

Competition among fishers is 

brutal

Patronage and favoritism Local stakeholders feel 

disenfranchised

The market for locally caught fish 

is very limited

Subsidization of large farms over 

small

Lack of communication between 

natural resource users and 

Federal and Commonwealth 

agency managers

Commercial fishermen must 

comply with fishery regulations

Small family-owned and 

operated farms are disappearing

Local communities are 

sometimes not aware of 

decisions that have been made

No enforcement for recreational 

and artisanal fishers

There is a severe shortage of 

coffee pickers

Lack of conscientious behavior

4.2.2 Non-market values of ecosystem resources Natural resource goods and services, such as clean air and water, and healthy fish and 

wildlife populations, are not traded in markets. Their economic value (e.g., what people 

are willing to pay for them) is therefore not revealed in market prices. Non-market 

valuation methods provide a way to assign dollar values to them. Without these 

estimates, natural resource goods and services may be implicitly undervalued, and 

decisions regarding their use and stewardship may not accurately reflect their true value 

to society. The second day of the workshop was devoted to characterizing non-market 

ecosystem values for the participants. 
63

Natural resource management and conservation. An exercise was completed that asked 

participants to identify natural resources that are neglected or face challenges. The 

discussions identified several potential investment opportunities: 

• Collection, storage and distribution of water and future availability (security) of

water. There are water shortages, especially during the summer, and these are

becoming more acute. One issue is the old irrigation system infrastructure.

Sedimentation and inadequate outlets has reduced the flow capacity of

conveyances.

• Neighborhood blight. Parts of the town of Guánica look very run down. This creates

a negative impression of the town and potentially curbs tourism. The Guánica

municipal government does not invest in improvement projects that would maintain

quality housing or aesthetic attractions. Restoration of the town urban center would

benefit tourism.

• Agricultural lands must be rescued. Some agricultural lands have been or are being

used for municipal development.

Economic development. As part of another exercise, participants identified and discussed

the economic sectors they would like to see developed in Guánica Bay and the actions

they recommend to achieve economic sustainability. Highlighted in the discussions were

agriculture, fishing, ecotourism, forests and recycling, as noted below and summarized in 

Table 4-3 (pg. 66). 

Agriculture. The participants felt strongly that agriculture must be viewed as long-term 

investment in Puerto Rico. According to former P.R. Department of Agriculture Secretary 

Javier Rivera, Puerto Rico imports 85% of its food. Puerto Rico should establish local food 

production that is fully sustainable and diversified. Participants felt that there should be a 

marriage between food security and conservation of the land. 

Some of the challenges include:

• The large supermarket chains import food from low-cost global exporters and from

the U.S. mainland. Local farmers cannot compete. Even the Department of

Education School Lunch Program buys their goods from importers3. Additionally,

there are farmers who grow for the export markets when they should supply the

local market first.

3 On July 24, 2013, the governor of Puerto Rico announced his commitment that for the upcoming school 

year the food served in the school lunch program would be comprised of 50% locally grown food. Some 

critics have argued that this commitment was not met. Reference: El Vocero de Puerto Rico 2013). 

http://www.vocero.com/no-es-hecho-en-puerto-rico-menu-de-comedores-escolares/ 
64

• Many farms do not support independent livelihoods for their owners. Many farmers

receive more income from food stamps than from farming and this further reduces

the desire of small farmers to produce.

• Multi-crops should be encouraged. Insurance companies will only insure sun-grown

coffee when it is grown with other crops. Farms must be insured in order to receive

government incentives.

• Studies should be conducted to understand consumer preferences and to more

successfully market locally grown products to Puerto Ricans.

• Farmers must develop an entrepreneurial mindset. For example, some farms could

establish residential programs for aspiring farmers to learn and practice the

technical and business skills needed to run a small-scale farm. This has worked in

other places, and could work in Puerto Rico.

• Puerto Rico should develop a branding strategy for shade-grown Puerto Rican

coffee. This would include a field inspection and certification process.

Fishing. Commercial fisheries in the Guánica Bay watershed are small-scale and occur 

mainly in coastal habitats or on the insular shelf. Participants identified a wide range of 

challenges where additional resources could benefit commercial fishing: 

• Small-scale fishermen have no information to develop their businesses.

• In Salinas the fishermen created their own co-op to better manage the resource

as a group.

• Fishermen are blamed for over-fishing, but they believe it is pollution from the

farms that has adversely impacted the fish populations.

• Local fishermen sell their fish right away. They call people on the phone and then

drive around the city delivering the fish.

• The small commercial fishermen want to stay small, but want to make a living wage.

• If overfishing is really an issue, the small fishermen blame the six large companies.

• The small fishermen feel that Puerto Rico should develop a fish industry in

international waters. Japanese are fishing near Puerto Rico in international waters.

• The government should support the aquaculture industry.

• There should be more fish stocks protected and managed by the government.
65

Ecotourism. Workshop participants felt that ecotourism should be developed in the 

Guánica Bay watershed. This would serve to educate visitors about natural resources, 

would provide funds for ecological conservation, and would benefit the economic 

development and political empowerment of the local communities with tourism dollars. 

Discussion points related to ecotourism included:

• The government should provide some subsidies to support development of

ecotourism.

• A restored Guánica Lagoon could provide refugia and nursery areas for birds and

fishes, and support an ecotourism industry (kayaking, bird watching). It could

become a central part of the community. The participants were baffled by delays in

the restoration of the lagoon; they felt that it was either political or that a small

group of people who didn’t live in the watershed were delaying the restoration.

Forests. Local wood carvers require wood but are limited by regulations restricting use of 

wood from the Guánica Dry Forest. This restriction was used as an example that the 

Commonwealth (DNER) does not include or consider stakeholder needs in Dry Forest 

management. 

Recycling. Participants had a short discussion on the lack of recycling in the Guánica Bay 

watershed area. They felt that an emphasis should be placed on reducing, reusing and 

recycling materials. It was pointed out that recycling was not currently economically 

feasible and therefore the government should subsidize it. They also felt that an 

education program was needed.

• In 2010, EPA formed the Puerto Rico Recycling Partnership (PRRP) to promote

materials source reduction, clean composting, reuse, and recycling through a

working partnership including government (at all levels), non-profit organizations,

citizens, environmental groups, and the private sector.

• Three communities (Guaynabo, Rincon and Vieques) were chosen as pilot

communities. Things learned from the pilot communities will be valuable

to other communities throughout Puerto Rico facing similar socio-economicenvironmental challenges.
66

Table 4-3. Economic sectors and challenges to economic sustainability, as identified by 

participants during the 2012 Decision Workshop. 

Sector Challenges

Agriculture The large supermarket chains import food from low-cost global exporters and the U.S. 

mainland. Local farmers cannot compete.

Many farms do not support independent livelihoods for their owners.

Farms must be insured in order to receive government incentives and insurance 

companies require farmers to grow multiple crops.

Farmers do not understand the Puerto Rican consumer’s preferences.

Farmers must develop an entrepreneurial mindset.

Puerto Rico should develop a branding strategy for shade-grown Puerto Rican coffee.

Fishing Small-scale fishermen lack information to develop their businesses.

When fishermen form co-ops they can better manage the resource as a group.

Fishermen are blamed for over-fishing, but they believe it is pollution from the farms 

that has adversely impacted the fish populations.

Puerto Rico should develop a fish industry in international waters.

Government should support aquaculture.

More fish stocks should be protected and managed by the government.

Ecotourism Government should provide subsidies to support development of ecotourism.

A restored Guánica Lagoon would provide refugia and nursery areas for birds and fishes, 

and support an ecotourism industry.

Forest Crafts Local wood carvers require wood but are limited by regulations restricting use of wood 

from the Guánica Dry Forest.

Recycling Government should place an emphasis should on reducing, reusing and recycling 

materials. 

Recycling is not currently economically feasible and the government should subsidize it.

An education program is needed.

4.2.3 Summary

The Decision-Making Workshop led to a better understanding and characterization of 

past decisions in the watershed and challenges for social, environmental and economic 

balance. In particular, participants stressed the lack of local involvement and influence in 

decisions being made (usually at the Federal and Commonwealth level), and felt that this 

had led to a series of uninformed decisions that were often contradictory to local needs 

and local vision. 

The workshop also led to a better understanding of new and old challenges for important 

economic sectors, particularly small-scale commercial fishing and coffee farming. These 

challenges have been aggravated by policies and decisions within the watershed 

(e.g., poor enforcement of fishery regulations) and outside the watershed (e.g., coffee 

import tariffs). 
67

The workshop was also very informative concerning non-market values for natural 

resources. It became clear through the discussions that non-market value was elusive for 

most users of resources. Conservation of natural resources was a high priority because of 

long-term needs for extraction economies, not for the non-market values. The fishermen, 

who must sail miles further into the ocean to search for $50 worth of fish to break even at 

market, are upset about degradation of the coral reef ecosystem, not because it is an 

aesthetic loss or a loss of potential tourism dollars, but because it is essential habitat for 

fish. For coffee-growers, the political and economic imperatives to farm sun-grown coffee 

cause erosion of sediment that ends up in the rivers and on the Bay. 

4.3 Public Values Forum

EPA convened a Public Values Forum in January of 2013 to engage Guánica Bay watershed 

community members and decision-makers in a workshop setting to better understand 

and define what is important for restoration of the Guánica Bay watershed and associated 

coastal/marine regions. Drs. Robin Gregory and Julian Gonzalez (Value Scope Research, 

Vancouver, Canada), two recognized and neutral facilitators experienced with working 

with diverse groups in cross-cultural settings, facilitated the workshop in both English and 

Spanish and summarized its results (Gregory and Gonzalez 2013). 

EPA structured the workshop around activities and discussions that helped to characterize

valuable aspects of the watershed, to identify availability of and needs for science and

technical information to improve decision-making, and to demonstrate structured 

decision-making tools that could benefit future watershed management planning and 

implementation. The Public Values Forum was built on past work conducted by EPA in the

region with stakeholders and decision-makers, including information from prior 

workshops (see Sections 3.4 and 4.2) and archival research on the socio-economic 

development of the region (see Section 3.5). 

A broad group of stakeholders participated in the Forum, representing many interests in 

the watershed and coastal zone (Fig. 4-4; Appendix G). Prior to the Forum, EPA, Value 

Scope Research, colleagues from other governmental agencies, and non-government 

organizations (NGO) collaboratively generated a list of stakeholder categories to identify 

potential participants (Table 4-4). The thirteen categories were drawn from existing 

information about previous meetings, workshops and planning documents, and were 

deemed sufficient to ensure broad stakeholder representation based on the available 

knowledge about the region, and on information collected earlier on the context, and 

agreement with outside decision-makers. An invitation list was developed so that 2-3 

stakeholders were initially invited from each category. 
68

Figure 4-4. Public Values Forum participants included academics; representatives of government agencies, 

non-government organizations and businesses, and citizens.

Several invited participants provided names for potential additions to further fill the 

categories. Nonetheless, some categories (particularly fishing, recreation, and 

government- municipality) were not completely filled. For example, municipality officials 

were lacking because new local governments had just been installed after elections. 

Table 4-4. Categories used for targeting stakeholders for the Guánica Bay watershed 

Public Values Forum. 

• Community leaders/neighbors

• Environment- coastal/marine

• Environment- forest

• Environment- watershed

• Farming- upper watershed

• Farming- Lajas Valley

• Fishing

• Government- municipality

• Government- Puerto Rico

• Government- US

• Public health

• Recreation (other than fishing)

• Tourism

Academic

Federal

Commonwealth

Municipal

NGO

Citizen

Corporate
69

The first morning of the workshop offered several opening presentations that established 

an initial context and a common base of information for the Forum. These included two 

presentations from EPA, one on research in the watershed (Dr. William Fisher) and one on 

regulatory responsibilities and agency goals (Ms. Evelyn Huertas). Roberto Viqueira Ríos, 

the Guánica Bay Watershed Coordinator and director of the NGO ‘Protectores de 

Cuencas’, provided an overview and status update for the Guánica Bay Watershed 

Management Plan (CWP 2008). Dr. Richard Appeldoorn, a University of Puerto Rico 

marine scientist and Director of the Caribbean Coral Reef Institute, described the coastal 

ecosystems and the human activities in the watershed that threaten their condition. 

Dr. Manual Valdés-Pizzini, a sociologist and Director of the Interdisciplinary Center for 

Coastal Studies Social Sciences Department at the University of Puerto Rico, gave a 

presentation on the socioeconomic setting and history of the watershed and coastal zone. 

The facilitators (Drs. Robin Gregory and Julian Gonzalez) then provided an overview of the 

Forum goals and framework. 

The workshop reconvened after lunch with a discussion of the topics and information 

that were presented in the morning. Participants asked questions of presenters on several 

topics including the watershed and coral reef restoration effort, varying contributions of 

different stressors to coral reef degradation, uncertainty surrounding the sources and 

effects of stressors (particularly sediment and nutrients), potential impacts of 

resuspended sediments, and information sources. 

One discussion topic revolved around sediment deposition in Guánica Bay and the coral 

reefs. It was agreed that the highest sediment transport occurs after major rainfall events, 

but the primary source of sediment was disputed. Some felt the sediment arose from the 

Rio Loco watershed and others from the diversion of water from Lago Loco through Lajas 

Valley for agriculture irrigation. There was insufficient scientific evidence to resolve the 

issue, so Dr. Gregory explained that procedures were available to bring together scientists 

who had contrasting factual evidence. Technical issues can be clarified and evaluated in 

a formal process to clarify uncertainties and data gaps.

One participant felt that there had been too much emphasis on coral reefs, which 

initiated a discussion of other valued resources, including beaches and fisheries. 

This discussion led to identification of values beyond coral reef protection and highlighted 

other social and economic issues. For example, one concern was the inability of PREPA to 

remove sediment that continually collects in the irrigation canals and drainage ditches in 

Lajas Valley. Also, the potential loss of farmland was discussed in response to a proposal 

to restore the historic Guánica Lagoon for sediment and nutrient filtration. 
70

The facilitators then led a discussion on how workshops could be used to identify both the 

values and some of the factual information needs for good decision-making. The focus of 

a Public Values Forum was on understanding and incorporating stakeholder values into 

the decision process. Emphasized during this discussion was the difference between 

factual (knowledge-based) claims and value information. Values are what people care 

about (Keeney 1992) whereas fact-based claims are descriptive characterizations of states 

of the world (Failing et al. 2007). For decision-making purposes, the factual claims often 

describe past, current, or future impacts from decisions, and their uncertainties, based on 

scientific or local knowledge. Values represent what is important (to be achieved or 

avoided) in a decision context and are the reason why decisions are made. For example,

“eco-tourism opportunities would bring more visitors to the watershed” is a factual claim 

while “I hope the income level of residents increases” is a values-based statement. 

Whatever the source, knowledge-based claims can be held to standards of veracity and 

relevance while values held by individuals would not be tested for legitimacy (Failing et al. 

2007). The need to identify values before proposing alternatives was stressed. Clarifying 

data needs and gaps is essential for exploring alternatives, but the decisions should be 

optimally designed to fulfill stakeholder values. 

The workshop participants began to identify and organize the key values and factual 

elements to support further management decisions in the Guánica Bay watershed. Based 

on their interests and expertise, the participants self-selected into one of four breakout 

groups: ecology land, aquatic ecology, economy, or social issues, to discuss what they felt 

was important in the watershed (Fig. 4-5). 
71

Figure 4-5. Day 1 breakout groups for establishing an initial list of values in the social category 

(foreground) and economics category (background) at the Public Values Forum held for the Guánica Bay 

watershed in Puerto Rico (photo credit: John Carriger, ORISE Fellow). 

Each breakout group developed and presented an initial list of objectives reflecting their 

values for the watershed and coastal regions, which the facilitators reviewed and 

compiled into a combined list of objectives that included all of the objectives identified in 

each of the breakout groups. The combined list of objectives was reviewed the following 

morning of day 2 (Table 4-5). ‘Process’ objectives were taken from each group and 

compiled to highlight the objectives regarding improvements to the decision-making

process in the region. Many of these mirrored process concerns in the previous workshop.

Objectives with question marks indicate topics that were not fully defined or resolved as 

to meaning during the workshop.
72

Table 4-5. Initial objectives generated from four breakout groups in the first day of the 

Public Values Forum (adapted from Gregory and Gonzalez 2013).

Ecology - land

• Meet future water demands (Agriculture + Development)

• Restore and conserve habitat for important species

• Improve monitoring and feedback of current actions

• Reduce contamination from agriculture effluent

• Reduce stormwater runoff

o Ecological best-management practices

o Outreach and incentives

• Reduce soil loss (maintain productivity of land)

o Through best management practices in agriculture

• Reduce uncertainty about outcomes of management actions

• Understand relative contribution of sediment origins (two watersheds)

• Preserve forest habitats

• Protect endangered and threatened wildlife species

Ecology - aquatic

• Restore lagoon natural processes (filtration of nutrients and sediments)

• Restore shallow water coral reefs

o Reduce nutrient loads flowing into the ocean

o Enhance fish biomass and abundance

• Improve monitoring and feedback of current management actions

• Reduce human contamination

o Endocrine mimics (cosmetics, birth control)

o Runoff from roads (Hydrocarbons)

o Sewage pathogens

• Reduce uncertainty about outcomes of management actions

• Protect endangered and threatened marine species

• Protect mangrove habitats

• Protect marine habitats for migratory birds

Economy

• Demonstrate economic value of ecosystem services

• Estimate net benefits of best management practices

• Protect infrastructure of Southwest Puerto Rico Project

o Dredging reservoirs

o Maintaining tunnels

• Promote community economic benefits

• Improve employment opportunities

o Publish job opportunities

o Training and workshops for unemployed

o Undertake human capital analysis

• Increase sustainable economic development

o Promote eco-tourism

o Maintain/increase swimming beaches

o Promote opportunities for value-added employment and revenue
73

Table 4-5. (continued)

• Increase the agricultural activities and agricultural productivity within Lajas Valley Agricultural 

Reserve and upper Guánica Bay (Loco and Luchetti) watersheds

o Establish fair prices for products (increase revenue to local producers)

o Develop value-added products

o Preserve agricultural farmland

o Increase revenue for secondary industries supporting agriculture

• Restore commercial and sport fisheries

o Increase fish catch

o Create marine protected areas

• Increase renewable energy production

o Hydroelectric power generation 

o Alternatives (solar, wind, geothermal)

Social

• Promote quality of life for people in Guánica Bay watershed

• Maintain small-scale farming opportunities and way of life

• Reinforce cultural heritage and traditional livelihoods

o Lagoon fishing

o Artisans

• Improve well-being and human health: 

o Water quality

o Air quality (asthma – haze from Saharan winds)

o Food security 

o Safety and health of agriculture workers

• Improve recreation opportunities

• Meet legal & political requirements

• Promote education

o Formal and informal (visual)

o Promote pro-environmental attitudes

o Change behaviors

• Maintain sufficient potable water for citizens (quantity + quality)

• Expand spiritual and aesthetic opportunities 

o Commune with nature

Process

• Better program integration across different levels of government

• Better communication across agencies

• Better communication among agencies, citizens and Non-profit organizations

o Provide consistent information to citizens

o Improve access of information for citizens

• Demonstrate respect for all citizens (environmental justice)

• Enhance opportunities for meaningful public participation

o Land use planning and zoning 

o Improve responsiveness of agencies to citizens’ concerns.

o Provide a clear follow up to concerns

• Improve fairness in resource management and decision processes

o Participation (Inclusivity?)

o Enforcement (appropriate level of government)

• Establish clear criteria for zoning (land use planning)
74

During the presentations of objectives, each breakout group was also asked to identify 

individuals or interest groups that should be, but were not represented at the Forum. 

Participants identified the Puerto Rico Department of Health, local community leaders, 

teachers, employees from public works departments, Puerto Rico Planning Board, 

Caribbean Landscape Conservation Cooperative, Puerto Rico Land Use Plan developers, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, neighborhoods, fishers (commercial and recreational), 

farmers, recreational groups like surfing and diving associations, environmental health 

interests, US. Department of Agriculture including the NRCS, Puerto Rico Land Authority, 

the municipalities (workers, mayors and local politicians), Puerto Rico Department of 

Agriculture, land owners, and economic co-operatives.

It was explained by the facilitators that the objectives identified by the participants 

(Table 4-5) were merely a starting point to be further explored in more detail on the next 

day. There was discussion about how some of the objectives would take considerable

work and coordination to achieve, while others (e.g., the ‘low-hanging fruit’) were 

relatively easy to implement and might be first considerations for action. Before closing, 

the facilitators described the importance of attaining multiple values in a course of action 

and finding optimal paths to achieve the values. Designing actions that achieve multiple 

values will create greater positive benefits. 

On the second day, the consolidated objectives list (Table 4-5) that the participants had 

developed on the previous day was presented, and participants identified things that 

were missing or misinterpreted. Participants also discussed how to specify (detail) 

concerns reflected in the objectives. Facilitators asked questions that helped expand 

some of the objectives to consider broader impacts (e.g., water needs) or help to define 

the objectives (e.g., empowerment). 

Initial performance measures were created for each objective (Table 4-6), which provided 

additional focus for the objective and led to potentially useful metrics for evaluating 

management actions. Participants introduced potential new management actions and 

for each action they characterized the timing, costs, and level of confidence. Not shown in 

Table 4-6 is the benefit timing (e.g., immediate [<1 year], short-term [1-3 years], mediumterm [3-10 years], and long-term [10+ years]), designated for each action by the workshop 

groups. Confidence was also indicated (low, medium or high) for the likelihood that the 

action could be implemented and the objective achieved. Possible regulatory or political 

reasons the action might or might not be implemented were discussed. Participants were 

told not to list actions already underway or recommended in the 2008 WMP. 
75

Table 4-6. Initial priority management actions from different breakout groups shown 

with potential performance measures and the values served (adapted from Gregory and 

Gonzalez 2013).

Area Values Performance Measures Actions

Economic Protect 

agricultural land 

(fully utilize 

potential?)

• Reduce % fallow land

• Diversify crops

• Promote BMP

• $/Ha of production (by type

of crop)

• Salinity of soil

• $ Farm production loss due

to land under water

• Implement development plans (?)

• Ensure continuity of plans

• Implement BMP incentives plan

• Ensure no net loss of agricultural land

• Avoid practices that increase soil

salinity

• Improve mechanism for water

drainage (clean channels to increase

water flow)

Ensure 

availability of 

good quality 

water supply (for 

agriculture?)

• Percentage of full capacity

for reservoir

• $ Avoiding costs for building

new water infrastructure

• Percentage of catchment area

with vegetated cover (?)

• Dredge sediment from water

reservoirs

• Schedule maintenance of water

reservoirs

• Reforest catchment areas

Create more job 

opportunities

• Number indirect and direct

jobs created

• Average $ level of pay

• $ Value added in local industry

• Prioritize hiring needs

• Assess private business investment

opportunities

• Develop re-training plans for workers

Aquatic 

ecology

Improve water 

quality (in rivers 

and ocean?)

• Turbidity

• Solids in suspension

• Nutrients

• Coliforms

• Restore lagoon

• Monitor water quality before, during

and after lagoon restoration

• Educate community about (?)

• Convert Guánica WWTP to tertiary

• Restore marshes ability to filter

sediments (?)

• Consistent enforcement of

regulations

Foster healthy 

native aquatic 

community

• Size

• Diversity

• Health

• Create and improve habitat (where?)

Improve quality 

of life related to 

water resources 

use

• Aesthetics: reduce visible

waste

• Reduce turbidity of water

• Number of people involved in

ecological improvements of

the watershed

• Ha (cuerdas) forested

• Number of recreation activities

• Number of recreationists

• Reforestation

• Eliminate invasive aquatic species

• Conserve soil

• Program to educate citizens and

industry on reduction and recycling of

waste

• Educate population about importance

of lagoon and marsh ecological

services
76

Table 4-6 (continued)

Area Values Performance Measures Actions

Land 

ecology

Restore fauna 

and habitat

• Index of species biodiversity

• Kilometers of ecological

corridors

• Ha habitat suitable for

trust species

• Convert sun grown to shade grown

coffee

• Establish riparian buffers

• Reforestation

• Forest enhancement

• Restore Guánica lagoon

• Land acquisition for conservation

purposes

• Promote enhanced habitat for trust

species

• Consistent enforcement of

regulations

• Continue implementation of 2008

GBWMP

Conserve soil 

productivity

• Percentage reduction in

erosion

• Crop production in tons per ha

• Promote sustainable agricultural

practices

• Promote best management practices

• Continue hydro-seeding

• Create state and private land

management plans

Reduce point and 

non-point source 

of contamination 

in watershed

• Sediments and nutrient levels

mg/L/M2

• Concentration of hydrocarbons

• Identify point sources of pollution

• Create green infrastructure to treat

runoff waters

Social Promote 

education

• Environmental attitude survey

• Number of community

members acting in projects

• Promote pro-environmental attitudes

via formal and informal education

• Implement adopt a beach program

• Promote capacity building in schools

and communities

Improve health • Percentage people connected

to PR Aqueduct and Sewer

Authority (PRASA)

• Census statistics

• Increase participation in PRASA

• Conduct epidemiological studies on

key health issues

• Survey of home owners to determine

status of septic tanks

Promote 

sustainable 

communities

• Number demonstration

projects

• Number of community based

enterprises

• Number of community

networks

• Number of conferences and

seminars in communities

• Conduct capacity building workshops

• Create community coalitions

• Provide citizens access to information

• Create opportunities for enhanced

public involvement

• Promote efficiency through better

inter-agency communication
77

Dr. Brian Dyson (EPA) introduced a decision analysis tool under development by EPA. 

DASEES (Decision Analysis for a Sustainable Environment, Economy and Society) is a webbased tool to organize the many values and diverse factual information that might be 

needed for a complex environmental management decision. One component of DASEES is 

a social network analysis (SNA) tool. Participants had been asked on the first day of the 

Forum to identify the different people and groups that they worked with on watershed 

environmental issue and this information was captured in an SNA. Dr. Tom Stockton 

(Neptune, Inc.) demonstrated the tool and the results of the informal survey. Discussion 

ensued on the utility of these types of tools to improve communication within and among 

community organizations (Fig. 4-6). Participants asked about the availability of software 

for SNA, and EPA subsequently forwarded an SNA freeware package to all the Forum 

participants.

Figure 4-6. Social Network Analysis (SNA) of workshop participants at the Public Values Forum (source: 

Tom Stockton, Neptune and Company, Inc.). Participants are identified by the organization they represent. 

Lines represent communication between stakeholders. The workshop analysis showed a small group of 

stakeholders had isolated communication. This type of analysis can help resolve such issues at the beginning 

of SDM. 

The facilitators described additional tools, including the development of a consequence 

table, to display the likely effects of different alternatives on multiple objectives. 

A consequence table is extremely helpful for interpreting impact assessments and 

typically contains a matrix of potential effects of alternatives on performance measures 

for objectives in each cell (Gregory et al. 2012). Its use can augment different phases of a 

decision-making process, including generating new alternatives, identifying missing or 
78

insufficient objectives and performance measures, eliminating dominated alternatives, 

identifying information sources for the impacts of alternatives on objectives, trade-off 

analysis, and appraising the impacts of objectives on alternatives from the best available 

information. The consequence table demonstrated at the Forum was primarily used to 

show how one might initially appraise the impacts of alternatives on objectives and 

creatively derive new alternatives. 

For demonstration purposes, an example consequence table was generated interactively 

(Table 4-7). Although the matrix was not populated, participants could see how different 

alternatives could be rated for effects on multiple objectives in the watershed. 

Table 4-7. Illustrative consequence table developed interactively for Guánica Lagoon 

restoration, showing objectives in rows and possible management alternatives in 

columns (adapted from Gregory and Gonzalez 2013 to reflect correct acreage). 

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

Values or

Concerns

Criterion

& desired

direction

Current 

status

Full lagoon 

restoration

(1200 acres)

Partial lagoon 

restoration

(900 acres per 

GME 2011)

Adaptive & 

precautionary 

plan

restoration

Other plan 

(yet to be 

developed)

Economics

Environment - land

Environment - water

Social & cultural

Information 

uncertainty

Public participation

Governance and 

process

On the final day of the workshop, new breakout groups were formed, and the list of 

actions developed on the first two days was narrowed into a focused list of high priority

actions. The goal was to have a set of key, high-priority actions to pass along to decisionmakers, since it would be too costly to implement every action with the limited resources 

that were available. Each breakout group selected ten management actions from the list 

that they felt were the highest priority. 

Participants used anonymous electronic voting to prioritize the management actions 

selected by each group that would best achieve valued outcomes. The voting equipment 

included hand-held transponders that recorded the responses of individuals. Prior to 

voting on the decision alternatives, participants used the transponders to record certain 

personal information, such as whether they had read the 2008 Guánica Bay WMP (CWP 

2008) or whether they lived within the watershed. Reporting for the voting results could 

then account for these relevant characteristics of the voting demographic. 
79

For example, the highest priority for participants with limited knowledge of current 

watershed initiatives was educational programs to promote sustainability (from among 

alternatives of the Economics work group), whereas those who claimed a lot of 

knowledge preferred development and implementation of management plans for marine 

areas (Fig. 4-7). As another example, participants preferred best management and 

conservation practices (from among the alternatives of the Social work group) regardless 

of whether they had read the 2008 WMP (Fig. 4-8). 

Figure 4-7. Prioritization results for the actions identified by the Economics workgroup for restoring the 

Guánica Bay watershed and coastal zone, differentiated by knowledge of current initiatives in the 

watershed (adapted from Gregory and Gonzalez 2013). 

Encourage more shade grown coffee and

reforestation

Establish riparian buffers

Restoration of lagoon

Dredge reservoirs and dist channels

Restore drainage system

Promote citizens access to information

Education programs to promote

sustainability

Continue implementation of WMP 2008

Create and implement management plan

for marine areas of Guanica Reserve

Promote land management plans for

private landowners

Knowledge of current initiatives in 

watershed

A lot Somewhat Limited
80

Figure 4-8. Prioritization results for the actions identified by the Social workgroup for restoring the 

Guánica Bay watershed and coastal zone, differentiated by knowledge of the 2008 watershed 

management plan (CWP 2008) (adapted from Gregory and Gonzalez 2013). 

Once the results were presented, additional discussions focused on which alternatives 

would be less controversial and less costly to implement (low hanging fruit) and could 

have high and immediate impact on objectives. Each group then identified priority actions 

(Table 4-8). 

The results (Table 4-8) are clearly informative for any decision-maker in the watershed. 

Although there were stakeholder categories that were not represented, the list of 

priorities illustrates a broad concern for many different issues interlaced throughout the 

watershed and across various stakeholder groups. Most of the priority actions support not 

only protection of coral reefs but also other watershed objectives such as agriculture, 

fishing, human health, law enforcement, water availability and environmental education. 

The broad concerns represented do not necessarily narrow the options for a decision 

maker but provide ample evidence of issues to consider for any alternative. Further 

discussion among stakeholders and development of consequence tables could strengthen 

or eliminate some of the alternatives listed.

Best management and conservation

practices

Measure effectiveness of BMPs

Identify sources of pollution

Law enforcement

No agricultural land loss

Tertiary treatment of sewage plant

Green infrastructure

Reduce sewage from septic tanks

Human capital profile

Reefs economic analysis

Read WMP (2008)

Parts No Yes
81

Table 4-8. Priority actions identified by each of the four work groups in the Public Values 

Forum (source: Gregory and Gonzalez 2013). These are not listed in priority order. 

Land Ecology Aquatic Ecology Economics Social

1. Research

opportunities

2. Improve river quality

3. Educate people near

the river

4. Monitor water quality

5. Diversify economic

opportunities

6. Improve infrastructure

7. Restore ecosystems

8. Recreation

opportunities in the

watershed

9. Agricultural incentives

10. Co-management of

protected areas in

watershed

1. Promote shade grown

coffee

2. Reforestation and

buffer zone

3. Promote BMPs (soil,

water, sea)

4. Monitor water quality

in the watershed

5. Education and

investigation about

drainage system in

Lajas Valley

6. Educate public and

industry in reduction

and recycling of waste

7. Education and

enforcement of water

laws

1. Encourage more

shade-grown coffee

and reforestation

2. Establish riparian

buffers

3. Restore the lagoon

4. Dredge reservoirs and

distribution channels

5. Restore drainage

system

6. Promote citizens access

to information

7. Education programs to

promote sustainability

8. Continue implementing

actions in the WMP

9. Create and implement a 

management plan for

marine areas of the

Guánica Reserve

10. Promote land

management plans for

private landowners

1. Best management

and conservation

practices

2. Measure effectiveness of BMPs

3. Identify sources of

pollution

4. Law enforcement

5. No agricultural land

loss

6. Tertiary treatment

of sewage (to reduce 

nutrient loadings to

Guánica Bay)

7. Green infrastructure

8. Reduce sewage

from septic tanks

9. Human capital

profile

10. Reefs economic

analysis

4.3.1 Summary

Overall, the workshop approach was beneficial to the management process of the 

Guánica Bay watershed and to the programmatic aspects of EPA’s sustainability research. 

Public Values Forum participants included key decision-makers, NGO leaders with strong 

interest in restoring the watershed, academics, farmers and recognized business leaders. 

The Forum introduced tools and frameworks that helped to generate greater insights 

for decision-making and could be used by participants for their own decision-making 

processes. Learning about SDM and working through examples inspired many of those 

in attendance, some of whom have a significant role in the restoration and management 

of the watershed. In addition, bringing together the different stakeholders provided 

greater insight into the watershed and coastal/marine governance process and diverse 

values that need to be considered in EPA initiatives in the Guánica Bay watershed region. 

The Forum created within the participants a better understanding of value-focused 
82

thinking (Keeney 1992) and its potential for improving management of the Guánica Bay 

watershed. 

The importance of understanding stakeholder values is receiving greater recognition in 

conservation and environmental management programs. Historically, many 

environmental initiatives have not placed a priority on incorporating values into territorial 

and federal government policies, often resulting in sub-optimal communication and 

fragmented management (Aguilar-Perera et al. 2006). In this Public Values Forum, the 

need for broader representation of stakeholders beyond those in attendance, including 

greater representation from residential interests, was explicitly and iteratively 

emphasized as a means to achieve a more complete understanding and clarification of 

values in the watershed.

The Public Values Forum helped clarify some areas of disagreement regarding the WMP, 

in particular the restoration of Guánica Lagoon, and provided additional ideas on how 

they might be resolved. The facilitators stressed the importance of separating facts from 

values when disagreements occurred and this was instrumental in creating positive 

discussion and insight regarding the lagoon. Some disagreements are based on values 

while others are based on facts, or the predicted outcomes from decisions. Depending on 

the degree and type of factual- or values-based disagreements, different settings and 

information would be required to lend greater insight into the problem. Since this was a 

Public Values Forum, there was a greater focus on what is important (values), but a future 

workshop focused on scientific issues was also discussed as a means to resolve some of 

the scientific disagreements.

Guidance for developing a public values forum is provided in Appendix H. 

4.4 Summary of the workshops

A robust participatory process of information sharing and stakeholder engagement should 

be requisite for environmental management and sustainability strategies to inform 

decision development and implementation, and to foster public engagement and support. 

‘Sustainability’ necessitates a consideration of broad and multi-disciplinary issues (ValdésPizzini 2001; Munda 2008). Environmental management ultimately benefits from 

consideration of factors such as socioeconomic and cultural behaviors and perceptions, 

communication between governments and local communities, and strong participation by 

community members (Aguilar-Perera et al. 2006). The two EPA workshops described in 

this Chapter (Decision-Making Workshop and Public Values Forum) engaged stakeholders 

in structured discussions about their vision and concerns for the watershed and their 

perception of how decisions are made. 
83

The Decision-Making Workshop elucidated many stakeholder concerns about how 

decisions have been made in the past. Participants emphasized the lack of local 

involvement or influence in decisions and the apparent lack of communication or 

agreement among government agencies. They believed that these process issues 

resulted in both contradictory policies and decisions that did not benefit local needs. 

The outcomes have affected economic (e.g., fishing and coffee farming) as well as 

social (e.g., lack of initiative) values. 

The overall outcome of the Decision-Making Workshop was that the participants achieved 

a better understanding of past decisions in the watershed and the challenges for social, 

environmental and economic balance. In particular, participants stressed the lack of 

local involvement and influence in decisions being made (usually at the Federal and 

Commonwealth level), and felt that this had led to a series of uninformed decisions that 

were often contradictory to local needs and local vision. The workshop also led to a better 

understanding of new and old challenges for important economic sectors, particularly 

small-scale commercial fishing and coffee farming. These challenges are aggravated by 

policies and decisions within the watershed (e.g., poor enforcement of fishery regulations) 

and outside the watershed (e.g., coffee import tariffs). 

The Public Values Forum illustrated the broad range of objectives that stakeholders 

have for the watershed, including coral reefs, agriculture, fishing, human health, law 

enforcement, water availability, environmental education and more. Participants gained 

an appreciation for the effects that any given decision might have on the multiple 

objectives and a better understanding of the need for valuation and tradeoff analysis. 

Groundwork was laid in the workshop for recognizing the difference between valuefocused thinking (why) and alternative-focused thinking (how). 

Objectives identified during the Public Values Forum (Table 4-5) showed a lot of similarity 

to concerns mentioned during the initial 2010 Decision Sketching Workshop (Table 3-1), 

the 2012 Decision-Making workshop (Table 4-1), and in preliminary inferences from 

management documents (Carriger et al. 2013). The platinum standard for determining 

objectives is to elicit them directly from stakeholders and decision-makers (Parnell et al. 

1998), but even preliminary assessments or inferences from written reports or during 

decision sketching exercises can be valuable in identifying information needs and 

developing creative alternatives. Development of objectives is an iterative process, 

and early assessments can also be useful in identifying critical stakeholders who may 

need to be invited to subsequent workshops where objectives are further refined.
84

Stakeholders in both workshops identified several critical decision issues: 

1) Local stakeholders have had little influence in decisions being made in the

watershed. Moreover they were too often not even informed of decisions and

initiatives (Gregory and Gonzalez 2013). This has led to distrust and apathy.

2) Economic independence is a goal. The lack of a self-supporting economy was evident

in discussions concerning fisheries, eco-tourism and agriculture in Lajas Valley.

3) Incentives to bolster the sugar industry resulted in an unbalanced, monolithic

economy that ultimately struggled without incentives. This left Puerto Rico with

few economic alternatives when sugar production collapsed.

4) Rather than viewing environmental conservation as a tradeoff with economic

purposes, most stakeholders recognized that stable ecosystems are necessary

for future economic viability.

5) Inadequate water availability is a liability for future economic and municipal growth.

The inability to prevent soil loss and sedimentation into reservoirs and irrigation

canals has adversely affected water quality and quantity. Existing agricultural and

municipal water needs may not be met in the near future.

6) Enforcement of regulations and provision of incentives is unfair to some economic

sectors. Lack of enforcement of environmental regulations for recreational and

subsistence fishers has hurt commercial fishers. Coffee growing incentives target

large farms over small, reducing the chance for small farms to prosper. Unequal

application of laws and opportunities generate resentment and stifle economic

success.

7) Environmental education is needed for farmers, fishers, and other citizens. Training

in best management practices for farmers and fishers was widely supported as was

better education opportunities for people living along the rivers and around Guánica

Bay. Knowledge is power.

8) Ecotourism is potentially a viable economic driving force. Development of the bay,

coral reefs and coastal zone, the Guánica State Forest, historic buildings and

monuments, mountain coffee farms, and forest biodiversity were all identified

as potential attractions for tourists.

9) Communication is lacking between stakeholders and government agencies and

among stakeholder groups. Communication with agencies could reinforce trust in

decision-making and improve decisions; communication among groups would

strengthen the community voice.
85

Chapter 5. Estimate Consequences and Evaluate 

Tradeoffs

5.1 Estimating consequences

Chapter 4 illustrated how structuring objectives and their corresponding performance 

measurements help to concisely define “what matters” about a decision and drive the 

search for creative alternatives (Gregory et al. 2012). The next step in the decision process 

is to estimate the consequences of different alternatives on each of the multiple 

objectives identified by stakeholders (see Table 4-5) using performance measures as 

indicators. Information about consequences comes from three main sources: 

1) Structural modeling: Consequences may be evaluated qualitatively through group

deliberations using influence diagrams or graphical models that link decisions to

objectives through changes in intermediate variables (Marcot et al. 2012).

For many decisions, a qualitative assessment of likely outcomes is sufficient.

2) Targeted studies and predictive modeling: Influence diagrams are often turned

into predictive quantitative models based on empirical data. Some tools for

conducting quantitative analysis of consequences include probabilistic networks

and simulation models.

3) Expert judgments: Where empirical data are unavailable, analysts may rely on

expert judgments to reduce uncertainties in predicting consequences.

The goal of each approach is ultimately the same: to estimate the consequences of 

each alternative on the performance measures.

In the following sections, we describe how EPA has been using a combination of these 

approaches to identify where information is needed to qualitatively link decisions to 

objectives (Section 5.2), conduct scientific investigations and expert panels to reduce 

uncertainties (Section 5.3), and develop tools to conduct quantitative analyses of 

consequences (Section 5.4). In Section 5.5, we describe how the scientific information 

in a consequence table (see Table 4-7) can be used to conduct a tradeoff analysis.
86

5.2 Identifying information needs

Because each decision alternative will likely affect more than one of the objectives, 

estimating consequences should incorporate systems thinking to guide information 

collection and scientific investigation. Before the Guánica Bay workshops, EPA developed 

graphical models to link decisions to stakeholder-valued outcomes, and identify key 

linkages where scientific information may be needed (see Fig. 3-8). The scheme was based 

on the results of expert focus groups formed to discuss each of the five DPSIR sectors (see 

Section 3.3). The focus groups organized coral reef information into the five categories 

(EPA 2014a) and provided EPA with insights to the types of science questions that should 

be considered for each sector. 

When applied to a decision context, such as protecting coral reefs, some questions seem 

obvious. For example, it may seem quite obvious that sediment from farming is 

contributing to the degradation of reefs and that reef degradation will affect fishing and 

tourism opportunities. But the proposed decisions will refine the questions. For example, 

how much difference will shifting coffee cultivation from sun-grown to shade grown 

practices make on sediment loads, coral reef condition, and fishing and tourism 

opportunities? Other questions arise from the additional objectives raised by 

stakeholders. For example, sediment trapping in reservoirs has diminished the sediment 

runoff to the coastal zone; how does the loss of water storage capacity affect the 

availability of domestic water sources in an island with small watershed areas? When 

examined in a systems framework, each decision alternative will generate a robust set of 

potential consequences and knowledge gaps for science investigation (Table 5-1). 

The principal importance of the Driving Force sector in a DPSIR framework is to 

characterize how human activities are driven by socioeconomic needs as well as how 

some socioeconomic needs are fulfilled by the goods and services provided by 

environmental resources, such as coral reefs. The Driving Forces are highly 

interdependent (e.g., coral reefs attract tourism and fishing, activities that can degrade 

coral reefs). For research related to the Guánica Bay example, it was important to identify 

the types, intensity and interactions of Driving Forces in the watershed and to identify the 

types and levels of human activities (Pressures) generated by each Driving Force. 
87

Table 5-1. Issues in a DPSIR-based framework, sample research questions from 

stakeholder discussions (see Table 3-3), and targeted EPA research activities.

Overarching Issues Sample Research Questions EPA Research Activities

Influence of socioeconomic Driving 

Forces (D) on human 

activities (P)

What are the sources of nutrient 

and sediment loading?

Hydrologic modeling (Yuan et al. 2013; 

Hu et al. 2015) 

What are the sources of 

contaminants?

Citizen-volunteer and professional 

monitoring to identify fecal sources of 

contamination in southwestern Puerto 

Rico (Rodriguez et al. 2014)

Influence of human 

activities (P) on the 

state (S) of the 

environment

What are the priority stressors 

affecting reef health?

A coral reef example of science-based 

multi-stakeholder deliberation (Rehr et 

al. 2014)

What are the effects of 

watershed-derived stressors on 

reefs?

Responses of coral reef fauna to 

human influence (Oliver et al. 2014)

How do we define reef condition 

along a stressor gradient?

Biological integrity of coral reefs 

(Bradley et al. 2014a)

State (S) of 

ecosystems required 

for sustainable 

delivery of ecosystem 

services (I)

What is the state of coral reefs? Reef assessments in 2010, 2011 based 

on methods from a Field Manual for 

Coral Reef Assessments (Santavy et al. 

2012)

What are the attributes of 

ecosystems that contribute to 

ecosystem services?

Quantifying coral reef ecosystem 

services (Principe et al. 2012)

Effects of changes in 

ecosystem state (S) 

on what stakeholders 

value (I), including 

ecosystem services

How do we link changes in reef 

condition to changes in ecosystem 

services?

Comparison of methods for quantifying 

reef ecosystem services (Yee et al. 

2014b)

How do we link changes in land 

cover to changes in ecosystem 

services?

Linking ecosystem services supply to 

stakeholder values in Guánica Bay 

Watershed, Puerto Rico (Smith et al., In 

Review)

What is the economic value of 

reef ecosystem services?

Economic valuation of Puerto Rican 

Reefs (ongoing)

Consequences of 

decision alternatives 

(R) on what 

stakeholders value (I)

What are the potential effects of 

pollutant loadings on reef 

ecosystem services?

A coral reef example of building 

consensus in environmental decisionmaking (Rehr et al. 2014)

What are the effects of decision 

options on water resources?

Estimating effects of management 

options on water storage capacity of 

Lago Lucchetti (Bousquin et al. 2014)

What are the effects of sediment 

reduction on coral reef ecosystem 

services?

Linking management of sediment 

runoff to coral reef ecosystem services 

using Envision (ongoing)
88

Research under the Pressure sector should seek to determine the influence of human 

activities on changing stressors in the ecosystem. This requires characterizing the types 

and levels of human activity that generate sediment, contaminants, nutrients and other 

pollutants, and how much they generate. For the Guánica Bay project, this included 

measuring terrestrial sediment in the coastal zone and estimating changes in sediment 

reaching the coastal zone as a consequence of various management alternatives, 

including conversion of coffee farming to shade-grown cultivation and dredging reservoirs 

in the watershed. 

Research under the State sector should be directed at measuring the state (condition) and 

persistence of the ecosystem, and linking changes in state with changes in delivery of 

ecosystem goods and services. For the Guánica Bay project, this included reef 

assessments using fish, stony coral, sponge and gorgonian indicators that characterized 

the potential for delivery of ecosystem services. It also included expert deliberation to 

characterize the levels of condition (or thresholds) necessary to support persistence and 

sustainable delivery of ecosystem services. It is important to recall that water quality 

stressors (e.g., sediment, nutrients, contaminants) are generated by human activities 

(Pressures) but once generated become a condition of the reef—and therefore the effects 

of water quality are investigated under the State sector of DPSIR. To this end, laboratory 

studies were conducted to characterize the effects of various sediment types and loads on 

various coral reef species.

The Impact sector links ecological condition with potential delivery of ecosystem goods 

and services. Research in this sector should generate defensible relationships between the 

condition of the ecosystem and the potential delivery of ecosystem goods and services, 

and how the delivery and value of goods and services changes as ecosystem condition 

changes. In the Guánica Bay case, this included development of different approaches to 

estimate goods and services from ecosystem condition and linking changes in condition to 

changes in goods and services. It also included ongoing research into the market and 

nonmarket value of coral reefs to the ecotourism economy.

The different research efforts that initiated from this system approach are summarized in 

Table 5-1. In Section 5.3, we highlight some of these efforts. 
89

5.3 Scientific investigations to reduce uncertainties

EPA is using targeted studies, predictive modeling, and expert group deliberations to 

gather the information needed to link management actions to consequences for 

ecological, economic, and human health endpoints. Although EPA research was initially 

focused on protection of coral reefs, efforts ultimately migrated to a more holistic 

consideration of management consequences to objectives throughout the watershed.

This section provides examples of past and ongoing EPA research efforts focused on 

reducing uncertainty across the DPSIR framework. 

5.3.1 Coral reef condition

The Guánica Bay Watershed Management Plan (CWP 2008) proposed several actions to 

reduce anthropogenic stressors from the watershed in order to protect coral reef 

habitats. Stakeholders at the Public Values Forum recognized a key uncertainty in this 

approach was the state, or condition, of the reefs outside Guánica Bay. There are two 

important components to this uncertainty—measurement and interpretation of 

measurements. 

The measurement component had been a focus of previous EPA research, which included 

development of indicators and field survey designs that were defensible for Clean Water 

Act reporting (Fisher 2007; Fore et al. 2009; Bradley et al. 2010) A critical issue in indicator 

selection is sensitivity to human disturbance—indicators that cannot distinguish humaninduced from natural change cannot be used for regulatory protection under the Clean 

Water Act. EPA developed and tested several stony coral indicators (Fisher et al. 2008),

and has applied these validated, human-responsive indicators in probabilistic survey 

designs in both the U.S. Virgin Islands (Fisher et al. 2014) (Fig. 5-1) and southern Puerto 

Rico. The two Puerto Rico surveys, performed in 2010 and 2011, also included 

measurements of reef fish, sponges, gorgonians and other macro-invertebrates (Santavy 

et al. 2012), although indicators from these measurements have not yet been validated 

for sensitivity to human disturbance.
90

Figure 5-1. Display of stony coral density results from reef assessment surveys completed at St. Thomas 

and St. John (top) and St. Croix (bottom) in the U.S. Virgin Islands (source: Fisher et al. 2014). 

The interpretation component of reef condition seeks to identify from the assessment 

data what constitutes a good, fair, or poor reef. This is being addressed by EPA as a part of 

a larger effort to develop a conceptual model describing how biological attributes of coral 

reefs change along a gradient of increasing anthropogenic stress. This model, generically 

called the Biological Condition Gradient (BCG) (Fig. 5-2), is used to show how biological 

attributes of aquatic ecosystems (i.e., biological condition) might change along a gradient 

of increasing anthropogenic stress (e.g., physical, chemical and biological impacts) (Davies 

and Jackson 2006). The y-axis of this conceptual model ranks biological condition and the 

x-axis ranks levels of anthropogenic stress. 
91

Development of a Coral Reef BCG is a multistep process. EPA assembled a panel of US 

Caribbean experts with expertise in coral reef ecology and management, including 

knowledge of stony corals, reef fishes, sponges, gorgonians, algae, and seagrasses. In 

August 2012, EPA held a coral reef expert workshop in La Parguera, Puerto Rico (Bradley 

et al. 2014a). The goals of the workshop were to identify qualitative and quantitative reef 

attributes that determine coral reef condition and recommend initial categorical condition 

rankings for the y-axis of a coral reef BCG.

Figure 5-2. Generalized Biological Condition Gradient (BCG) (adapted from Davies and Jackson 2006).

As a first step, participants were asked to evaluate and rank coral reef condition from 

photographs and videos collected during EPA’s 2010 and 2011 coral reef assessment 

surveys in shallow waters (<12 m deep) of southern Puerto Rico (Fig. 5-3). Participants 

examined the visual media, rated the condition of the coral reefs at example locations

(considering stony corals, reef fish, sponges, gorgonians, turbidity, etc.) and provided 

rationale for their ratings. Descriptions of good and bad characteristics relative to 

ecological condition were captured during facilitated discussions. 
92

Figure 5-3. Photos from EPA coral reef stations reflect a range of coral reef conditions, from good (left), to 

intermediate quality (middle), to severely degraded (right) (source: Bradley et al. 2014a).

A preliminary narrative BCG, using only the photos and videos, was assembled for 

shallow-water linear reefs of southwestern Puerto Rico. The experts were able to identify 

four distinct levels of condition: very good–excellent; good; fair; and poor (Table 5-2).

Table 5-2. Coral reef attributes of a very good to excellent site and a poor site 

(Bradley et al. 2014). 

A second workshop was held April 8-10, 2014, at the Forest Service headquarters in 

El Yunque National Forest. Twenty-five experts attended the second workshop, including 

19 who had attended the first workshop. The experts broke into two groups–sessile 

assemblages (e.g. stony corals) and mobile assemblages (e.g., fish). During a facilitated 

discussion the experts assigned each species to an attribute ranking (1-6) based on its 

sensitivity or tolerance to different environmental stressors (Table 5-3). The species lists 

provided to the experts included those species observed during the 2010 and 2011 EPA 

surveys in Puerto Rico. The experts used the literature and their best professional 

judgment to make these assignments.
93

Table 5-3. Fish species assigned to attribute 2‒highly sensitive or specialist taxa. 

BCG Attribute # Samples Common Name Scientific Name

2 87 Blue Tang Acanthurus coeruleus

2 1 Redspotted Hawkfish Amblycirrhitus pinos

2 4 Black Margate Anisotremus surinamensis

2 12 Trumpet Fish Aulostomus maculatus

2 2 Orangespotted Filefish Cantherhines pullus

2 1 Reef Butterflyfish Chaetodon sedentarius

2 2 Blue Chromis Chromis cyanea

2 8 Brown Chromis Chromis multilineata

2 1 Creole Wrasse Clepticus parrae

2 4 Cleaner Goby Elacatinus genie

2 1 Neon Goby Elacatinus oceanops

2 2 Fairy Baselet Gramma loreto

2 4 Smallmouth Grunt Haemulon chrysargyreum

2 1 Glasseye Snapper Heteropriacanthus cruentatus

2 1 Queen Angelfish Holacanthus ciliaris

2 6 Saddled Blenny Malacoctenus triangulatus

2 5 Black Durgon Melichthys niger

2 1 Rainbow Parrotfish Scarus guacamaia

2 2 Cero Scomberomorus regalis

2 18 Harlequin Bass Serranus tigrinus

During a second facilitated discussion, each expert considered the biological condition, 

species presence or absence and the species’ attributes, and assigned a BCG level for 

several sampling sites from the EPA Puerto Rico reef assessment surveys. The facilitator 

documented critical information for the decision, any confounding or conflicting 

information and how this was resolved. The experts’ scores were tallied and averaged into 

a final level assignment for each sampling station. Preliminary decision narrative rules 

were developed for each level, and following the workshop, statistical analysis of the data 

was applied to those rules to develop thresholds for each defined level. A web-based data 

portal to organize and share all the available coral reef ecosystem data from Puerto Rico 

and the U.S. Virgin Islands, STORET (EPA 2015) facilitated the work of the experts. The 

data portal has been initially populated with data from NOAA’s Biogeography Branch and 

EPA’s Coral Reef Assessment Program. 
94

Ultimately, the attributes and thresholds will be organized into a conceptual, narrative 

model that describes how biological attributes of coral reefs change along a gradient of 

increasing anthropogenic (human-generated) stress. This requires, of course, that the 

levels of stress are also ranked along the x-axis of the coral reef BCG and linked to the 

human activities (pressures) that generate them. By providing an explicit characterization 

of how biological attributes respond to human disturbances, decision-makers will be able 

to determine current condition and the desired condition. Once a BCG is established, 

managers can set easily communicated, quantitative goals for achieving those conditions 

by linking the condition to stressor levels and stressor levels to human activity in the 

watershed.

5.3.2 Ecosystem goods and services production

During both the Decision-Making Workshop and Public Values Forum (Chapter 4), 

participants identified a concern for social and economic losses related to the decline of 

coral reef and other natural ecosystems. Too often, environmental assessments focus only 

on ecological endpoints and fail to consider the social and economic values of 

stakeholders (Arvai and Gregory 2003). A key to bridging ecological and socio-economic 

concerns is the concept of ecosystem goods and services (EGS) (Wainger and Boyd 2009). 

Ecosystems provide goods and services to humans, including provisioning of food, fuel, 

and fresh air and water, regulation of climate and flooding, and cultural value through 

recreational and aesthetic opportunities (MEA 2005) (Table 5-4). Supporting services 

describe the healthy functioning of ecosystems that is necessary for providing the other 

services. 

Table 5-4. Categories and examples of ecosystem goods and services (derived from 

Layke 2009).

Regulatory Services

Benefits obtained from ecosystem’s control 

of natural processes

Air quality regulation

Climate regulation

Water regulation

Erosion regulation

Water purification and waste treatment

Disease & pest regulation

Soil quality regulation

Pollination

Natural hazard regulation

Provisioning Services

Goods or products obtained from ecosystems

Food resources – Crops, fisheries, wild food

Biological raw materials – Timber, fiber, sand,

animal skins

Biomass fuel

Freshwater

Genetic resources

Biochemicals & pharmaceuticals
95

Table 5-4. (continued)

Supporting Services

Natural processes that maintain other 

ecosystem services

Nutrient cycling

Primary production

Water cycling

Cultural Services

Nonmaterial benefits obtained from 

ecosystems

Recreation and ecotourism

Aesthetic and spiritual values

A list of stakeholder objectives developed at the Public Values Forum (Table 4-3) 

identified several objectives that could use ecosystem services as means for achieving 

the objective or performance measures (Table 5-5). Given the necessary data and 

information, changes and tradeoffs across these ecosystem services could then be 

evaluated under different decision scenarios.

Table 5-5. Identification of ecosystem goods and services that align with stakeholder 

objectives identified in the Guánica Public Values Forum. 

Workshop Objectives Corresponding Ecosystem Services

Ecology land

Meet future water demands Water quality and quantity regulation

Restore/conserve habitat for important species Aesthetic/cultural/intrinsic value of habitat

Reduce contamination from agriculture effluent Contaminant regulation

Reduce stormwater runoff Stormwater retention

Reduce soil loss (maintain productivity of land) Sediment and nutrient retention

Preserve forest habitats Aesthetic/cultural/intrinsic value of forest habitat

Protect endangered and threatened wildlife species Cultural/intrinsic value of threatened wildlife

Ecology aquatic

Restore lagoon natural processes Water quality regulation

Restore shallow water coral reefs Aesthetic/cultural/intrinsic value of reefs

Reduce nutrient loads flowing into the ocean Nutrient retention

Enhance fish biomass and abundance Aesthetic/cultural/intrinsic value of fish

Protect endangered and threatened marine species Cultural/intrinsic value of threatened wildlife

Protect mangrove habitats Aesthetic/cultural/intrinsic value of mangroves

Protect marine habitat for migratory bird Aesthetic/cultural/intrinsic value of marine birds

Economy

Increase sustainable economic development

Promote eco-tourism Ecotourism opportunities (charismatic species)

Maintain swimming/beaches opportunities Recreational opportunities (water quality)

Lajas Valley and upper Guánica Bay

Preserve agricultural farmland Crop production, nutrient retention

Restore commercial and sport fisheries

Increase fish catch Fisheries production

Creation marine protected areas Aesthetic/cultural/intrinsic value of reefs

Increase renewable energy production

Hydroelectric power generation Hydropower production

Alternatives (solar, wind, geothermal) Alternative energy production
96

Table 5-5. (continued)

Workshop Objectives Corresponding Ecosystem Services

Social

Maintain small scale farming opportunities Crop production, nutrient retention

Reinforce cultural heritage/traditional livelihoods

Lagoon fishing and Artisans Recreational and Artisanal fishing opportunities

Improve well-being and human health:

Water quality Water quality regulation

Air quality (asthma) Air quality regulation

Food security Crop production, nutrient retention

Improve recreation opportunities Recreational opportunities

Maintain sufficient potable water for citizens Water quality and quantity

Expand spiritual and aesthetic opportunities

Commune with nature Aesthetic and cultural value of nature

Two types of functional relationships are required to translate changes in ecosystem state 

into human benefits: ecological production functions (EPF) and ecosystem services 

valuation functions (EVF) (Wainger and Boyd 2009; Compton et al. 2011). EPFs quantify 

the relationships between metrics of ecosystem condition and the supply of ecosystem 

goods and services. The realized value of these goods and services will depend on human 

demand for them. EVFs relate characteristics of society, such as demand, accessibility, or 

substitutability, to derive value for ecosystem services (Compton et al. 2011). Together, 

EPFs and EVFs can translate the value of ecosystems to human well-being (Fig. 5-4).

Figure 5-4. Structure to trace changes in ecosystem services values based on a management option

(adapted from Wainger and Boyd 2009). EPF = ecological production functions; EVF=ecosystem services 

valuation functions. 

EPA recently reviewed methods for generating EPFs for coral reef ecosystem services, that 

is, linking biophysical attributes of reef condition, such as coral cover, structural 

complexity, or fish biomass, to provisioning of ecosystem goods and services (Table 5-6, 

derived from Principe et al. 2012; Yee et al. 2014b). Many of the biological and ecological 

attributes that are being used to characterize biological integrity for the Biological 

Condition Gradient have relevance to ecosystem services, including habitat structure and 

complexity, ecosystem function, and ecosystem connectivity. In fact, EPA methods to 

assess coral reefs include measurements that contribute to calculation of both condition 

indicators and ecosystem services indicators (Fisher 2007; Santavy et al. 2012).

Management 

Option

Ecosystem

Change

Ecosystem 

Service

Derived Value of 

Ecosystem 

EPF EVF
97

Coral reefs contribute to several different EGS, including shoreline protection, tourism and 

recreation, commercial fishing, pharmaceutical discovery potential, and existence value 

(ecological integrity). The contribution of reefs to shoreline protection has been modeled 

in a number of ways, including indices of coastal protection across different types of 

habitat (Burke et al. 2008; Mumby et al. 2008; Tallis et al. 2013) and biophysical process 

models (Gourlay and Colleter 2005; Sheppard et al. 2005; Kunkel et al. 2006; Madin et al. 

2006). Information on tourism and recreational opportunities has been derived from 

surveys of recreational reef visitors conducted in valuation studies (Leeworthy and Wiley 

1996, 1997, 2003; Wielgus et al. 2003; Leeworthy and Bowker 1997; Leeworthy and

Vanasse 1999; Johns et al. 2001; Bishop et al. 2011), and through field observations of 

reef condition at popular dive sites (Pendleton 1994; Williams and Polunin 2002; 

Leeworthy et al. 2004; Leujak and Ormond 2007; Uyarra et al. 2009). 

Table 5-6. Quantitative methods for linking reef ecosystem attributes to production of 

ecosystem services (adapted from Yee et al. 2014).

Ecosystem Service Metric Reef Ecosystem Attributes Method Source

Ecosystem Integrity

Simplified Integrated Reef 

Health Index

Macroalgae cover, coral cover, 

commercial fish biomass, herbivorous 

fish biomass

Index Healthy Reefs 

Initiative 2010

State of the Reef Index Macroalgae cover, coral cover, fish 

abundance, coral richness, fish richness

Index van Beukering 

and Cesar 2004

Shoreline Protection

Relative wave energy dissipation Relative cover of benthic habitat types Index Mumby et al. 

2008

Coral Reef Protection Index Reef type, reef continuity, reef distance 

to shore

Index Burke et al.

2008

Percent wave height 

attenuation due to presence 

of reef; Percent wave energy 

attenuation due to presence 

of reef

Offshore wave height and period, reef 

depth, reef width, reef distance to 

shore, reef surface friction (variability in 

coral colony heights; relative cover of 

benthic habitat types)

Differential 

equations

Sheppard et al.

2005; Lowe et al.

2005 

Decrease in beach erosion Wave height attenuation due to reef Ratio Wielgus et al.

2010

Decrease in wave run-up Beach slope, shoreline porosity, wave 

height attenuation due to reef

Ratio FEMA 2007

Recreational Opportunities and Tourism

Relative ease of access, relative 

sand generation, relative 

opportunity for snorkeling, 

opportunity for sighting of 

charismatic species (E. 

striatus)

Relative cover of benthic habitat types Index Mumby et al.

2008 

Relative value of a dive Coral abundance, fish abundance, coral 

richness, fish richness, visibility

Choice model Wielgus et al.

2003

Dive site favorability Sand cover, coral cover, coral richness, 

fish richness, schools of fish, reef 

structural complexity

Preference 

survey

Uyarra et al.

2009 

Visitation to dive sites Coral cover, reef distance to shore,

topographic complexity

Regression 

model

Pendleton 1994
98

Table 5-6. (continued)

Ecosystem Service Metric Reef Ecosystem Attributes Method Source

Fisheries Production

Relative value of finfish; 

relative production of curios 

and jewelry

Relative cover of benthic habitat types Index Mumby et al. 

2008 

Habitat value for fish production Connectivity between mangrove and coral Geospatial 

algorithm

Mumby 2006

Key commercial fish biomass Snapper and grouper biomass Metric Healthy Reefs 

Initiative 2010

Commercial fish biomass Benthic habitat cover Differential 

equations

Ault et al. 2005

Natural Products Production

Potential for bio-prospecting 

discovery

Macroalgae cover, coral Cover, fish 

abundance, coral richness, fish richness

Index van Beukering

and Cesar 2004

Pharmaceutical product potential Relative cover of benthic habitat types; 

sponge richness

Index Mumby et al.

2008

Methods for quantifying production of commercially important fish species have included 

characterizing reef habitat (Mumby et al. 2008) and, in particular, connectivity between 

reefs and mangroves (Mumby 2006). In lieu of fish habitat assessments, fish production is 

often assessed more directly through monitoring and modeling of commercially important 

fish species populations over time (Ault et al. 2005; McField and Kramer 2007; Paddack et 

al. 2009). Although there are no established protocols for estimating pharmaceutical 

potential from reef attributes (Principe et al. 2012), natural product potential has been 

linked to the presence of certain faunal groups, such as sponges, or high-density sessile 

organisms and habitats (Mumby et al. 2008) as well as metrics of reef integrity (van 

Beukering and Cesar 2004). Metrics of reef integrity combine indicators of reef health to 

quantify healthy reef structure and function (McField and Kramer 2007).

In addition to coral reefs, stakeholders identified concern for other natural resources in 

their watershed. Several methods are available for translating terrestrial ecosystem 

condition into ecosystem service production (Table 5-7). In many cases, biophysical 

indicators of ecosystem services production are used to represent final ecosystem goods 

and services (e.g. rates of carbon sequestration to represent atmospheric regulation). 
99

Table 5-7. List of key terrestrial ecosystem services for the Guánica watershed and 

production function methods for linking them to changes in environmental condition. 

Ecosystem Service Metric Ecosystem Attributes Method Source

Atmospheric pollution 

removal

Tree canopy coverage; 

landuse/landcover

Biophysical 

model

Russell et al. 

2013

Atmospheric regulation

Rates of carbon sequestration; 

landuse/landcover

Metric Russell et al.

2013; Smith 

2007

Water regulation Rates of denitrification; 

landuse/landcover

Metric Russell et al.

2013

Hydropower production Soil depth; precipitation; 

landuse/landcover

Biophysical 

model

Tallis et al. 2013

Nutrient retention Soil depth; precipitation; 

landuse/landcover

Biophysical 

model

Tallis et al. 2013

Sediment retention Soil erodibility; slope; 

precipitation; landuse/landcover

Biophysical 

model

Tallis et al. 2013

Fisheries production Benthic habitat cover; 

Commercial fish biomass

Index Mumby et al.

2008 

Ecotourism

Charismatic species; habitat 

suitability models; 

landuse/landcover;

Habitat 

suitability

models

Gould et al.

2008

Recreational opportunities Location and length of beaches Metric Smith et al. in 

review

Crop production Rates of crop production; 

landuse/landcover

Metric USDA 2009

EPA is applying the EPF methods to estimate existing or baseline ecosystem services 

provisioning in the Guánica watershed (Smith et al. in review). The production functions 

will also be applied to evaluate how changes in landuse and landcover and benthic habitat 

under alternative management options affect stakeholder objectives related to 

provisioning of ecosystem services (Table 5-4). Similar studies for St. Croix, U.S. Virgin 

Islands have resulted in maps that predict production of reef ecosystem services (Fig. 5-5; 

Yee et al. 2014b).
100

Figure 5-5. Maps of predicted reef ecosystem service production around St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands

(source: Yee et al. 2014b). See Table 5-6 for details of each metric.
101

5.3.3 Social and economic benefits of coral reefs 

At the Public Values Forum, stakeholders explicitly identified the economic value of 

environmental resources as an objective that might be useful for decision-making, and 

specifically an economic analysis of coral reefs as a priority action (Chapter 4, Fig. 4-6). 

Several derived ecosystem services benefits were identified that could be used as 

performance measures of economic objectives (Table 5-8). While ecosystem services 

production functions (EPF) estimate the potential production of ecosystem services, the 

actual derived benefits depend on additional factors such as demand, accessibility, and 

substitutability.

Table 5-8. Identification of performance measures related to valuation of ecosystem 

goods and services that align with stakeholder objectives identified in the Public Values 

Forum. Metrics on the right do not necessarily align directly with objectives on the left.

Workshop Objectives Derived Ecosystem Services Benefits

Economy

Demonstrate economic value of ecosystem services

Promote community economic benefits

Increase sustainable economic development

Promote eco-tourism

Restore commercial and sport fisheries

Economic value of natural hazard protection

Economic impact of recreation by residents

and visitors

Resident and visitor use rates

Cultural value of ecosystems

Economic value of commercial fishing

Due to their open-access nature and benefits to the public good, coral reefs have often 

been undervalued in decision-making (Brander et al. 2009). The economic values of some 

services (e.g., commercial fishing) are established in markets, while others have 

nonmarket values for local, state/regional and national/international segments of the 

population (Table 5-9; Principe et al. 2012). Stakeholders in the Decision-Making 

Workshop (Section 4.2) recognized the importance of ecosystem conservation as a means 

for sustainable extraction of goods (market value and economic reasons) and less so for 

non-market values; and participants at the Decision Workshop spent a day characterizing 

non-market ecosystem values. Participants at both workshops expressed the desire for an 

ecotourism economy, indicating an appreciation for nonmarket values if they are tied to 

economic opportunity. 
102

Table 5-9. Economic benefits provided by coral reefs (sources: Principe et al. 2012; 

Beaumont et al. 2008; Burke et al. 2008; Cesar 2002; Cesar and Chong 2005; David et al. 

2007; Ghermandi et al. 2009; Moberg and Folke 1999; Naber et al. 2008; Nunes et al. 

2009; Remoundou et al. 2009; Spurgeon 1992).

Direct extractive uses

Direct

Non-extractive uses Indirect uses Non-Uses

1. Commercial fishing 1. Scuba diving 1. Fish habitat 1. Existence value

2. Subsistence fishing 2. Snorkeling 2. Nutrients 2. Cultural value

3. Aquarium fish 3. Boating 3. Reduced flooding 3. Option value

4. Sport fishing 4. Pharmaceutical

chemicals

4. Less storm damage 4. Quasi-option value

5. Coral jewelry 5. Non-pharmaceutical

natural products

5. Fewer deaths from

storms and flooding

5. Bequest value

6. Pharmaceutical

harvesting

6. Surfing 6. Reduced erosion from

storms and flooding

6. Instrumental value

7. Non-pharmaceutical

harvesting

7. Underwater

photography

7. Mangrove & seagrass

protection

7. Intrinsic value

8. Viewing nature and

wildlife

8. Sea life nursery

protection

8. Scientific value

9. Beach sunbathing 9. Global life support 9. Scarcity value

10. Collecting objects

Most studies have focused on market benefits, which are relatively easy to incorporate in 

trade-off analyses. But there are also methods to estimate nonmarket benefits of coral 

reefs. EPA is applying several of these methods to estimate the market and nonmarket 

value of coral reef ecosystem goods and services and, in the case of tourism and 

recreation, is collaborating with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) Office of National Marine Sanctuaries to conduct a market and nonmarket 

valuation of coral reef-based tourism and recreation in Puerto Rico. The approach focuses 

on three areas, commercial fisheries, shoreline protection and tourism as represented by 

resident and visitor perceptions of coral reefs. The methods are outlined in greater detail 

below. 

Commercial fisheries. The Fisheries Research Laboratory (FRL) of the Puerto Rico 

Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (DNER) disseminates monthly 

commercial fisheries catch statistics based on fish landing data from commercial 

fishermen, fish buyers and fishing associations. In addition to this commercial fisheries 

monitoring effort, several studies have been conducted on the recreational fisheries of 

Puerto Rico (Agar et al. 2005; Shivlani and Koeneke 2010). 
103

Using the FRL and DNER spatial data, EPA will apply the Economic Valuation Methodology 

V3.0, developed by the World Resources Institute (WRI) to calculate the economic 

contribution of reef-associated fisheries for Puerto Rico (WRI 2009). To support the 

validity of these results, the same methodologies will be used to calculate the economic 

contribution based on fish productivity of reef area. Where data are available, the 

economic contribution of fish processing and cleaning, as well as local, non-commercial 

fishing will be calculated. 

In addition to the direct economic impact of Puerto Rican Fisheries, EPA will also calculate 

the indirect economic impact using an economic multiplier to account for other economic 

activities that are enabled by the fishery (e.g. boat building, constructing fishing gear, 

etc.). Multiple methods and data sources will be used where necessary to adequately 

represent uncertainty around data and results. 

Shoreline protection. Coral reefs form natural barriers along the coast, protecting 

coastlines from erosion, flooding and storm damage (WRI 2009). EPA will value shoreline 

protection based on an avoided cost approach for storm damage (Farber et al. 2002), 

which is similar to the valuation method developed by WRI for Jamaica (Maxam et al. 

2011). The methods involve using spatial elevation data to identify vulnerable areas based 

on storm surge and wave heights associated with 25-year storm events. The level of 

service provided for coastal areas protected by coral reefs is modeled, using a biophysical 

process model, as a change in the area vulnerable to inundation (Sheppard et al. 2005). 

Although this varies from the method used for Jamaica, the same protection 

quantification method was used by WRI in the Dominican Republic (Wielgus et al. 2010). 

The economic value of shoreline protection is then estimated by determining the property 

values in areas identified as both vulnerable and protected by coral reefs to estimate the 

reduction in potential damage attributable to the coral reefs. The damage avoided will be 

the proportion of property value that is damaged based on the level of inundation, which 

can be estimated using Federal Emergency Management Agency ‘depth-to-damage’ 

curves for Puerto Rico (Davis and Skaggs 1992).

Coral reef-based tourism and recreation. EPA and NOAA, in partnership with the 

University of Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico Sea Grant, and local agencies and communities are 

conducting a study to provide the economic valuation information for Puerto Rico’s reefassociated tourism and recreation. This project will estimate the use and associated 

market and non-market economic value and how those values are altered with changes in 

reef attributes (e.g. water clarity/visibility, coral abundance and diversity, fish and 

invertebrate abundance and diversity). Illustrations of high, medium and low coral reef 

conditions (Fig. 5-6) were developed using data from EPA’s 2010 and 2011 coral reef 

surveys, and information developed during the expert workshops. 
104

Figure 5-6. Illustrations depicting: High Condition, Medium Condition, and Low Condition, to be used 

as visual aids during the economic valuation surveys. Note: in each illustration, all attributes are 

represented at the same condition level (illustrations by Daniel Irizarri Oquendo, Puerto Rico SeaGrant) . 
105

The project is addressing 25 issues of local importance related to natural resource 

attributes (e.g. water clarity/visibility, coral cover, fish abundance, fish diversity), facilities 

(e.g. boat ramps, marina facilities, mooring buoys, beach access, beach quality, availability 

of public restrooms, cleanliness of streets and/or sidewalks) and services (friendliness of 

people, value for the price, availability of tour guides, public transportation, parking, 

maps). This list of issues has been customized to issues of importance in Puerto Rico. 

Survey respondents are being asked how important they feel each issue is to them, and 

how satisfied they were with their tourist or recreational experience.

The project is conducting separate surveys of visitors and residents. Visitors are being

asked a few short questions when departing Puerto Rico (e.g. airports) during two 

different seasons–winter and summer, and based on demographic and use information, 

recruited to internet-based surveys. Residents will be surveyed through a probabilistic 

survey by short in-house face-to-face interviews, and then asked to mail back a longer 

survey questionnaire.

Data will be analyzed and reported at the whole territory level, as well as for five (5) 

sub-regions (northeast, southeast, southwest, northwest, and the islands of Vieques 

and Culebra) (Fig. 5-7). Survey respondents’ time and values will be attributed to region(s) 

based upon their responses. This will provide economic information in support of Puerto 

Rico’s four (4) coral reef priority areas (Culebra, the Northeast Reserves, Cabo Rojo and 

Guánica). 

Figure 5-7. The economic valuation of Puerto Rico’s coral reef-based tourism and recreation will be 

analyzed and reported at the whole territory scale, as well as for five (5) sub-regions: northeast (green), 

southeast (pink), northwest (blue), southwest (lavender), and the islands of Vieques and Culebra (yellow)

(credit for map layers: Regional boundaries from the PR Ministry of Tourism.) 
106

5.3.4 Effects of water quality and availability on human health 

In addition to environmental objectives, such as restoring coral habitat and ecosystem 

services, stakeholders at the three EPA workshops also identified a number of human 

health objectives and identified a need for public education and citizen involvement 

(Table 5-10).

Table 5-10. A subset of objectives that reflect the social concerns of stakeholders at the 

three Guánica EPA Workshops. 

Objectives Measures Actions

Environmental

Improve water quality Nutrients, Coliforms Educate community

Convert WWTP to tertiary

Social

Promote education Environmental attitude, 

Community involvement

Promote pro-environmental attitudes, 

Promote capacity building in communities

Improve health Connection to WWTP Increase participation in PRASA, Conduct 

studies on key health issues, Survey home 

owners

Promote sustainable 

communities

Demonstration projects Create opportunities for public involvement

Sanitation. EPA has initiated a project to increase public and community awareness of 

sanitation issues in the lower Guánica watershed by initiating a Citizen Science project to 

survey water quality and sewage infrastructure. As a part of the Region 2 Citizen Science 

Program, the University of Puerto Rico has assembled groups of citizen volunteers (4-H 

Club members) and trained them to collect water samples from targeted locations 

throughout the Guánica Bay/Rio Loco area (Fig. 5-8). University of Puerto Rico obtained 

georeferenced land use data from the Puerto Rico Governmental Portal for Geographic 

data (PR 2015) and clipped the land use data in ArcGIS to the Lajas Valley and Rio Loco 

watersheds so that linkage can be made among nutrients, fecal contamination and landuse (Rodriguez et al 2014).
107

Figure 5-8. Volunteer 4-H Club members take water samples for the Region 2 Citizen Science Program 

testing for water quality in southwestern Puerto Rico (photo credit: Cristina López, UPR).

Data are being analyzed to identify unsanitary conditions and any point or non-point 

sources of contamination. Participating citizens will further characterize those high-risk 

areas by documenting the type of treatment (i.e., septic, wastewater treatment plant) and 

condition of sewer infrastructure. Mapping the results will help to identify risks associated 

with potential contact and ingestion exposures. Public awareness is expected to increase 

as citizens recognize the situations that lead to unsanitary conditions, where those 

unsanitary conditions are and what is causing them. It is anticipated that an informed 

citizenry will be better prepared to make decisions relating to bacterial and (by 

extrapolation) nutrient pollution effectively and efficiently. It is believed that this could 

serve as a model for additional projects to improve citizen awareness and action toward 

reducing sanitation problems across Puerto Rico. 

In Section 5.4, we discuss two useful tools for integrating expert opinions, empirical data, 

and predictive models for evaluating the effects of different decision alternatives on 

stakeholder objectives.

5.4 Decision-support tools for evaluating alternatives

Information, data, and models are being integrated into decision-support tools to predict 

effects of alternative management scenarios on environmental, social, and economic 

endpoints. Two possible modeling approaches are presented here, Bayesian Belief 

(probability) Networks and spatially-explicit dynamic models.
108

5.4.1 Bayesian networks

Environmental management decisions are characterized by high uncertainty (Gregory et 

al. 2012; NAS 2013). Uncertainties can arise from a number of sources including lack of 

data, data measurement error, model assumptions, or even from ineffective 

communication. Workshops to clarify objectives and performance measures (Chapter 4) 

can help to alleviate sources of uncertainty by helping to more rigorously define 

stakeholder goals and eliminate ambiguity and vagueness. Identifying and quantifying

uncertainties can bring insight to a decision, can help prioritize information needs, can 

help to explore the risk tolerance of decision-makers and can identify where additional 

information may be needed (Rehr et al. 2014). Scientific research should reduce 

uncertainties by providing information, data, and models (Section 5.3). The value of 

information provided by scientific research can be evaluated by tracking probabilities 

(measures of uncertainty) for outcomes of different decisions. 

Bayesian Belief Networks (BBNs) are particularly helpful in problems characterized by high 

levels of uncertainty among experts. BBNs begin with a simple conceptual model 

representing cause and effect relationships between variables, and subsequently quantify 

the relationships among the variables using probabilities (Fig. 5-9). BBNs allow the 

conditional probabilities to be quantified independently, based on combinations of: (1) 

empirical data, (2) statistical associations derived from historical data, (3) mathematical 

representations of dominant mechanistic processes, and (4) probabilistic quantities 

elicited from scientific experts (Woolridge et al. 2005). 

Figure 5-9. Nodes (typically displayed as circles or boxes) in a Bayesian belief 

network (BBN) represent random variables, and arcs (displayed as arrows) 

are used to indicate a conditional relationship between the parent and child 

nodes (Kjaerulff and Madsen 2008). Arrows are described by conditional 

probabilities, and may be derived from expert opinion, statistical models, or 

mechanistic models.

A hypothetical example will demonstrate some of the inferences that might be made 

using a BBN for management decisions. 
109

Reservoir sedimentation. An issue identified in the Public Values Forum was the 

availability of fresh water for domestic purposes. Puerto Rico is an island with relatively 

small watersheds and little natural water storage (e.g., lakes and ponds). Consequently, 

numerous reservoirs have been built to supply water for irrigation and domestic 

purposes. However, development and farming in the mountains has caused soil erosion 

that is filling in many Puerto Rico reservoirs with sediment. This general phenomenon is 

also seen in the Guánica region.

Figure 5-10. Lago Lucchetti in southwestern Puerto Rico receives water from its watershed as well as 

through a tunnel from upstream reservoirs (photo courtesy of Autoridad de Energia Electrica de Puerto 

Rico; URL: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/pr/nwis/uv?site_no=50125780). The reservoir (20.35 Mm3 volume) 

stores water for irrigation and domestic purposes.

In the 1950s, as part of the Southwestern Puerto Rico Project, five reservoirs and 

interconnecting tunnels and canals were built for the multiple purposes of irrigation, 

water supply, power generation and flood control. The fourth in this string of reservoirs, 

and one of the largest, is Lago Lucchetti (Fig. 5-10). Sediment has filled in the reservoirs 

such that, collectively, they can store only about half the water they originally held (Webb 

and Soler-Lopez 1997; Soler-Lopez 2001, 2002; Soler-Lopez and Webb 1999). Although 

erosion is a natural process, some of the sediment undoubtedly originates from coffee 

farms and other human development. When the eroded soil is washed by rainfall into a 

reservoir, it is either trapped in the reservoir or transported downstream. If it is 

transported downstream it clogs irrigation canals, reshapes rivers, and degrades biological 

habitats. In this sense, the reservoirs have not only provided agricultural and domestic 

water storage, but protected downstream environmental and economic interests from 

some sediment pollution. However, as the reservoirs fill in with sediment, their trapping 

efficiency decreases (a smaller proportion of incoming sediment is trapped) and more 

sediment is transported downstream. 
110

The Guánica Bay Watershed Management Plan (CWP 2008) proposed two actions to 

address sediment accumulation in the reservoirs: dredging the reservoirs and converting 

coffee-farming areas from sun-grown to shade-grown cultivation. The latter was intended 

to increase foliage and thereby reduce soil erosion from coffee farms. As part of its 

information gathering effort to estimate consequences, EPA used a Bayesian Belief 

Network (BBN) model to estimate the effects of these two options on sediment 

accumulation in the reservoirs (Bousquin et al. 2014). This was conducted using reservoir 

life expectancy (before the reservoir fills in completely) as the endpoint. 

For the reservoir study, EPA first established a conceptual model (Fig. 5-11) that 

characterized the annual sedimentation of Lago Lucchetti, which drains the subwatershed that has the greatest amount of coffee farming. The conceptual model 

identified the major factors in sediment trapping: rainfall, land use, incoming water and 

incoming sediment. This model is complicated by the fact that Lago Lucchetti has 

incoming water and sediment from its watershed as well as through a tunnel from 

upstream reservoirs. 

Figure 5-11. Conceptual diagram of model to estimate the life expectancy of Lago Lucchetti (LL) under two 

management options: coffee conversion and reservoir dredging (adapted from Bousquin et al 2014). 

The conceptual model was recast quantitatively in a BBN using a variety of measures and 

relationships between nodes (Fig. 5-12). The software package Netica (Norsys 2010;

Carriger et al. 2011) was used to develop the BBN, where arrows represent the 

conditional relationships among variables. Each of the variable nodes contains 

probabilities expressed as percentages and illustrated as ‘belief bars’ (horizontal

histograms). Empirical data and models can be used to define the initial probabilities of 

variables such as precipitation and water flow (yellow boxes, Fig. 5-12). A user can define 

their certainty that a certain scenario will be implemented, for example 100% certainty 

that the conversion implementation will remain at status quo or that the starting water 
111

storage capacity was at a certain level (light blue boxes, Fig. 5-12). Netica then updates 

the probabilities in the other nodes (tan boxes, Fig. 5-12), which contain equations to 

calculate the probabilities of conditional relationships. The resulting model was a 

probabilistic model that could account for effects of dredging and coffee conversion, 

singly or together, on sediment accumulation in Lago Lucchetti.

Figure 5-12. Bayesian belief network (BBN) model derived from the conceptual model in Fig. 5-10 

and showing distributions of probabilities for life expectancy (in years) of Lago Lucchetti under 

two management options: conversion to shade-grown coffee (Conversion Implementation node) 

and reservoir dredging (Start Water Storage Capacity node, reflecting potential dredging levels) 

(source: Bousquin et al, 2014). 
112

The results from this model (Bousquin et al. 2014) can be summarized in a simple 

consequence table, looking at the effects of different management options on a 

performance measure, in this case the life expectancy of the reservoir (Table 5-11). 

Results indicated that conversion of all the existing sun-grown coffee acreage in the 

Lucchetti watershed to Shade-grown cultivation would create only a minor decline in 

sedimentation of the reservoir. Dredging the reservoir would obviously re-set the clock on 

sedimentation and would greatly extend the life expectancy. 

Table 5-11. Life Expectancy of Lago Lucchetti reservoir under different management

scenarios. 

Lago Lucchetti Life Expectancy

Management Option Years beyond 2000

*Coffee conversion

No conversion 48.3 ± 16

Partial Conversion 51.7 ± 17

Full Conversion 56.1 ± 18

**Dredging

No dredging 48.3 ± 16

50% of sediment 74.8 ± 18

100% of sediment 80.5 ± 19

Combined

Partial Conversion/ 50% dredge 78.7 ± 19

Partial Conversion/ 100% dredge 84.6 ± 18

Full Conversion/ 50% dredge 83.1 ± 19

Full Conversion/ 100% dredge 88.9 ± 18

*Options include no, partial (50%) or full conversion of sun-grown coffee acreage to 

shade-grown coffee

**Options include dredging 50% and 100% of the sediment in the year 2000, when the last 

sediment accumulation data were available

This example represents predictions regarding a single stakeholder objective – it is not 

uncommon with multi-objective decisions to build predictive models separately for each 

objective (Marcot et al. 2012). Consideration of the tradeoffs across multiple objectives 

may require integrating a number of different predictive models into the analysis. BBNs 

can accommodate both quantitative and qualitative data and can be built in a modular 

fashion. This means that additional nodes can be added as greater detail is required or 

new science gaps are uncovered. A BBN allows decision makers to start with a simple 

model and allow it to get more complex as the need arises.

5.4.2 Spatially dynamic modeling with Envision

When estimating consequences of alternatives, variability in space and time can make 

outcomes difficult to predict (Gregory et al. 2012). For some decisions, spatially-explicit 

models may be important for better understanding consequences. For example, there is a 

spatial element to agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as hydroseeding, 
113

reforestation, or riparian buffers. The location and spatial extent of these actions can have 

consequences for the outcomes of decision alternatives on stakeholder objectives.

In the past several decades there has been a dramatic increase in the use of scientific, 

quantitative methods for informing landscape change (e.g., Geographic Information 

Systems, GIS) and decision-making in the presence of high uncertainty. ‘Envision’ is a 

GIS-based tool for scenario-based community and regional planning and environmental 

assessments (Fig. 5-13), created to allow examination of the nature and properties of 

coupled human and natural environmental systems (Bolte 2009; Yee et al. 2012b). 

Figure 5-13. Screenshot of Envision decision-support tool. 

Central to Envision are three-way interactions of independent actors, the landscape that is 

changed as these decisions are made, and the policies that guide and constrain decisions 

(Fig. 5-14). Actors are entities that make decisions (decision-makers) about the 

management of particular portions of the landscape for which they have management 

authority. Policy sets describe a list of potential decision alternatives the actors may 

choose to implement or be required to implement, and may reflect a given future 

scenario being modeled, such as comparing the suite of alternatives in a management 

plan vs. the status quo. The actors must balance a set of objectives reflecting their 

particular values, mandates, and the policy sets in force on the parcels they manage. 
114

They do this within the scope of policy sets that are consistent with the assumptions 

and intentions of a chosen future scenario. These policies are operative on particular 

landscape elements over which they have decision-making control. 

Figure 5-14. Envision’s conceptual framework. Envision includes a powerful "multiagent modeling" 

subsystem that allows for the representation of human decision-makers in landscape simulations. Envision 

"actors" make management decisions in parallel with landscape change models using a variety of decision 

models that can reflect actor values and incorporate landscape feedbacks.

Envision represents a landscape as a set of polygon-based GIS maps and associated 

information containing spatially-explicit depictions of landscape attributes and patterns. 

Taken as a modeling approach, Envision employs a spatially-explicit multi-agent construct 

that models relationships of actor’s values and behaviors, policy intentions, and landscape 

metrics of production, as the actors attempt to achieve the outcomes they value. 

For development of a tool to explore watershed management scenarios for the Guánica 

watershed, models of projected human population change in southwestern Puerto Rico 

must be integrated with projected changes in landuse and landcover (Fig. 5-14). Envision 

spatially displays landscape data including landuse/landcover, human population density, 

and benthic habitats (Fig. 5-15A). Model plug-ins describe how socio-economic changes in 

human population density lead to changes in landcover (Fig. 5-15B). Changes in landcover 

potentially have consequences for sediment and nutrient runoff into the coastal zone, 

which can be modeled with water system models using the ‘Flow’ framework within 

Envision, which uses hydrological models (Bergström 1992) to model sediment and 

nutrient export into the coastal zone (Fig. 5-15C). Ecosystem models describe how 

changes in landuse affect natural resources (Fig. 5-15D). 
115

The Corset model for coral reef dynamics is used to link stressors derived from coastal 

development, marine stressors (e.g. overfishing), and climate stressors (e.g. hurricanes), 

to coral condition (Melbourne-Thomas 2010). Ecosystem services production functions 

(see Tables 5-6, 5-7) can then be used to project how changes in coastal condition or 

landcover may affect the production of ecosystem goods and services such as fisheries or 

recreational opportunities. Once the Guánica data layers and models are incorporated 

into Envision, it can be used as a tool with stakeholders and decision-makers to help 

visualize the consequences to key endpoints of alternative decision scenarios (Fig. 5-

15A/B/C/D). 

Figure 5-15 A/B/C/D. Illustration of Envision input models for the Guánica Bay watershed.

5.5 Evaluating trade-offs, implementation and monitoring 

Once a consequence table is populated with the best available information from models 

and expert judgment and clear win-win alternatives cannot be found, the next step in the 

decision process is to explore tradeoffs that stakeholders are willing to make among the 

objectives; in other words, how much of one objective are they willing to sacrifice to have 

more of another (Keeney 1992). In a decision analysis approach, a key goal is to 

implement decisions that optimally combine value-based tradeoffs, which reflect the 

opinions of stakeholders, with technical trade-offs derived from outcomes of expertbased assessments, which can include science and local knowledge (Gregory et al. 2012). 

Although facts (e.g. information, models, data, expert judgment) are used to populate the 

consequence table, the ultimate decision is informed by the trade-offs from stakeholder 

values. 
116

Methods such as direct ranking and swing weighting can be used to examine trade-offs 

holistically and in a decomposed manner (Gregory et al. 2012). In swing weighting, 

participants are asked to assign importance points to different performance measures to 

reflect their relative importance by their preference for “swinging” from a worst-case to a 

best-case condition (von Winterfeldt and Edwards 1986; Failing et al. 2007). Importance 

weights are then combined to provide a score S for each alternative (k) described in the 

consequence table (Table 4-5), under simplifying assumptions as

SSkk = � wwiiUUii

where wi are the weights assigned to each objective and Ui are the values of each 

performance measure, scaled from 0 to 1, predicted for each alternative in the 

consequence table. Though these methods are highly quantitative, the goal of these 

methods is generally to provide greater insight to the deliberation process, not to 

quantitatively define a solution (Gregory et al. 2012). An example is shown in Table 5-12. 

Table 5-12. Example of how the predicted change in performance measures from the 

worst-case scenario to best-case scenario (derived from Tables 4-5, 4-6 and 4-7) might 

be considered in a swing-weighting exercise. Individuals would assign ranks and weights 

based on their own values and preferences, here for example, for someone who highly 

values protecting economic opportunities.

Objectives

Performance 

Measure

Best-case 

scenario

Worst-case 

scenario Rank Weight (%)

Protect and create 

economic 

opportunities

$/hectare of crop 

production

$ of jobs created

Cost of water 

infrastructure

1 50

Restore and 

conserve the land 

environment

Index of species 

biodiversity

% reduction in soil 

erosion

4 10

Restore and 

conserve the 

aquatic 

environment

Water turbidity

Diversity of aquatic life

# of recreation 

activities

Hectares forested

3 20

Promote social & 

cultural 

opportunities

Environmental attitude

% people connected to 

wastewater treatment 

plants

2 20

From 

consequence 

table
117

Multi-attribute approaches are also generally more satisfying than strict cost-benefit 

methods, which emphasize a comparison of options expressed in monetary terms (Failing 

et al. 2007). Methods for exploring tradeoffs are particularly valuable in facilitating 

discussion, identifying areas of agreement, identifying areas where further dialogue or 

information may be needed, and improving the quality of value judgments by participants 

by ensuring they were well informed of the facts and explicit about tradeoffs (Failing et al. 

2007). As decisions are implemented, the performance measures that align with 

stakeholder objectives (see Chapter 4) should be monitored to gauge the success of 

implementation and the need for corrective actions or reassessment of the decision 

context.

5.6 Summary 

Consequence tables (Table 4-7, Table 5.11) provide a useful tool for examining how 

different alternatives may affect the objectives. Because consequence tables focus on the 

relative performance of alternatives, they can help to focus the conversation on obtaining 

the information needed to estimate consequences (Gregory et al. 2012). Although the full 

consequence table (Table 4-7) was not explicitly populated in support of an extensive 

tradeoff analysis for the Guánica watershed, EPA research has been addressing a number 

of key uncertainties toward a better understanding of potential consequences of 

management actions both on coral reefs and throughout the watershed. In many cases, 

there may be budget or time limitations toward fully populating consequence tables with 

models and data. However the most important role of a consequence table often isn’t an 

extensive quantitative analysis of alternatives, but instead to identify uncertainties where 

more information is needed, expose key trade-offs, and provide a communication tool for 

stakeholders and decision-makers.

119

Chapter 6. Tools Supporting the Decision 

Process

The preceding chapters outline a structured decision process (SDM), and its use via 

interaction with stakeholders and decision-makers to inform the key steps in the process, 

such as decision context, objective hierarchies, valuation and tradeoffs. The events 

described and information developed provides an example of a “requisite modeling 

approach”. Requisite modeling entails building a model that contains all the necessary 

context and information essential for resolving a particular problem (French et al. 2009; 

Philips 1984). The process of building the model creates new questions and insights that 

add to the problem description. Through collaboration and iteration a common 

understanding of the problem is achieved; this is a requisite model. From this model new 

future alternatives for management can be evaluated. 

Requisite modeling (Philips 1984): 

• Captures the multi-faceted nature of a decision problem

• Uses consultation and collaboration to arrive at a shared understanding

of a decision context

• Adapts to new insights until stakeholders agree

• The requisite model can then be used to create and evaluate new

alternative futures

While SDM is highly beneficial to structuring environmental management problems, 

integrating, analyzing, and displaying information generated from that process could be 

greatly enhanced through computerized tools designed to support decision-makers. 

Developing requisite models using tools that facilitate and track the SDM process are 

described in this chapter. 

6.1 Practical approaches to support decision-makers 

A key component of SDM includes the concepts and practices of decision analysis 

(Gregory et al. 2012), which are fundamental to a requisite model. Decision analysis has 

three broad areas of study (French et al. 2009)‒normative, descriptive, and prescriptive 

(Fig. 6-1). Normative decision analysis is concerned with decision models subject to 

mathematical rigor, and descriptive decision analysis captures the psychology of why and 

how people make decisions. Prescriptive decision analysis seeks to provide decision 

makers with the rationality of normative decision analysis tempered with the reality of 

real decision-making.
120

Three broad decision analysis study areas: 

• Normative decision theory studies what an ideal decision-maker

would choose. 

• Descriptive decision theory studies how decision-makers actually choose.

• Prescriptive decision analysis studies how decision-makers can improve their

decision-making.

The merging of normative and descriptive approaches in a practical way (prescriptive) 

enables the creation of requisite models that are rigorous and defensible, yet adaptable 

to the way people really think and make decisions (Fig. 6-1). These ideas formalized in 

computerized tools facilitate the effective application of analytical models like those 

described in Chapter 5 in developing a decision model that is requisite for a particular 

decision context. For large, complex decision contexts with multiple, widely dispersed 

stakeholders (like the Guánica Bay watershed) it becomes necessary to organize and 

communicate management deliberations and analysis effectively for timely decisionmaking. Web-based decision-support tools consistent with SDM approaches are a 

promising way to achieve this. The following gives a brief background on the technical 

aspects and functional considerations in designing decision tools capable of supporting 

environmental management issues like those faced by the stakeholders of Guánica Bay.

Figure 6-1. Decision analysis conceptual approach to requisite model development using decision-support

tools (adapted from French et al. 2009). 

Prescriptive

Seeks balance 

between theory 

and needs of 

decision-maker 

Practical

Normative

How we should 

make decisons

Rational

Descriptive

How we really do 

make decisons

Behavioral
121

6.2 Decision-support tool design: considerations and 

characteristics 

The development of computerized tools supporting SDM often includes integrated and 

interacting functions geared towards aiding decision-makers. The general term used for 

tools such as these is decision-support system (DSS). A DSS can incorporate several levels 

of decision-making (Fig. 6-2). For Guánica Bay, a Level 3 DSS is most appropriate due to 

the need to evaluate multiple alternatives under uncertainty. The decision analysis 

method on the far right of Level 3 options is preferable for its flexibility in adapting to 

specific and complex decision landscapes such as the one developed for Guánica Bay.

Figure 6-2. Categorization of decision-support system (DSS) options based on degree of problem structure 

and support delivered (source: Black and Stockton 2009). Decision Analysis (Level 3) is appropriate for 

Guánica Bay issues because it allows more flexibility (relatively unstructured) in requisite model creation. 

Other Level 3 approaches such as Operations Research (OR), Artificial Intelligence (AI), and Expert Systems, 

also support evaluation of alternatives but are suited for more defined (structured) problems, e.g. disease 

diagnosis, and industrial process efficiency. 

Fig. 6-3 shows the basic set-up for a decision analysis DSS. Three components working 

together provide decision support: the user interface, knowledge base, and inference 

engine (Black and Stockton 2009). The user interface is what the user sees e.g. program 

screen or webpage, of the DSS and should be designed to suit the operational needs and 

preference of users. The knowledge base holds information necessary for informing the 

decision problem, e.g. databases, and the means to access and manipulate it. This 

knowledge is called upon and processed through models (inference engine) e.g. ENVISON, 

BBNs. Together these components form a system supporting decision-making.
122

Figure 6-3. Generic architecture for a decision-support system (EPA 2012b; adapted from Black and 

Stockton 2009).

As noted in Section 1, the Internet possesses inherent functionality that presents a 

promising option for the development and application of decision-support tools. 

Web-based architecture has the capacity to provide a knowledge base and user 

interface inherent to a decision analysis DSS. Supplemented with open source 

programming languages like R (CRAN 2013), the linkage of analytical tools and 

inference models provide a framework for decision analysis (French et al. 2007; 

Black and Stockton 2009, EPA 2012b). 

6.3 Decision-support illustration: DASEES 

EPA has initiated development of a Web-based application, Decision Analysis for a

Sustainable Environment, Economy, and Society (DASEES) to facilitate the application of

structured decision-making (EPA 2012b). The following images (web page screen shots)

of the DASEES user interface illustrate its functionality in assisting the SDM process for

Guánica Bay. The images are for demonstration purposes and are not intended to convey

a full decision analysis using DASEES. The images contain much of the same information 

presented in Section 2.5 of this report, but for clarity in a print format they are simplified 

in content. The user works through the decision process in DASEES with a sidebar

navigation pane (Fig. 6-4). The steps in the sidebar pane are consistent with and support

the steps describes in this report, e.g., developing the decision landscape, objectives, etc.
123

Decision Landscape information (Section 3.1) for Guánica Bay is entered directly into 

the Decision Landscape page (Fig. 6-4) via typing or through the standard editing 

(copy and paste) functions. This information can be in the form of text, figures, 

videos, hyperlinks that are supported by the browser, i.e., Firefox, Chrome. 

Figure 6-4. Contextual information for the Guánica Bay Decision Landscape in Decision Analysis for a 

Sustainable Environment, Economy, and Society (DASEES). 

SystemSketch is a tool embedded in DASEES that supports DPSIR-based systems thinking 

(Section 3.3) about the decision context. It dynamically visualizes system connections 

following the DPSIR framework to help stakeholders better understand system context. 

The user begins by choosing a DPSIR category in the left-hand panel (Fig. 6-5) for which 

they want to explore linkages shown in the right-hand panel. Linkages are pre-determined

based on existing scientific understanding and general in nature, i.e. not specific to a 

user’s context. The tool allows users to generate and follow linkages (akin to surfing 

web-pages) to gain a new or better understanding of DPSIR systems connections. 
124

Figure 6-5. SystemSketch tool in Decision Analysis for a Sustainable Environment, Economy, and Society 

(DASEES) showing a linkage between the Pressure (P), Landscape Changes, and States (S) such as 

Terrestrial Habitat, Built Environment, and Abiotic State. Clicking next on the Terrestrial Habitat node 

would then open a new set of DPSIR categorized paths to follow. Linkages are further visually explored with 

the intent to help identify unrecognized connections, missed objectives, possible performance measures, 

and management actions. 

Objective Hierarchies (Section 3.4) developed through workshops to elicit stakeholder 

values (Section 5.3) are entered either directly in the Web interface or can developed in a 

word processor document and imported into Define Objectives (Fig. 6-6). Large Objective 

Hierarchies can be expanded and collapsed to view specific Objective Categories as 

needed. 
125

Figure 6-6. Segment of the Guánica Bay Objective Hierarchy focusing on aquatic ecology. When the 

objective Improve Water Quality is highlighted in the left-hand panel, specific measures to track 

achievement the objective are listed in the right-hand panel. 

An important feature in DASEES is the dependence of the three middle steps [Define 

Objectives (Fig. 6-6), Develop Options (Fig. 6-7), and Evaluate Options (Fig. 6-8)] on input 

from the prior step. This is to ensure that information and stakeholder deliberation from 

each decision step is used in subsequent decision steps. For example, the measures 

identified in Define Objectives are necessary in Evaluate Options to ensure that options 

evaluation is linked directly to stakeholder driven objectives, which are ultimately a 

reflection of their values. 
126

Figure 6-7. Means objectives Minimize sediment runoff associated with the fundamental objective 

Improve Water Quality (left-hand panel) and management option Subsidize Shade-grown Coffee 

(right-hand panel) developed by Guánica Bay stakeholders. 

The measures (attached to fundamental objectives) and management options (attached 

to means objectives) developed in these two steps as displayed in Fig. 6-8 as nodes in a 

BBN (Section 5.3). The management option Subsidize Shade Grown Coffee (yellow) and 

the four measures nutrients, coliforms, solids in suspension and turbidity (green) are preloaded into the model from input in the previous two steps (Define Objectives and 

Develop Options). Stakeholders create the causal connections (red) between decision 

(means objective) and endpoint (fundamental objective). From this model, alternative 

options are evaluated against multiple fundamental objectives, trade-offs assessed and 

decisions made.
127

Figure 6-8. An influence diagram for a Bayesian Belief Network showing the management option 

(Subsidize Shade-grown Coffee), the environmental state variables (nutrient runoff, precipitation, and

sediment runoff), and the corresponding measures (nutrients, coliforms, solids in suspension and

turbidity).

A common desire voiced by groups faced with complex environmental management 

decisions is to be able to bring their information together in one place (e.g., to have a 

‘thinking space’ to see how everything fits together) (Boumans 2012). DASEES supports 

this with the demonstrated tools and interfaces and as a common repository for data and 

documents pertinent for the management problem (Fig. 6-9). The Sharing tab facilitates 

transparency in decision-making by making available to all interested parties the 

information used throughout the decision.
128

Figure 6-9. The Decision Analysis for a Sustainable Environment, Economy, and Society (DASEES) sharing 

interface provides a place for storing all the data and information needed to make a decision. 

6.4 Benefits from decision-support tools

Generic model-based DSSs are suitable for a wide range of applications when choosing

among alternatives using multiple criteria is a prime need of decision-makers. In the 

environmental field, this ranges from management of ecosystems to community 

sustainability planning to high-level government agency policy analysis. A DSS supports 

the structured decision-making process, providing a way to deal with “wicked” (Balint 

et al. 2011) environmental problems previously considered intractable. Web-based DSSs 

like DASEES foster greater participation of traditionally excluded stakeholders and 

enhances collaboration for the creation of better solutions to complex problems. 

Additionally, the graphical modeling approach used by Bayesian Belief Networks 

(Fig. 6-9) is suitable for exploring competing hypotheses in relation to the causal 

mechanism between proposed actions and expected results. This capability highlights the 

potential for tools like DASEES to be useful for structuring and analyzing scientific research 

as well as informing environmental management decisions. 
129

Chapter 7. Evaluating the Formal Decision 

Process in Guánica Bay

In Chapter 1 of this report, the potential

benefits of ‘value-focused’ thinking (as

opposed to ‘alternatives-focused’

thinking) were described as worthy of 

the additional time and effort required to

identify and characterize stakeholder

values, particularly in those situations

with multiple stakeholder groups and the

potential for a variety of competing

objectives. Value-focused thinking in

environmental management requires

that the decision process be opened up 

to stakeholders, allowing for a more

transparent and inclusive process that

does not restrict decisions to technical

experts or to authorities with a narrow

range of mission-oriented values. Keeney

(1992) prepared a list of potential 

advantages to values-focused thinking

(text box). Although EPA did not 

complete every step, Section 2.5 in this 

report illustrated the steps taken to

incorporate values following a structured

decision process for a case study in

Guánica Bay, Puerto Rico. Using Keeney’s

(1992) list, it is possible here to assess 

the process.

Possible Advantages of Value-Focused Thinking

(modified from Keeney 1992):

• Guiding information collection – Values help

prioritize the spending of limited resources

on gathering information relevant to what

is important

• Improving communication – VFT keeps the

discussion on what is important to the whole

group and not on specific, technical aspects

of alternatives

• Stakeholder involvement – All parties,

regardless of education or socio-economic

status know what is important to them and

can communicate that

• Interconnecting decisions – Decision-makers

make decisions in different contexts. It is

important to be able to see if decisions in

one context affect how a decision will be

made in another. Values help to see how

decisions affect strategic level objectives

• Guiding strategic thinking – Inter-related

decisions show the necessity of clarity of

values for strategic level decision-making

• Creating alternatives – Creating new

alternatives that are directly responsive to

stakeholder values have a better chance of

acceptance and successful outcome

• Evaluating alternatives – Linking a value

model to a consequences model makes it

possible to analyze desirability of

alternatives.
130

7.1 Guiding information collection

The decision landscape presented in Chapter 3 is a direct outcome of a structured 

decision process. The initial decision context, protection of coral reefs, led to a proposal of 

management alternatives that affected several facets of the watershed (CWP 2008). 

Systems thinking (i.e., DPSIR) allowed EPA and stakeholders to begin to assemble 

information in an organized manner, and to see what tradeoffs might occur under 

different alternatives. In particular, systems thinking provided a means to quickly identify 

consequences of management actions beyond protection of coral reefs and broadened 

the decision context to recognize potential trade-offs with agriculture and potentially 

positive effects on tourism, fisheries and human health. From this, an initial 

characterization of key uncertainties was identified, including mapping human use and 

activity in the watershed, the source and fate of pollutants within the complex Guánica 

watershed hydrologic system, the impacts of stressors on coral reefs, and better 

characterization of stakeholder values.

Information gained from discussions in the workshops revealed several science gaps, 

some of which spurred studies by EPA and others. One of the greatest areas of 

uncertainty concerned sediment efflux from Guánica Bay and its potential effects on coral 

in the nearby coastal zone. Although all the management efforts proposed by the CRTF 

were to protect coral reefs from sediment and associated nutrient and contaminant loads, 

there is no existing evidence that the condition of reefs outside Guánica Bay is more 

degraded than reefs occurring elsewhere along the southern coast, and if the condition is 

degraded there is no evidence that terrestrial sediment is a primary contributor to the 

decline. EPA initiated studies, most still in progress, to address these science gaps:

• Measuring the distribution of terrestrial sediment vs. oceanic sediment in coastal

waters near Guánica Bay (are there high concentrations of terrestrial sediment?)

• Surveying coral reefs in southwestern Puerto Rico to characterize the condition of

coral reef assemblages (is the condition of reefs near Guánica Bay degraded relative

to other reefs?) and comparing the biological condition of sites with high and low

terrestrial sediment influx (can terrestrial sediment be linked to degraded coral reef

condition?)

• Testing the effects of sediment collected inside and outside of Guánica Bay on the

survival and growth of Caribbean coral species in laboratory dosing experiments

(what source and levels of sediment have adverse effects on corals?)

• Developing a conceptual model (the BCG) of how coral reef condition changes as

human disturbance increases (can we link coral reef condition to human factors?)
131

Another area of uncertainty was where terrestrial sediment entering Guánica Bay 

originated and whether proposed management actions would significantly reduce soil 

erosion and transport to the bay. EPA studies to address these science gaps included:

• Modeling the hydrology and sediment loading of the watershed area to better 

characterize sediment sources (where does the sediment originate?) (Yuan et al. 

2013; Bousquin et al. 2014; Hu et al. 2015) 

• Modeling the water storage capacity of reservoirs in the SWP to project the future 

ability to capture sediment from the mountainous areas and protect downstream 

habitats (at what rate will sediment trapping by reservoirs decline?) (Bousquin et al. 

2014)

Human health issues arose in the workshops, particularly related to flood protection, 

sanitation and the quality and availability of drinking water. EPA initiated studies that 

included:

• Modeling the water storage capacity of reservoirs in the SWP to project useful 

lifespan for flood protection and drinking water provision in light of increasing 

sedimentation (at what rate will freshwater storage capacity decline?) (Bousquin et 

al. 2014)

• Initiating a Citizens Science Project in Guánica Bay to monitor water quality, fecal 

coliforms and sewer infrastructure (what communities are at risk for sanitation and 

waterbodies are safe for contact?) (Sotomayor 2015). 

Consideration of different options raised in the workshops created questions about the 

relative value of outcomes. EPA initiated several studies to identify ecosystem services 

from coral reefs and the terrestrial watershed area as the related to stakeholder values:

• Developing production functions to quantify and map coral reef ecosystem goods 

and services, such as fishing potential, tourism potential, pharmaceutical potential, 

shoreline protection, and supporting services) using data from coral reef condition 

surveys (what quantity of services do coral reefs provide?) (Principe et al. 2012; Yee 

et al. 2011, 2014b).

• Developing production functions to quantify and map provisioning of terrestrial 

ecosystems services such as sediment and nutrient retention and air pollutant 

removal (what quantity of services might be affected by decisions in the watershed?)

(Smith et al. In Review).

• Conducting on-site and web-based surveys of residents and visitors to estimate the 

use and associated market and non-market economic value of Puerto Rico’s coral 

reef-based tourism and recreation, and how those values change with changes in 

reef attributes (how valuable are coral reefs for tourism and recreation and how 

important is reef condition to that value?) (Bradley et al. 2014a).
132

For updates on these and other projects related to Guánica Bay contact EPA’s Gulf 

Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, Florida.

To characterize stakeholder values, EPA used the systems-thinking frameworks and 

discussions from the 2010 workshop to identify key stakeholder groups within the 

Guánica watershed for follow-up workshops. These included community leaders, 

environmental groups, farmers, fishermen, tourism and recreation groups, and 

government agencies. Stakeholders recognized the importance of protecting coral reef 

habitats, but identified a number of other values, including forest biota, agricultural 

productivity, cultural heritage, water availability and economic independence through 

opportunities such as fisheries, eco-tourism, and agriculture. The ensuing workshops not 

only initiated broad discussions on those values but also helped to identify perceived 

threats to those values, such as pollution, loss of agricultural land, loss of habitat and 

biodiversity, poverty, economic instability, lack of representation, and lack of education. 

Restoration of the Guánica Lagoon was a topic that is a good example of how workshop 

discussions guided information collection. Different stakeholder groups with different 

objectives disputed the proposed restoration. One group cited protection of coral reefs 

and habitat provision, the other cited loss of agricultural land in a farming-dependent 

economy. Through the discussion, the absence of technical data for several facets of the 

system became clear, in particular the origin of sediment and nutrient stressors (from 

Lajas Valley irrigation ditches or from Rio Loco), the effects of the stressors on coral reefs, 

and the actual value or contribution of a restored lagoon in reducing those stressors. 

Using information gained in the workshops and developing the decision landscape, EPA 

has initiated the following studies to address specific science gaps (for updates contact 

EPA’s Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, Florida): 

• Measuring the contribution of terrestrial sediment in Guánica Bay coastal waters

• Surveying coral reefs in southwestern Puerto Rico to characterize the condition of 

coral reef assemblages and comparing sites with high and low sediment influx, 

differences in condition related to sediment presence and the provision of coral reef 

ecosystem services 

• Testing the effects of sediment collected inside and outside of Guánica Bay on the 

survival and growth of Caribbean coral species in laboratory dosing experiments

• Surveying coral reefs along the entire southern coast of Puerto Rico to characterize 

the provision of ecosystem goods and services (fishing potential, tourism potential, 

pharmaceutical potential, shoreline protection, and supporting services)

• Modeling the hydrology and sediment loading of the watershed area to better 

characterize the source of sediment 
133

• Modeling the water storage capacity of reservoirs in the SWP to project the useful 

lifespan remaining as sedimentation increases, and to project the utility of various 

decision options (i.e., farming practices and dredging reservoirs)

• Developing production functions to quantify and map coral reef ecosystem goods 

and services

• Developing production functions to quantify and map provisioning of terrestrial 

ecosystems services such as sediment and nutrient retention and air pollutant 

removal.

• Developing a conceptual model (the BCG) of how coral reef condition changes as 

human disturbance increases

• Conducting on-site and web-based surveys of residents and visitors to estimate the 

use and associated market and non-market economic value of Puerto Rico’s coral 

reef-based tourism and recreation, and how those values change with changes in 

reef attributes

• Initiating a Citizens Science Project in Guánica Bay Watershed to monitor water 

quality (sanitation) and sewer infrastructure. 

Additionally, Ridge to Reefs Inc., Protectores de Cuencas, and Puerto Rico DNER have

completed an economic valuation study of Guánica Lagoon. UPRM Mayagüez and 

Protectores de Cuencas led the study. The financial costs and benefits of lagoon 

restoration have been evaluated and are summarized in a report (Lozado and Mora 2014). 

Public stakeholder meetings were held to provide input into the study. Key benefits 

identified in the report are listed below:

• The restored lagoon will provide ecological benefits. It will once again provide 

habitat for native and migratory birds. 

• The restored lagoon will provide ecotourism opportunities. There will be a visitor 

center with educational exhibits and information, a boardwalk for nature hiking with 

interpretive displays along the walk, areas for camping, an observation tower for 

bird watching, and local micro-businesses (e.g., kayak rental services and guided 

tours, arts and crafts, food and sale of locally caught fish).

• The restoration of Guánica Lagoon will provide socio-economic benefits to the 

residents of adjacent communities. By 2020 they expect 23 new community 

enterprises with total expected sales of $250,000 in 2015 and almost half a million 

dollars in 2020. The restoration of Guánica Lagoon could generate between 45 and 

60 jobs during the first year of operations and by 2020 the number of jobs would 

reach a minimum of 69 and a maximum of 92. In addition to the employees of the 

micro-enterprises, there will also be new jobs in guesthouses and restaurants, 

interpretive guides, and suppliers.
134

NOAA has completed a baseline assessment of Guánica Bay, Puerto Rico, and its 

surrounding coral reef ecosystem (Whitall et al. 2013). The report details: 

(1) A biogeographic assessment of the coral reef ecosystem outside the bay. 

(2) Contaminant (e.g., PAHs, PCBs, pesticides, heavy metals) magnitudes and 

distributions in surface sediments (inside the bay, outside the bay and in the 

watershed streams) and in coral tissues (mustard hill coral, Porites astreoides). 

(3) Spatial and temporal patterns in sedimentation rates and surface water nutrient 

concentrations. Sediment samples from Guánica Bay, Puerto Rico, contained high 

concentrations of PCBs, chlordane, chromium, and nickel as compared to other 

sites sampled by the NOAA National Status & Trends Program, a nationwide 

contaminant-monitoring program that began in 1986. These concentrations 

represent toxic threats to corals, fish, and benthic infauna—organisms that burrow 

into and live in the seafloor.

EPA has conducted a source identification investigation, but did not find records of any 

spills or releases that could explain the source(s) of the contaminants. There remains 

uncertainty about the human health effects of the contaminated sediment. A human 

health risk assessment has not been conducted for Guánica Bay (personal communication 

with Mark Reiss, EPA Region 2).

A key point for a structured decision process is the distinction between scientific 

information and values information, both of which are important. Information on 

stakeholder values helps to prioritize collection of scientific data, focusing cost and effort 

where it will be most relevant to decisions. 

7.2 Improving communication

Limited communication was a major concern for stakeholders in the watershed. Many 

expressed frustration with the apparent lack of communication with government agencies 

and the resulting lack of local influence in decisions, both historically and currently. Many 

also felt there was poor communication among government agencies (both Federal and 

Commonwealth), leading to conflicting directions in management decisions and 

skepticism by local stakeholders. Stakeholders also recognized that there was poor 

communication among citizens and stakeholder groups in the watershed, limiting the 

potential for shared effort and a stronger community voice. 

The three EPA-sponsored workshops made steps toward resolving some of the 

communication issues, not only by bringing stakeholders and decision-makers together, 

but also by demonstrating the tools used to clarify and organize values and alternatives. 

DPSIR conceptual maps that were employed in the 2010 Decision-support Workshop 

provided the backbone for systems thinking that broadened decision context and 
135

ultimately generated discussion among groups that do not normally interact (like farmers 

and fishers). 

In both the 2010 Decision-making Workshop and the 2013 Public Values Forum, 

participants provided information that was captured in SNAs (Fig 4-2) (Bradley et al. 2015)

(Fig. 4-6). The SNA competed in 2013 had three unconnected clusters: a large cluster, with 

NOAA playing a central role; a 2nd smaller cluster of mostly EPA employees that work 

interactively but have connection with only one external participant (NOAA); and 3rd small 

cluster of individuals representing Puerto Rico departments that are interactive with FWS 

and NRCS but not with the broader NOAA network. The 2013 SNA showed that the 2nd

smaller cluster of EPA employees has been integrated into the large cluster, but the 

3rd small cluster remains independent. While this is a significant improvement, given EPA’s 

EPA mission and regulatory responsibility for managing and regulating land-based sources 

of pollution, effort must be made to better link FWS and NRCS into the larger network. It 

should be noted that both SNAs were developed with only the participants at the 

workshops, and a more comprehensive SNA might link the clusters. 

Importantly, the focused discussions during the workshops allowed stakeholders to hear 

similar and differing views on values and issues related to environmental decision-making. 

Formal decision tools, such as objective hierarchies, means-ends networks, consequence 

tables and electronic voting served to organize and prioritize values and options in a 

transparent process. In this process, everyone in attendance had some idea of why 

one alternative was supported over another. Beneficial to the success of this approach 

was the constant reinforcement to distinguish science from values and objectives, 

allowing that validity and accuracy of science could be argued but that values could not 

be questioned. 

During the 2012 Decision-Making Workshop, participants identified a lack of 

communication between local stakeholders and decision-makers in government agencies 

as a historical and continuing problem. They felt that Federal and Commonwealth 

agencies, most of which are located in San Juan, were making the majority of 

environmental decisions and that local citizens had little influence on the process. 

Consequently, the decisions were not always in the best interests of local communities. 

Documentation of this concern, here or elsewhere, could lead to greater efforts to bridge 

this gap. A stronger determination by stakeholders to infuse themselves into the process 

may also result.

Workshop stakeholders also emphasized that government agencies don’t always consult 

with other government agencies before making decisions; or if they do, the decisions 

sometimes conflict with other programs. This is believed to lead to a patchwork of 

individual decisions that do not support a long-term goal for the watershed. The USCRTF
136

was established as a means to bring Federal Agencies together with a shared purpose, and 

this was certainly true in Guánica Bay, where EPA worked with NOAA, USDA/NRCS, 

USFWS and Puerto Rico environmental agencies to jointly confront the problem of coral 

reef decline. Communication among agencies was, in this case, relatively high even 

though the decision context was relatively narrow (coral reef protection). Yet, it was also 

clear from the Public Values Forum that the USCRTF needs to expand its decision context 

into broader watershed issues and engage a broader spectrum of stakeholders. This fact is 

currently under discussion both in Puerto Rico and within the USCRTF Watershed Initiative 

Program, largely as a consequence of the Guánica Bay experience.

7.3 Stakeholder involvement

One of the clearest messages from the Decision-Making Workshop and the Public Values 

Forum was the desire of stakeholders to be informed, educated and engaged in local 

environmental decisions. This was driven in part by sensitivity to decisions made outside 

the community and in part by a desire for strong environmental stewardship within the 

community. Decisions made outside the community have little transparency and were 

perceived as not reflecting local values.

The three EPA decision science workshops provided local decision-makers and 

stakeholders an opportunity to become better informed and more engaged in 

environmental issues. Moreover, the workshops opened the decision process to a broader 

conceptualization that considered wider benefits and tradeoffs across the watershed and 

coastal zone. Although the original context for the 2010 Decision-support workshop was 

coral reef protection, it was immediately clear that there were a variety of linked 

environmental issues to consider. Particularly valuable in this process was the ability of 

stakeholders to hear other viewpoints in a constructive environment and to recognize 

that there are ways to move through disagreements. Separating values and objectives 

from science facts and knowledge was extremely useful in this respect.

Also beneficial in the Public Values Forum was that it demonstrated to participants 

how transparency increased the success of an informed decision process. Work groups 

identified values and alternatives from different stakeholder perspectives and shared 

them with all participants iteratively; and the groups considered and amended their ideas 

publicly throughout the Forum, finally selecting those they thought were most worthy. 

Then everyone was allowed to vote on the priorities anonymously. Important to this 

transparency is that even the most avid supporter of a particular alternative, regardless of 

the voting outcome, had to recognize the inclusive expression of community values. 
137

7.4 Interconnecting decisions

Archival research to characterize the decision landscape was very valuable for identifying 

a variety of interconnecting decisions. At the earliest steps of EPA involvement, the 

USCRTF had identified a single objective of their mission—protection of coral reefs in the 

coastal zone. The WMP (CWP 2008) developed to support that objective proposed a suite 

of management options, including coffee farming practices, restoring an historic coastal 

lagoon, dredging reservoirs, planting riparian zones, removing hydrology infrastructure 

and upgrading sewage treatment. 

Following the 2010 Decision-support Workshop, EPA summarized the growing recognition 

of interconnections, developed a Guánica Bay Watershed DPSIR (Bradley et al. 2014b), 

and proposed a values-focused framework, which included development of objectives 

hierarchies, means to achieve the objectives (means-ends networks), performance 

measures and potential desired and undesired outcomes (Carriger et al. 2013). This 

led to a broader recognition of values in the watershed and adjacent coastal and marine 

systems, and set the stage for further stakeholder interaction on the broader range 

of topics. 

The primary environmental issue tackled by the USCRTF was runoff of sediment and 

nutrients from watershed activities that was affecting coral reef ecosystems (CWP 2008). 

The stressors, as illustrated in Carriger et al. (2013), were also affecting the environment, 

economy and society further up in the watershed. At its source, sediment runoff

represents a loss of topsoil that is essential to farming. As the sediment travels 

downstream, it collects in riverbeds, reservoirs, lagoons and embayments. In the 

Guánica Bay watershed, sediment in the reservoirs, the Guánica Lagoon and in the 

Bay itself is a concern for all inhabitants, human and otherwise. 

In particular, sediment accumulation has reduced the water storage capacity of the five 

reservoirs of the Southwest Puerto Rico Project (SWP) to roughly half of their original 

(1950s) volumes, yet water demands for irrigation and domestic purposes have risen. 

The lack of storage capacity also reduces the potential to protect coastal areas from 

flooding during major storm events (endangering the humans and causing property 

damage). The cost of dredging sediment from the reservoirs is so high that building new 

reservoirs is becoming a reasonable option. These interconnecting issues have become 

topics for EPA scientific investigation. 

The fact that sediment is accumulating in reservoirs in the mountain ridges indicates that 

erosion is occurring from upper watersheds, meaning that mountain roads, municipalities, 

and farming, especially coffee farming, are potential sources of sediment. Interconnecting 

management options include subsidies, education and incentives to influence coffee 
138

farming practices (e.g., shade-grown vs. sun-grown coffee) that require a full 

consideration of trade-offs, particularly for farmers who must adopt new practices that 

may affect their economic status (at least in the short-term). 

Sediment in the irrigation canals and drainage ditches was another interconnecting issue

that arose during the Public Values Forum. As sediment passes through and out of the 

reservoirs into the Lajas Valley Irrigation System, it settles in the canals and drainage 

ditches, thereby reducing capacity for water flow needed for irrigation and drainage. The 

only way to remove the sediment is through dredging, which is not only costly but creates 

piles of sediment along canal levees that in turn creates upland flooding and eventually 

washes back into the canals. Reducing sediment in the canals and drainage ditches is a 

means objective in need of viable alternatives. 

In general, agriculture was widely supported by stakeholders, whether coffee-growing 

in mountain ridges, or cultivation of vegetables and rangeland for cattle in the valley. 

Discussions of water availability for irrigation led to discussion of incentives for farming 

and preservation of farmland. In 1999, this public value led to the Agricultural Reserve

Law, but farmers argue that the Law has done little to protect farmland. Participants 

discussed a variety of options, which were largely focused on best management practices, 

farmland protection, provision of incentives and pricing. 

The Guánica Lagoon restoration was introduced by the USCRTF as a means to settle 

sediment and filter nutrients from Lajas Valley water before it enters Guánica Bay. It had 

been drained in the 1950s as part of the 'South West Puerto Rico Project' that consisted of 

converting wetlands areas in the Valley to agricultural lands. The USCRTF 

recommendation to restore the lagoon has instigated several related decisions, including 

how much (depth, area), with what water flow (to prevent stagnation) and by whose 

authority. This issue has a strong scientific component, and the USCRTF has funded 

several studies to address stakeholder concerns. To address the farmers’ uncertainties, a 

series of studies were conducted: 1) an inventory of farms; 2) a hydrologic and hydraulic 

study and 3) a groundwater and soil salinity study. These studies, cited in Bradley et al. 

2014b, show more precisely the impacts that restoring the Guánica Lagoon may have on 

the agriculture of the surrounding area. 

The Guánica Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) generates an estimated wastewater 

flow volume of about 1.2 millions of gallons per day (MGD), with an associated nutrient 

(mostly nitrogen and phosphorus) load of approximately 54,000 lbs/yr. The WWTP is the 

largest discrete source of nitrogen in the Guánica Bay watershed. The WWTP provides 

advanced secondary treatment, which minimally reduces nutrient discharges to the Bay 

(CWP 2008). Nutrient standards in Puerto Rico, as well as background concentrations from 

the watershed, suggest that the WWTP’s effluent is currently 7-15 times higher than 
139

background levels in the area, and exceeds the current water quality standards for total 

nitrogen in Puerto Rico. 

The WMP proposed a constructed wetland system as means to reduce nutrients from 

entering the bay and coastal zone. Constructed wetlands are treatment systems that use 

wetland vegetation, soils, and their associated microbial assemblages to improve water 

quality (EPA 2004). The proposed project is anticipated to help reduce the current annual 

nutrient loading to the Guánica Bay by 50-80%, and thus improve water quality conditions 

in the area. US Army Corps of Engineers issued public notice SAJ-2014-01994 on August 

21, 2014, regarding the Ridge to Reefs, Inc. application for a Department of the Army 

permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1344) and Section 10 of 

the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. §403). Ridge to Reefs, Inc. has developed a 

mitigation plan, permitting is nearly complete and they hope to begin construction soon.

In addition to the nutrient loading, there is an associated concern over public health 

and the absence of strong sanitary controls in communities near Guánica Bay and river 

systems. This issue has been identified by EPA Region 2 as an issue throughout Puerto 

Rico where roughly half of the households are not connected to municipal wastewater 

treatment plants. A consequence is that water quality is unsafe for fishing and swimming 

in Guánica Bay and the immediate coastal zone. Nonetheless, subsistence fishing persists 

in the Bay creating a clear health threat for local citizens. EPA has initiated a Citizen 

Science project to better educate local communities on water sanitation issues.

The coastal zone was the first concern of the USCRTF (effects of sediment and nutrients 

on coral reefs). Most stakeholders generally agree with protecting coral reefs and reef 

fisheries, but there is little information available on how much sediment and nutrient 

reduction is needed to produce a positive result. Moreover, a variety of stressors has

affected reefs and reef fisheries, including high sea surface temperature events (resulting 

from global climate change) and over-fishing. Decisions to protect coral reefs through 

management of human activities in the watershed must be couched within the effects of 

other global and local anthropogenic factors. Implicit in this discussion is deciding the 

level of desired improvement for coral reefs (“how good is good?”) and the sacrifices 

necessary to achieve it. EPA is developing a generalized stressor gradient for coastal and 

estuarine systems. The generalized stressor gradient will reflect cumulative stress from 

multiple stressors and will be spatially explicit. Stressor categories will include (at a 

minimum) land-based stressors (nutrients, sediments, toxics), fishing pressure, and 

climate change related stressors (sea surface temperature and pH). The stressor gradient 

will be used as the x-axis of the Biological Condition Gradient (BCG). 
140

A larger context –ecotourism—emerged through the three workshops. Several different 

stakeholders felt that ecotourism was a viable economic alternative for southwestern 

Puerto Rico, and that protection of coral reefs, restoration of the lagoon, improved 

fisheries and greater biodiversity were all means to achieve this objective. Ecotourism has 

the potential to conserve environmental resources while providing economic benefits. 

While communities of southwestern Puerto Rico and the Puerto Rico Ecotourism Board 

share the goals for ecotourism, there has been little interaction between them. EPA 

initiated an ongoing study to better characterize coral reef ecosystem services and a 

valuation study for coral reef-based tourism and recreation in Puerto Rico. Ridge to Reefs 

Inc., Protectores de Cuencas, and Puerto Rico DNER are initiating an economic valuation 

study of a restored Guánica Lagoon. 

In summary, the original focus to protect coral reefs, through the process of stakeholder 

engagement, led to elucidation of several potential decisions—a broader portfolio—

reflecting stakeholder values in agriculture, water supply, fisheries regulations, habitat 

restoration, public health, environmental stewardship and support for eco-tourism. 

7.5 Guiding strategic thinking

Strategic thinking (Keeney 1992) is characterized by consideration of core values that are 

not likely to change over the long term and that can influence a number and variety of 

decisions. Higher-level values, such as equality, justice, quality of life, well-being and 

respect and care for the land and sea, could be considered strategic objectives because 

they influence many lower objectives with more specific alternatives. Archival research 

outlined in Section 3 demonstrated a long history of decisions that had economic 

independence and poverty reduction as strategic objectives. 

Review of the results from the 2010 Decision-support Workshop and several associated 

documents led Carriger et al. (2013) to propose maximizing ecological integrity as an 

appropriate strategic objective for the Guánica Bay watershed and ecosystem-based 

management (EBM) as the means to achieve that objective. EBM is widely recognized 

as an approach that considers multiple values across diverse categories of costs and 

benefits to society and the environment. Diagrams prepared during the workshop clearly 

indicated diverse concerns of stakeholders, from property values to potential economic 

impacts from watershed restoration. After the workshop, two figures were prepared to 

demonstrate the change in perception from a set of management actions to achieve a 

single objective (restoring coral reefs; Fig. 7-1) towards much broader objectives and 

effects in other parts of the watershed (Fig. 7-2). This simple graphic reflects broader 

strategies to support different economic sectors and human health. 
141

Figure 7-1. The Watershed Management Plan (CWP 2008) graphically illustrating its primary objective of 

restoring high ecological integrity to coral reefs.

Figure 7-2. Elaboration of objectives and benefits of proposed management actions derived from 

discussions during the 2010 Decision Support Workshop. The dotted line from lagoon restoration to 

farmland represents a potential negative impact due to loss of farmland.

One of the key benefits of strategic thinking is the possibility of developing creative 

solutions that meet multiple objectives, such as a sequential combination of decision 

options (Gregory et al. 2012). During the Public Values Forum, participants were able to 

outline such a sequence based on completion of ‘low-hanging fruit’ and progressing 

through more challenging alternatives. 
142

An encompassing benefit of the structured decision process was the more inclusive 

context of inter-related decisions and issues. Application of a systems approach (i.e., 

DPSIR) allowed EPA researchers and stakeholders alike the opportunity to explore 

interconnectedness, alternatives and possible outcomes. Conceptual mapping (Yee et al. 

2011), used in the DPSIR approach, was conducive to transparent community discussion 

and organization of cause-effect relationships. During these discussions, stakeholders 

were able to identify things they knew and things they didn’t. Analysis of these values and 

priorities can lead to documentation for supporting strategic objectives and even greater 

clarity in decisions. 

7.6 Creating alternatives

The structured decision process emphasizes a clear distinction between decision-making 

focused on alternatives (means objectives) and decisions based on values (fundamental or 

ends objectives). For example, it was quickly evident to workshop participants that 

phrases such as ‘reduce sediment load’ were means not ends objectives. Alternatives are 

made from means objectives and should aim to satisfy ends objectives. Alternatives 

should be evaluated against ends objective measures. This helps clarifies how alternatives 

should be created and assessed for decision-making.

Systems thinking and conceptual mapping, as stated earlier, provided a strong impetus for 

creating alternative paths to achieve objectives. During the 2010 Decision Support

Workshop, participants created DPSIR conceptual maps linking coral reef condition to a 

variety of pressures, driving forces and impacts (e.g., ecosystem services). Through this 

process they identified alternatives and additions to the WMP (Bradley et al. 2014b). 

Many of these have been captured in subsequent planning documents (see Carriger et al. 

2013). For coral reef protection, some of these alternatives included, among others, 

establishment of a marine reserve, stronger enforcement of fishing regulations, 

eradication of marine invasive species (lionfish), and ecological threat responses, 

installation of mooring buoys, increased volunteer opportunities, creation of green 

certification programs, and increased learning opportunities.

An interesting outcome of the Public Values Forum accompanied a discussion of the easily 

implemented decision alternatives (e.g., the “low-hanging fruit”). Representatives of 

several different stakeholder groups began to realize that many of the alternatives were 

well within their grasp at the local level and did not require outside authorization or 

funding. These included alternatives to form partnerships, to inform and educate 

community members, to interact with government representatives, and to lobby officials 

in support of local positions. 
143

The consequence table that was framed during the Public Values Forum provides another 

good example of alternative decisions evolving from the decision process. There was 

ample recognition among Forum participants that restoration of the Guánica Lagoon 

supported several objectives related to quality ecosystems, but had potential adverse 

effects on agriculture. An alternative emerged that allowed for a gradual restoration and 

monitoring followed by intermittent assessment and a capacity to change direction with 

new information (adaptive management).

7.7 Additional benefits

There were additional benefits recognized through the application of SDM to Guánica Bay. 

To be successful, decisions made in the Guánica Bay watershed should be as much a social 

undertaking as an ecological and scientific undertaking. The engagement of stakeholders 

in the SDM process helped to gain acceptance and understanding of the management 

actions proposed to restore the watershed. This will benefit the communities by reducing 

contention; the stakeholders perceived the SDM process as clear, consistent, and 

adaptive. Moreover, involving stakeholders early in the process also gets them engaged 

and excited about implementing the decisions. 

The SDM process of engagement brought together stakeholders on a relatively narrow 

issue at first, which broadened with continued interaction. The stakeholders did not at 

first view themselves as counterparts in the management process, but the range of 

discussions led many to begin to consider that a broader management plan with an 

overarching vision was needed. The process fostered this interaction.

Additionally, the SDM process helped to identify both scientific uncertainty and the 

stakeholder uncertainty regarding scientific information. This acknowledgement allows 

the incorporation of these uncertainties into estimates of consequences. The ultimate 

benefit is that stakeholders are more aware of the likely effectiveness of proposed 

actions. 

The Guánica Bay Watershed was an EPA pilot study to research, develop and test

transferable and scalable conceptual frameworks, mathematical models, assessment 

methods, metrics and indicators that could be used by decision-makers. The approach and 

lessons learned have provided a foundation for new case studies, including one in San 

Juan, Puerto Rico. Some of the tools and approaches have already been applied in Culebra 

(Sturm et al. 2014) and Cabo Rojo (Sturm et al. 2015), most notably workshops to elicit 

stakeholders’ values and develop potential management options.
144

7.8 Challenges

Despite the success of a formal decision process (SDM) in the Guánica Bay application, 

there were particular challenges that were not easily or convincingly met. They include:

• Ensuring a broad representation of stakeholders from a complex landscape

• Quantifying and accepting scientific uncertainty

• Inclusion of nonmarket benefits

• Framing tradeoffs in the watershed

With greater experience some of these challenges can be overcome. The SDM process 

represents a departure from conventional practices and methods of regulatory and 

environmental management. Most agencies have a defined mission with goals focused on 

a relatively narrow context—but with consequences ranging across commercial, 

municipal, social and cultural issues. Engaging communities in systems thinking, value 

deliberations, goal setting and tradeoff analysis will require a dedicated management 

force with a thorough grasp of strategic thinking and structured decision-making. This can 

only come with continued exposure to the process, appropriate resources for workshops 

and public forums, and dedication to improving the manner and method of engaging 

stakeholders in balanced resource protection. 

The Guánica Bay interagency program highlighted communication and interactions among 

agencies as another challenge. To improve this interaction, care must be taken to include 

all potentially affected parties at the very beginning of the program. Any omission can 

lead to confusion over project goals and can ultimately create unanticipated obstacles to 

program completion. Parties that enter late into the program should take steps to 

become fully familiar with the project goals and attempt to assimilate new work into 

ongoing activities. As the approach becomes more familiar, a better process for agency 

interaction will undoubtedly evolve.

Perhaps the most daunting challenge is transitioning the process from ‘research’ into a 

standard approach for communities and environmental agencies. The decision approach 

outlined here for Guánica Bay is very comprehensive and incorporates relatively unique 

concepts that may be difficult for local governing bodies and citizens to embrace. Tools, 

training and education are extremely important. The process holds great promise for the 

future of environmental decision-making. Overcoming these challenges is within reach 

and the benefits are well worth the effort.
145

7.9 Future research

There are a variety of future research topics that will improve EPA’s ability to empower 

and engage communities in sustainable governance. At the top of this list is a usable 

framework, described in this report, which will provide a path for supporting watershed 

and coastal zone economies and provide equitable benefits and costs (market and 

nonmarket) to present and future generations. The framework is widely applicable to 

a broad suite of decision-makers and characterized by its flexibility and insight to complex, 

‘wicked’ decision problems (see Section 1). 

Within this framework, several issues still need to be resolved. Whereas the workshops 

described in this report generated insightful products (e.g., objective hierarchies, table of 

consequences), most decisions will require additional information. Of particular interest 

are:

• Means to ensure stakeholder inclusion and transparency 

• Information and models to evaluate uncertainties

• Performance measures for social values (e.g., cultural heritage)

• Evaluating tradeoffs for multiple stakeholder values

• Costs of management actions

• Defining a ‘requisite model’ (when are we finished?)

• Adaptive Management that triggers points at which to evaluate decision results and 

revisit the SDM process with new information

• A means to transfer the successful processes to other communities 

• A means to transfer the successful processes to actions by individuals, communities 

and local, PR and federal managers

A values-focused thinking framework applied to watershed protection and restoration 

issues can bring opportunities to create a management framework that is inclusive and 

widely supported for achieving objectives and benefits that have greater permanency. 

Stakeholder support can increase the likelihood for action implementation and prevent 

delays due to conflicts and ongoing debates. Putting values at the forefront of decisionmaking brings less contention as the public has greater awareness that agencies are 

working for the common good. Values facilitate communication, which helps bring 

understanding and transparency to decision-making. Moreover, understanding the value 

that can be achieved or lost from decisions can leverage resources in a fashion where 

learning is explicit, easier to define, and more successfully addresses areas of uncertainty. 

In order to be fully successful, the Guánica Bay Watershed Project should be as much 

a social undertaking as an ecological one. The SDM process described in this report can 
146

help to gain acceptance and understanding of the management actions undertaken to 

restore the watershed. This should result in less contention down the road, since the 

stakeholders perceive the SDM process as clear, consistent, and adaptive.

Additionally, the ability of the SDM process can deal with uncertainty by identifying 

uncertainty (both scientific and stakeholder perception) and incorporating that 

uncertainty into estimates, helps to alleviate concerns about the efficacy of taking action, 

and therefore increases the likelihood to leading to action.

Watershed restoration is challenging. Getting everyone involved at the early stages 

of thinking about recommended strategies also gets people excited about helping to 

implement them later on. The SDM process can be used to develop a resourcing strategy 

by: 1) identifying the resources currently dedicated to watershed restoration; 2) 

determining the gaps in funding; and 3) combining and leveraging resources. 

Value-focused thinking can help broaden the discussion and set the framework for 

a participatory process. Stakeholder workshops can provide important information 

to decision-makers on how stakeholders characterize, define, and consider their wideranging values. However, identifying the categories of stakeholders needed for a 

particular decision context and getting them to the table are challenges. This is a 

particularly critical issue for complex watershed and coastal zone management issues, 

where the broader issues generate an almost unending potential for additional 

stakeholders.

7.10 Afterwards 

Conducting decision science research in a real-world decision context has inherent 

challenges. In the Guánica Bay case study, EPA researchers had to maintain a balance 

between independence and engagement with the decision-makers and stakeholders. The 

decision-making environment was fluid: in responding to watershed problems the USCRTF 

was itself a “learning organization” (Shiffman et al. 2008). The EPA workshops provided a 

learning opportunity for the Guánica Bay watershed managers, who incorporated the new 

knowledge into their planning and implementation for the watershed. But the Guánica 

Bay watershed managers were also holding their own meetings, and they sometimes felt 

the EPA workshops merely confirmed what they had already learned through their own 

channels.

Regardless, the point of the EPA research was to provide a utility assessment of tools and 

approaches that could be used for decision support at the watershed level. Information 

elicited during the 2010 decision workshop was organized, examined and structured using 

formal decision science concepts. This information (stakeholder identification, decision 

context, etc.) provided the foundation for the future EPA research in the Guánica Bay
147

watershed. The Guánica Bay watershed managers subsequently conducted several 

activities raised during the 2010 workshop (e.g., grounding response program, studies to 

reduce uncertainties about the lagoon restoration project, and coral nurseries).

All of the workshops showed the importance of fully engaging the stakeholders, and using 

the stakeholders’ values as the foundation for future work. As the USCRTF moves forward 

into new watersheds, they are adopting principles of structured decision-making and 

conducting workshops with stakeholders to better understand their goals and objectives 

before developing watershed management plans (e.g., Cabo Rojo and Culebra). The SDM 

process described in this report can help to gain acceptance and understanding of the 

management actions undertaken to restore the watershed. This should result in less 

contention down the road, since the stakeholders perceive the SDM process as clear, 

consistent, and adaptive. 

The Guánica Bay watershed managers will soon be updating the 2008 Watershed 

Management Plan. Much of the information gleaned during the EPA research can 

contribute to the revised plan. It is strongly recommended that the Guánica Bay 

Watershed Managers also hold additional stakeholder workshops to elicit values, share 

knowledge and increase stakeholder engagement.

Additionally, the Caribbean Landscape Conservation Cooperative (CLCC) is employing 

SDM. The tools and approaches described in this report can help the CLCC to more 

efficiently plan and organize conservation activities throughout the U.S. Caribbean.

Finally, EPA will be conducting a second decision science case study in the San Juan Bay 

Watershed. Most of the approaches described in this report will be also applied in San 

Juan to validate their efficacy. 

149

Appendix A. The Guánica Bay Watershed–An 

Historical Perspective

Spanish Colonization (1508-1897)

The narrow channel and calm waters of Guánica Bay have made it a natural refuge for 

ships sailing the Caribbean Sea, including those of Juan Ponce de Léon, who landed 

there when he came to settle Puerto Rico in 1508 (Kent 1992). The native Taíno Indians

called the island Borikén. Christopher Columbus, who came ashore in 1493, renamed 

the island San Juan Bautista. Ponce de Léon’s exploration and settlement of the island 

began in Guánica Bay where the village of Guainía (Guainía = “a place with water”) was 

established (Fig. A-1). At the time, Guainía was the Taíno political and socioeconomic 

center (Silvestrini and Sánchez 1988). The settlement was destroyed in 1511 during an 

uprising of indigenous Taínos. Interest in Guainía faded as the Europeans recognized 

better fortifications could be established in the northeast at San Juan (then called Porto 

Rico by the Spaniards). The island was renamed Puerto Rico in 1521 with San Juan the 

capital, as it remains today. Guainía would later become its own municipality with the 

name Guánica (1914), from which the Bay inherited its name.

Figure A-1. Paintings of Christopher Columbus and Juan Ponce de León (photo credits: left – original 

painting at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Sebastiano del Piombo, 1519; right – anonymous sixteenth 

century portrait).
150

During the Spanish colonial period, the economy of Puerto Rico, and that of the Guánica 

Bay area, was shaped by agriculture (e.g., tobacco, coffee and sugar cane farming). 

Early agriculture was subsistence only. Spanish rule was restrictive of trade, requiring all 

imports and exports to go between San Juan and Seville, Spain (Carrión 1983). Such 

shipments from Seville could be sparse, at times with none for years at a time, so a 

significant quantity of goods were smuggled and traded illegally with other nations and 

their colonies. Sugar was introduced to Puerto Rico in the early 1500s and many small 

landowners began to rely on its export as a source of income. By the middle of the 16th

century there were many sugar mills in operation and sugar was the colony’s greatest 

export (Dietz 1986). Further growth was limited because sugar mills were capital 

intensive - relying heavily on slave labor or cheap labor (Fig. A-2). 

Figure A-2. Workers cutting sugar cane in a field in Puerto Rico (photo credit: American Museum of 

Natural History).
151

By 1600 sugar had declined and less resource intensive crops such as ginger and tobacco 

began to gain popularity. Tobacco was native to the Americas and initially grown mainly 

for domestic use and later for illegal trade. Tobacco became the dominant product in 

the mid-1600s, (Carrión 1983). Coffee grown in Puerto Rico was insignificant until 1736, 

and even then it was grown mostly for personal and domestic use. This changed in the 

late 1700s when Spain started opening Puerto Rico to foreign markets. With the Haitian 

Revolution in 1791, Haiti, the largest exporter of sugar and coffee, was removed from 

markets, increasing prices and encouraging development of both products in Puerto 

Rico. In the mid-1800s, French immigrants from the Mediterranean island of Corsica 

settled around Yauco and began exporting the premium coffee for which Puerto Rico is 

known today (Fig. A-3). 

Figure A-3. Cigars have been produced in Puerto Rico for centuries (photo credit: Breezy Baldwin). 

There were many changes to Puerto Rican society during the Spanish colonial period, 

including the adoption of Spanish as the native tongue and importation of African slaves 

to support first gold mining and then labor-intensive sugar cane agriculture. By 1800, 

Puerto Rico’s population was approximately 150,000, about five times greater than in 

1700, and most of the people were employed in coffee, sugar or tobacco agriculture 

(Miller and Lugo 2009). 

After nearly 400 years of Spanish rule, many Puerto Ricans desired autonomy. In 1812, 

Puerto Rico was temporarily elevated by Spain to the status of ‘province’, which gave it 

representation for the first time in the Spanish parliament. But this was quickly revoked 

and replaced with the ‘Royal Decree of Graces’ (1815), which offered free land to 
152

European settlers. To improve exports of agricultural products, Spain also ruled that all 

landless and nonprofessional Puerto Rican males must secure employment on coffee 

farms. Despite this infusion of human capital, coffee farming was very susceptible to 

hurricanes and other strong storms that battered crops. 

Near the turn of the century (1897) Puerto Rico was granted constitutional autonomy 

and representation in the Spanish parliament. By spring of 1898, under the leadership of 

Luis Muñoz Rivera, elections for a Puerto Rican legislature were held. But before the 

new legislature could be seated, events took a dramatic turn. 

U.S. Invasion of Guánica Bay (1898) 

In February of 1898, just prior to the Puerto Rico elections, the U.S.S. Maine exploded in 

Havana Harbor where it had been sent to aid a Cuban revolt against Spain. Members of 

the U.S. Congress believed the Maine had been sabotaged by Spain. Despite any 

verification, this led to a decision in April to liberate Cuba, the Philippines and Puerto 

Rico from Spanish domain through an act of war. On July 25th, over 16,000 U.S. soldiers 

landed at Guánica Bay (Fig. A-4) and began a march to San Juan (Miller and Lugo 2009). 

The Spanish-American War was resolved quickly in Puerto Rico and elsewhere, and by 

August Spain ceded Puerto Rico to the U.S. Many Puerto Ricans were outraged that 

Spain could ‘cede’ Puerto Rico when the island nation had only one year earlier been 

granted autonomy. The Paris Peace Treaty between Spain and the United States was 

signed in December; it abolished the Puerto Rican parliament and established U.S. 

military rule for the island. 

Figure A-4. A large coral boulder marked with the carved words, “3rd Battalion, 1st U.S.V. Engineers, 

September 16, 1898”, commemorates the invasion (photo credit: Deborah Santavy, EPA ORD). 
153

To many U.S. citizens it seemed that the inhabitants of economically underdeveloped 

Puerto Rico would be overjoyed at the prospect of association with its new political 

ruler; the U.S. was an economic giant with a political structure that supported highly 

successful trade and development. This was viewed as a great opportunity for Puerto 

Ricans to improve their lot. The perception went beyond purely economic opportunity 

and was linked to social and cultural progress for Puerto Ricans. As an U.S. observer 

wrote shortly after the conquest (Wilson 1899): “Abundant and well distributed as are 

the various crops, the island produces to but a fraction of its capacity. Thus far there has 

been no incentive to grow such products as would have value for export, and no means 

have been available and no forces at work to incite the ambition of the people, and thus 

give them some inducement to gain a better living. They know nothing of the higher arts 

of civilization, and if they had more wealth than they now possess they would not know 

how to use it. With the higher aims which will come from association with the more 

active, liberal, and highly civilized people of the United States, increased energy may be 

exerted in the near future in wresting from nature more bountiful and useful crops than 

are now cultivated.” 

Puerto Ricans, on the other hand, were ambivalent about the war’s outcome. They had 

existed under Spanish rule for 400 years and, despite the poverty, lived a simple but 

reasonably self-sufficient existence. There was no abiding love for the Spanish who lived 

in Puerto Rico; they had dominated Puerto Rican native populations and set up feudal 

systems to reinforce Spanish wealth and political standing. But there was also a shared 

language and a generally accepted way of life. The U.S. presence offered the potential 

for democracy, economic progress, and possibly a future free of poverty. But Puerto 

Ricans were still unsure about their autonomy and the likely changes to their existing 

cultural and political structure with this new and powerful ruler. 

The Foraker Act (1900)

Under U.S. influence, Puerto Rico quickly underwent many changes. In 1900 the 

Foraker Act (formally known as the Organic Act of 1900, signed by President McKinley) 

was imposed, replacing the military regime with a civil form of governance. It held that: 

• The U.S. President appoints a Governor and an 11-member Executive Council

• A U.S. District Court is established and the U.S. selects justices

• Puerto Rican citizenship is established (similar to, but not U.S. citizenship)

• All federal U.S. laws go into effect

• Puerto Rican laws are subject to veto by the U.S. Congress

• Trade treaties with other countries are nullified
154

• Trade with the U.S. is tariff-free and Puerto Rico pays no taxes

• The Puerto Rican peso is retired at 60¢ per U.S. dollar

Retiring the peso at such a poor exchange rate resulted in a 40% increase in cost of 

living in Puerto Rico and opened the door for U.S. investors to make vast, inexpensive 

land purchases for sugar cane production. This required skirting a provision of the 

Foraker Act that limited land ownership to 500 acres. Initially, the new investment was 

positive for the economy, but Puerto Ricans were engaged almost exclusively as manual 

laborers and were largely excluded from profits and ownership. 

Jones-Shafroth Act (1917)

In 1917, the U.S. Congress passed the Jones Act (Jones-Shafroth Act, signed by 

President Wilson), which granted U.S. citizenship for all Puerto Ricans born in the island 

and provided unrestricted entry to the U.S. mainland. It also reformed the government, 

providing a 2-house legislature based on the U.S. model and a Bill of Rights. The 

Governor was still selected by the U.S. President but could now veto legislative actions. 

As a consequence of the Jones Act and the Selective Service Act passed two months 

later, 18,000-20,000 young Puerto Rican males were conscripted into the U.S. military 

to serve in World War I. 

The heavy U.S. investment in sugar cane began to pay off by the 1920’s when sugar 

became the main export crop. For Puerto Ricans, however, sugar cane provided a static 

monoculture economy that employed roughly 3⁄4 of the islands population at extremely 

low wages (about 63¢ a day). Moreover, the effort came at the expense of other 

economic sectors that were not developed nor incentivized. Because of low wages, 

other means of employment were needed for families to survive, but additional 

employment was unavailable. The German blockade during World War I created a 

demand for cloth and linen, so many Puerto Ricans took up sewing (needlework). 

By 1933 over 40,000 families, mostly the women, were employed in low-wage garment 

production (Fig. A-5). This sustained many Puerto Rican families, although at poverty 

levels, for several years (Silvestrini and Sánchez 1988). As an illustrative economic 

contrast, the Federal Labor Standards Act was passed in the U.S. in 1938, setting 

minimum wage at $0.25 an hour. These wages were unsustainable for needlework 

in Puerto Rico—needlework paid only 3-4¢ per hour—so Puerto Rico requested and 

received a temporary exemption from this federal law. Per capita income for Puerto 

Ricans at this time was about $100 a year. 
155

Figure A-5. Women working in a garment factory in San Juan, Puerto Rico in 1942

(photo credit: Jack Delano, Library of Congress).

The New Deal (1933)

President Roosevelt and his New Deal administration created the Puerto Rico 

Emergency Relief Administration (1933) to establish rural resettlement communities 

and demonstration farms hoping to make coffee and fruit farming more profitable. 

At about the same time, the Jones-Costigan Act (1934) was enacted to limit the amount 

of tariff-free sugar imported from Puerto Rico—this was an attempt to balance sugar 

imports from foreign (mostly Cuba) and domestic producers like Puerto Rico. But like 

the Foraker Act, large sugar companies were able to ignore the Act and by 1938, 50 U.S. 

companies owned over 250,000 acres of Puerto Rican sugar farms and over 90% of the 

sugar produced was sold in the U.S. market.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture eventually ceased sugar subsidies (lower taxes, 

lower tariffs) to Puerto Rico and the industry began to wane. Because much of the land 

that fell out of production was still in U.S. ownership, Puerto Rico was forced to import 

most of its food from U.S. markets. Prices were held artificially high by U.S. tariffs, so 

the island became more and more indebted and dependent. The land monopoly was 

not broken until 1941, when the Land Reform Act limited (once again) ownership to 

500 acres. By this time, however, there were few Puerto Ricans who could afford to 

buy land.
156

Appendix B. Guidance for Selecting the 

Decision Context and Developing the Decision 

Landscape

Selecting the Decision Context 

The decision context is the problem, issue, or reason for making a decision. The decision 

context can be narrow (decrease nutrient loadings from a wastewater treatment plant) 

or broad (achieve a sustainable watershed), but the context must be relevant to the 

decision-making potential. For example, the narrow case above (nutrient loadings) must 

have some potential for nutrient management within the available options; and the 

broader case (sustainable watershed) must have some potential for influencing socioeconomic policy. 

Those facing the decision and those with factual knowledge about the decision typically 

set the decision context. For example, a government agency is deciding whether some 

proposed activity should be approved. The agency, the proponent (often a private 

resource-development company) and community or environmental groups outline the 

decision context. The decision context may be adapted and refined throughout the 

ensuing process, but a well-thought initial attempt will save later controversy and 

challenge.

It is important to ensure that the decision context is sufficiently broad that all 

stakeholders can agree on the context (Brown 1984). Disagreements tend to occur 

when the initial statement of the decision context explicitly or implicitly excludes 

objectives or alternatives that some stakeholders consider important (Gregory and 

Keeney 1994).

Developing the Decision Landscape

The Decision Landscape documents the relevant legal, institutional, and social factors 

affecting a decision. The decision landscape is drawn from the decision context. It 

includes some knowledge of issues surrounding the context and should include:

a) Scale of the decision—how big an area, how long a time, how many communities

will it affect?

b) Fact (science) knowledge—what is known about relationships between pieces of the

decision puzzle, i.e., effects of stressors and potential benefits of reducing them?

c) Current condition—what is the status of the issue and why is a decision needed now

instead of later?
157

d) Unintended consequences—what else, other than its intended purpose,

will the decision affect?

e) Decision-makers—who would be making the decision or components of the

decision? Who would be funding the actions if decisions were made?

Who authorizes the different steps of a potential action?

f) Stakeholders—who will be affected, both positively and negatively?

g) Legal status—who owns or is responsible for property that might be altered by

decisions? What laws are applicable and who is responsible for enforcing them?

h) History—what have past decisions been and how did they lead to the existing

situation? Are there planning or visioning documents in place relevant to the issue?

The decision landscape can be characterized in a variety of ways. A graphic 

representation or flow chart of the issue to be resolved and the likely effects of different 

decisions could be very useful to organizers as well as workshop participants. One 

organizing concept that is commonly used is the DPSIR (Driving Force, Pressure, State, 

Impact, Response) framework, which promotes a comprehensive ‘systems’ approach. 

Another possibility is an issue or ‘white paper’ that briefly characterizes the decision 

landscape. The issue paper could include a DPSIR diagram. Any materials that will help 

workshop participants understand the most relevant aspects of the decision context will 

be useful. 

Systems Thinking and the DPSIR Framework

The DPSIR Framework can help us inform decisions by organizing the decision context 

from a systems viewpoint, that is, considering the effects of different decision options 

beyond the immediate purpose. In its simplest form DPSIR relates: 

• Driving Forces: human needs (sometimes thought of as fulfilled by

economic sectors)

• Pressures: human activities to fulfill needs that stress the environment

• States: changes in the condition of the environment

• Impacts: effects of a change in state on ecosystem services

• Responses: reactions to losses of ecosystem services

A DPSIR tutorial http://www.epa.gov/ged/tutorial/index.htm provides a step-by-step 

process for generating a DPSIR tool. (See Fig. B-1).
158

Figure B-1. The DPSIR (Driving Forces, Pressures, State, Impacts, Responses) framework (source: Bradley 

et al. 2014c). 

The basic steps to building a DPSIR concept map are to: 

• Define the system, problem, or management concern

• List key concepts or keywords related to the concern

• Determine concepts or keywords that are linked uphill (causing the problem)

or downhill (result from the problem) to the central topic.

• Continue building uphill/downhill until all five sections of DPSIR are filled with

relevant, linked concepts

The flexibility of the DPSIR framework allows the initial concept to be anywhere within 

DPSIR, depending on the specific economic, ecological, or management concerns of the 

decision maker. Although starting with a narrow set of concerns, framing the problem 

within DPSIR encourages the decision-maker to adopt a systems approach, and think 

about the uphill and downhill challenges to the problem within the larger system.

The process of creating a conceptual model allows decision-makers, stakeholders, or 

scientists to characterize major stressors, interactions, and tradeoffs related to an issue, 

or to brainstorm alternative decision options. The DPSIR Framework provides a scaffold 

to help guide discussion, and ensure key concepts (e.g. economic driving forces, human 

well-being, and decision options) are not overlooked. Questions can be used to guide 
159

discussion, stepping through each DPSIR category to elicit information toward building a 

conceptual model for the given issue under consideration. 

Discussion Questions: 

• Driving Forces: What are the key Economic Sectors (e.g. transportation,

construction, tourism, fisheries) in the community, watershed, or region that may

be creating pressures on the environment?

• Pressures: What human activities (e.g. overfishing, automobile emissions,

wastewater discharges, landuse changes) may be creating pressure on the

environment?

• State: How do human activities affect the Environmental State, including the

condition of the abiotic environment (e.g. contaminants, sediment, water

temperature) or living biota (e.g. forests, wetlands, birds, invasive species)?

• Impact: What do humans gain from the environment in the form of Ecosystem

Services (e.g. fisheries production, shoreline protection, recreational

opportunities, drinkable water)?

• Trade-off Driving Forces: What are the costs of loss or benefits of ecosystem

services to the economy or society? What Economic sectors may be most strongly

impacted by changes in ecosystem services?

• Response: What actions or Responses can be taken to affect driving forces,

pressures, state, or impact?

An example DPSIR framework linking watershed and coastal activities to coastal 

ecosystems is shown below (Fig. B-2) (source: Yee et al. 2014a). 

Archival Research 

Archival research is a type of primary research that involves seeking out and extracting 

evidence from original archival records. Archival research is an approach that can 

provide much of the information needed for the Decision Landscape. 

Planning

Before starting the research, the researcher(s) should determine the decision context. 

This includes: 

• The geographic area(s) of concern

• Key historic decisions

• Research questions or issues to be addressed with respect to each historic decision

• Previous research known to have been done on such issues

• The amount and kind of information expected to be needed to address the

decision context
160

• The types of sources to be used

• The types of methods to be used

• The types of personnel likely to be needed

• Where possible, expectations about what will be learned, or hypothetical answers

to major research questions.

Figure B-2. Example DPSIR framework linking watershed and coastal ecosystems (source: Yee et al. 

2014a). 

Primary Sources 

Primary, or original, sources include actual material that has been preserved from the 

period of interest: written or published documents and graphic material, as well as the 

artifacts themselves. Examples of archival records include:

• Government files and records

• Graphic material (plat maps and other historical maps, old photographs, bird's-eye

views, and historical prints)

• Back issues of local newspapers and periodicals

• Family papers and records, including keepsakes, letters, and personal diaries,

ledgers, canceled checks, and receipts

• Accounts of travelers and early ethnographic accounts

• Industry and business records

• Census reports, deeds and wills, tax rolls
161

Secondary Sources 

Secondary sources are those written by individuals who have studied and interpreted 

the available original sources. They generally provide a broad overview of the 

community's history but represent a later interpretation rather than a contemporary 

record of events or reflection of the spirit of the times. Secondary sources include:

• Local, regional, or State histories: monographs, pamphlets, or other material

prepared by local or State historical societies or other groups concerned with

particular aspects of State or local history (genealogical societies, e.g., although

researchers should be aware that the concerns of genealogists may not be directly

related to the issue of establishing the significance of resources).

• Anthropological and sociological works that provide theoretical models of

prehistoric and historic social systems, economic systems, and settlement systems,

on a regional, national, or worldwide context, that may be relevant to the

historical contexts of the community.

• Dissertations, theses, and other research papers on the history and prehistory of

the area, available in college and university departments of history, anthropology,

and archeology.

• Reports of oral history projects carried out by local universities, colleges,

secondary schools, and community organizations.

• General works on the geology, geomorphology, ecology, environment, and landuse history of the region, which may help researchers understand natural

constraints on, and results of, trends in the use of land and other resources in and

around the community.

Where to find primary and secondary information 

• Libraries

• Archives or public records at the local county courthouse or town hall

• Universities and colleges (libraries, faculty members, collections,

special research units)

• Museums (artifacts, records)

• State and local historical societies

• Local historic preservation or landmark commissions

• State, regional, and local archeological societies

• State and National Parks (archives of historical information)

• The National Archives
162

• The Library of Congress

• The National Cartographic Information Center (U.S. Geological Survey,

Department of the Interior, Reston, VA 22091)

• Federal agencies, state and territorial agencies

• Planning and development offices of local government or regional

intergovernmental organizations

• Non institutional sources (local industries and businesses, newspapers,

Neighborhood organizations, residents)

Oral history 

Much of a community or neighborhood's history may not be on record anywhere, but 

may be richly represented in the memories of its people, and its cultural and aesthetic 

values may be best represented in their thoughts, expressions, and ways of life. For this 

reason, it is often important to include an oral historical or ethnographic component in 

the survey.

Oral historical and ethnographic research must be planned and carried out with the full 

knowledge and cooperation of community and neighborhood leaders and with 

sensitivity to their cultural backgrounds, values, and modes of expression.

Typically, oral historical or ethnographic researchers meet at regular intervals with 

members of the community, individually or in groups, to discuss the history and other 

cultural aspects of those parts of the survey area currently being studied or soon to be 

studied in the field. It is also often useful to drive or walk through the survey area with 

knowledgeable residents of the community to obtain their comments on specific 

properties and areas. 

Unless informants object, sessions should usually be tape-recorded so that written 

descriptions can be transcribed and correlated with other survey information. In order 

to ensure accuracy of the transcripts, and to respect the confidentiality of informants, 

those interviewed should be given the opportunity to edit tapes or transcripts. To 

ensure maximum accuracy, verification of informants' accounts should be sought 

through interviews with multiple individuals and members of different groups, and 

through comparison with documentary and field survey data.
163

Appendix C. 2010 Coral Reef and Coastal 

Ecosystems Decision-Support Workshop 

Participants

Name Organization Phone Number Email Address

Richard 

Appeldoorn 

University of Puerto Rico, 

Caribbean Coral Reef 

Institute

787-899-2048 

ext. 251

Richard.appeldoorn@upr.edu

Lia Brune National Oceanic & 

Atmospheric Administration

850-261-8212 lia.brune@noaa.gov

Chris Caldow National Oceanic & 

Atmospheric Administration

301-713-3028 chris.caldow@noaa.gov

Miguel Canals University of Puerto Rico, 

Department of Engineering 

Science and Materials

787-832-4040 

ext. 3065

mcanals@uprm.edu

Miguel Canals Sr. Puerto Rico Department of 

Natural and Environmental 

Resources

787-821-5706 menqi@hotmail.com

Madeleine 

Cancel

Caribbean Maritime 

Educational Center, Inc.

787-821-4164 camaredpr@live.com

Lisamarie 

Carrubba

National Oceanic & 

Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Caribbean Field 

Office

787-851-3700 Lisamarie.Carrubba@noaa.gov

Jose Castro U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Natural 

Resources Conservation 

Service 

809-766-5206 

ext. 226

Jose.Castro@pr.usda.gov

John Czapiga Citizen czapiga@verizon.net

Damaris 

Delgado-López

Puerto Rico Department of 

Natural and Environmental 

Resources

787-999-2200 

ext. 2615

ddelgado@drna.gobierno.pr

Raimundo 

Espinoza

Puerto Rico Department of 

Natural and Environmental 

Resources

202-486-4359 respinoza@drna.gobierno.pr

Annette 

Feliberty-Ruiz

Puerto Rico Environmental 

Quality Board

787-767-8181 

ext. 3453

annettefeliberty@jca.gobierno.pr

Angel Figueroa U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Natural 

Resources Conservation 

Service

787-766-5206 angel.figueroa@wdc.usda.gov

Magaly Figueroa U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, 

International Institute of 

Tropical Forestry

787-766-5335 

ext. 118

mafigueroa@fs.fed.us

Jorge (Reni) 

Garcia-Sais

University of Puerto Rico

Department of Marine 

Sciences

787-899-2048 

ext. 247

renigar@caribe.net
164

Name Organization Phone Number Email Address

Miguel A. Garcia Puerto Rico Department of 

Natural and Environmental 

Resources

787-999-2200 

ext. 2607

magarcia@drna.gobierno.pr

Evelyn Huertas EPA Region 2 787-977-5852 Huertas.evelyn@epa.gov

Aaron Hutchins The Nature Conservancy 340-718-5575 ahutchins@tnc.org

Nilda M. 

Jiménez-Marrero

Puerto Rico Department of 

Natural and Environmental 

Resources

787-999-2200 

ext. 2710

njimenez@drna.gobierno.pr

Craig Lilyestrom Puerto Rico Department of 

Natural and Environmental 

Resources

787-999-2200 

ext. 2615

craig.lilyestrom@drna.gobierno.pr

Luis MeyerComas Farmer 787-246-2870 frescuragmeyerpr@yahoo.com

Francisco Pagan University of Puerto Rico, 

Caribbean Coral Reef 

Institute

787-899-2048 

ext. 265

Franciscoe.pagan@upr.edu

Manuel Valdès

Pizzini

University of Puerto Rico 787-751-8879 mvpizzini@uprm.edu

Lillian Ramirez University of Puerto Rico 787-832-8045 lillian.ramirez@upr.edu 

Carlos E. Ramos 

Scharrón

The University of Texas at 

Austin, Department of 

Geography and the 

Environment

787-587-0416 cramos@irf.org

Aida Rosario Puerto Rico Department of 

Natural and Environmental 

Resources

787-833-2025 arosario@drna.gobierno.pr

Luis Soler-López U.S. Geologic Survey, 

Caribbean Water Science 

Center

787-749-4346 

ext. 278

lssoler@usgs.gov

Paul Sturm Center for Watershed 

Protection

410-461-8323 pes@cwp.org

Skip Van Bloem U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service,

Guánica Dry Forest NEON 

Site 

787-832-4040 

ext. 2218 

svanbloem@uprm.edu

Lisa Vandiver National Oceanic & 

Atmospheric 

Administration, Restoration 

Center

301-713-0174 

ext. 182

lisa.vandiver@noaa.gov

Roberto Viquiera Center for Watershed 

Protection Guánica 

Coordinator

787-457-8803 rviqueira@hotmail.com

Ernesto Weil University of Puerto Rico

Department of Marine 

Sciences

787 899-2048 

ext. 241, 272

eweil@caribe.net

Dave Whitall National Oceanic & 

Atmospheric Administration

301-713-3028 

ext. 138 

Dave.Whitall@noaa.gov
165

Appendix D. 2010 Coral Reef and Coastal 

Ecosystems Decision-Support Workshop Agenda

Goal: To deliver quality information concerning the human-ecosystem relationship so 

that decision-makers can serve human interests while sustaining ecosystem services.

DAY 1 - Framing Knowledge about Coral Reef and Coastal 

Ecosystems Issues Using a Systems Framework (DPSIR) 

8:00 Registration

8:30 Purpose of the Workshop - to facilitate development of a decision support 

framework with stakeholder/decision-maker input to help address problems 

related to ecologically-damaging human activities (e.g., agriculture on steep slopes, 

unbridled development, excess sediment and nutrient loads, stormwater run-off 

due to impervious surfaces, wetland consumption, etc.). Ecological damage 

includes damage to coral reefs and other ecosystems that provide services to 

humans. 

Purpose: This session will introduce the overall purpose of the workshop.

Desired Outcomes: A “roadmap” of what lies ahead for the next two days. 

8:45 Introductions (incorporating themes from the objectives in introductions) 

Purpose: Get to know who is attending/who they represent/what their main 

interests are.

Desired Outcomes: Relaxed, friendly atmosphere.

9:15 Baseline Information. Presentations will provide everyone with information 

regarding the state of the coral reefs/coastal ecosystems; threats to these systems 

(including an overview of the Guánica Watershed Management Plan); and USDA 

plans for the watershed. 

Presentation #1: Status of Southwest Puerto Rico’s Coral Reef and Coastal 

Ecosystems 

Presenter: Dr. Jorge (Reni) Garcia-Sais, University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez

9:45 Presentation #2: Threats to Southwest Puerto Rico’s Coral Reef and Coastal 

Ecosystems from the Agricultural/Urbanizing Watershed and the Guánica

Watershed Management Plan 

Presenter: Mr. Paul Sturm, Center for Watershed Protection

10:15 BREAK
166

10:45 Presentation #3: USDA’s Detailed Plans for the Guánica Watershed

Presenter: Mr. José Castro, USDA/NRCS

11:15 Introduce Organizational Framework for Human-Reef Interactions

Presenter: Dr. William Fisher, U.S. EPA

Purpose: Introduce the concept of ecosystem services and the DPSIR (Driving 

Forces, Pressures, State, Impact and Response) organizational framework as a tool 

for linking ecological and socioeconomic factors.

Desired Outcomes: Participants will have seen the DPSIR framework and can think 

about it during lunch. 

11:30 LUNCH

1:00 Example DPSIR and Charge to Break-Out Groups

Purpose: Walk through an example DPSIR, demonstrating how it might be used to 

display knowledge about coral reef and coastal ecosystems and linkages between 

human-ecosystem interactions. For the demonstration and breakout groups, we 

will focus on coral reef ecosystems.

Desired Outcomes: Understanding of the DPSIR framework and how it might be 

used to display knowledge about coral reef and coastal ecosystems and linkages 

between human-reef interactions.

1:30 Break-Out Groups

Decisions that influence human-reef interactions. We will break into 3 focus 

groups to look at topics that are addressed in the Guánica Bay Watershed 

Management Plan - agricultural practices, lagoon restoration, and low impact 

development. 

These groups will be charged with:

1) Brainstorming what fits in all sections of the DPSIR framework related to their

topic, including linkages. Generate a DPSIR graphic for 2-3 issues of importance

and identify the linkages. (Target 60 min.)

2) Identify decision points in the framework. (Target 10 min)

3) Briefly characterize the decision that might be made at these decision points.

(Target 10 min)

4) Prioritize the decisions/decision points based on their importance for overall

health and maintenance of the coral reef and coastal ecosystems.

(Target 10 min.)
167

Purpose: To characterize, using the DPSIR framework, information related to a 

management response (agricultural practices, lagoon restoration, low impact 

development) and the effects on persistence of reefs and the delivery of ecosystem 

services. Identify the current state-of-knowledge on human-environmental 

relationships affecting coral reef and coastal ecosystems management in Southwest 

Puerto Rico. Summarize this knowledge in a framework that links the various 

components of the human-environmental system in Southwest Puerto Rico.

Desired Outcomes: For EPA – to fill in the DPSIR with the participants 

understanding of the aspect of the system on which they are focused, and to 

understand where they see decision points. For the participants – to learn how the 

DPSIR framework can be a convenient way to organize information.

3:00 BREAK

3:30 Decisions that Influence Human-Reef Interactions: Reports from Break-out Groups 

Purpose: Relate findings of breakout groups to all participants for corroboration 

and to explore missing linkages, concepts, decision alternatives and decision 

characteristics.

Desired Outcomes: Shared understanding of the linkages, decision alternatives, and 

decision characteristics. 

5:00 Wrap-up with Overview of Day 2. Each participant will be given their original VOI 

exercise back in light print so that they can see their original responses. They will 

revise that exercise to show if they have had any changes based on Day 1 of the 

workshop. 

Purpose: Orient the participants to how what they did today will dovetail into Day 

2. Identify values, preferences, and objectives for coastal ecosystems outcomes.

Desired Outcomes: Positive perception from group that Day 1 was beneficial, 

anticipation of Day 2, and revised exercises completed by morning to assist in the 

Day 2 sessions.

CCRI Reception hosted by the Department of Marine Science, University of Puerto Rico, 

Mayaguez
168

DAY 2 - A Decision Analysis Framework for Coastal Ecosystems 

(with an Emphasis on Coral Reefs)

8:30 Social Network Analysis (SNA) 

Presenter: Dr. Tom Stockton, Neptune and Company Inc.

Purpose: Share results of SNA pre-workshop exercise and generate discussion of 

the identified actors and critical missing actors.

Desired Outcomes: Shared understanding of the actors and their relationships and 

how an SNA could be useful in decision-making.

8:50 Decision Making in Practice – Small Group Discussion 

Purpose: Gain an understanding of how decisions are currently made by the 

workshop participants. 

Desired Outcomes: 1) For the participants – a cursory understanding of their own 

decision-making process and how it differs from others’. 2) For EPA – an 

understanding of the range of decision-making styles in practice. This information 

will inform tool development. 

9:45 DASEES – Decision Analysis for a Sustainable Environment, Economy, and Society

Presenter: Dr. Tom Stockton, Neptune and Company, Inc.

Purpose: Preview the remainder of this day’s activities, and to provide an 

understanding of a decision-making process that allows one to include ecosystem 

services, societal needs, and economic viability all at the same time.

Desired Outcomes: Understanding of a decision process that allows incorporation 

of ecosystem services, societal needs, and economic viability, being aware of the 

interrelationship between the DPSIR and decision-making. Set the stage for the 

rest of Day 2.

10:15 BREAK

10:45 Develop Options – Small Group Discussion

Purpose: Identify alternative management strategies to address threats to coastal 

ecosystems. 

Desired Outcomes: A list of management or policy options for each breakout

group.

11:15 Certainty/Uncertainty and Value of Information (VOI) for Conflict Resolution

Presenter: Dr. Amanda Rehr, Carnegie Mellon University/U.S. EPA Special 

Government Employee

Purpose: Explain how uncertainty plays a role in decision-making. Identify the 

value of further information (e.g., monitoring, surveys, and scientific studies) for 
169

clarifying environmental conditions and the likely effects of management options 

on these conditions.

Desired Outcomes: Understanding of how what we don’t know can be as 

important as what we do know.

12:00 LUNCH 

1:30 Applying the Objectives as Criteria for Decision Making – Small Group Discussion

Purpose: Use all of the previously gathered info (the DPSIR framework, the 

management or policy options, the objectives, and DASEES) to evaluate options 

and recommend appropriate actions.

Desired Outcomes: A set of recommended actions (recognizing that this is based 

on just a day and a half of discussion and these aren’t meant to be the best 

possible recommendations because on the limited input).

2:30 BREAK

2:50 Recommended Actions: Reports from Small Group Discussions

Purpose: Learn from each group how they applied the objectives as criteria and 

what recommended action(s) they reached.

Desired Outcomes: Proposed actions. (Note that these are not to run out and 

implement the next day, but to demonstrate the process of reaching them. They 

may be very valid, but further assessment and thought would definitely be needed 

before moving forward with them.)

4:00 Adaptive Management

Presenter: Ms. Kelly Black, Neptune and Company, Inc.

Purpose: To discuss what triggers or timeframe should cause decisions to be 

reconsidered.

Desired Outcomes: Revision of recommended action based on uncertainties. 

4:30 Recap of Decision Process, Overview of Day 3 activities, and Many Thanks for 

Participating! Complete Evaluations.

Presentation: Dr. William Fisher, U.S. EPA

Purpose: To briefly review the DPSIR as a framework for organizing information, 

DASEES as a method for making decisions (including the importance of stakeholder 

interactions in defining objectives), and to thank the participants for applying both 

to Southwest Puerto Rico coastal ecosystems issues over the past two days.

Desired Outcomes: A feeling of accomplishment and understanding of how what 

we’ve discussed might be useful as the participants return to their ongoing 

projects.

PM Phosphorescent Bay Trip (prior registration required) 
170

DAY 3 - Synthesizing the Input into DASEES

The third day of the Workshop will involve summarizing the information and stakeholder 

inputs compiled during the first two days of the meeting, in the context of decision 

analysis and decision support tools and assessments. Core Decision Support and Coral 

Reef researchers will participate in this effort. Other Workshop attendees may also 

participate at their option, but this will not be expected. Decision makers and other 

stakeholders who do participate will provide useful input for interpretations (e.g., “No, I 

don’t think that is what she meant to imply when she said XYZ”), and will benefit from 

seeing how their input is being analyzed using decision support tools and methods.

The objective of the working session will be to formulate and code:

1. An updated version of the Social Network Analysis diagram for participants in 

Southwest Puerto Rico coastal ecosystems management.

2. A decision analysis framework (DASEES) for coastal ecosystems management in 

Guánica. Information from the workshop will be incorporated into DASEES and next steps 

will be discussed.

AGENDA: 

9:00 Facilitated Discussion about the Workshop

9:15 Social Network Analysis – Gaps

9:30 Complete Objectives and Identify How to Measure Success

10:15 BREAK

10:30 DPSIR, Bayesian Belief Net, and Measures Consistency 

11:45 Close Workshop. Thanks to Participants! Complete evaluations.

12:00 Adjourn
171

Appendix E. 2012 Decision-Making Workshop 

Agenda

Goal: To evaluate how decisions are made on the use and management of natural 

resources in the Guánica Bay watershed. 

DAY 1 - Understand the Decision-making Process and the Use of 

Information for Decision-making 

9:00 Introduction

Process: Welcome participants; introduce the overall purpose of the workshop; 

and get to know who is attending/who they represent/what their main 

interests are.

Desired Outcomes: Relaxed, friendly atmosphere.

9:30 Decision-making structure

Process: In a facilitated discussion, identify the agency that regulates in some form 

or manner resources and activities in the Guánica Bay Watershed. 

Desired Outcomes: A shared understanding of resource management in the 

Guánica Bay Watershed.

10:30 Education and outreach

Process: In a facilitated discussion, identify the education and outreach efforts 

provided by the various agencies (federal, territorial, municipal, local). 

Desired Outcomes: A shared understanding of available education and outreach

available in the Guánica Bay Watershed.

11:30 Break 

12:00 Priorities for Guánica Bay

 Process: In a facilitated discussion, prioritize various topics. Reach consensus on 

the most important priorities, and identify who is responsible.

 Desired Outcomes: A prioritized list of top priority actions for the Guánica Bay 

Watershed.

1:00 Lunch
172

1:30 Research and Development

Process: In a facilitated discussion, identify which types of research are being 

conducted in the Guánica Bay Watershed, who is conducting the research, and 

who is paying for it. 

Desired Outcomes: Shared understanding of ongoing research in Guánica Bay 

Watershed.

2:30 Environmental decisions not made (missed opportunities)

Process: In a facilitated discussion, identify historic decisions on environmental 

concerns/problems that were not made. Determine reason(s) and who should 

have made those decisions. 

Desired Outcomes: Shared understanding of missed opportunities, responsibilities 

and rationale.

3:30 Transparency and Access in Guánica Bay

Process: In a facilitated discussion, identify the level of transparency (information

and outreach about the process of decision-making) on environmental 

problems/urban infrastructure issues in Guánica Bay. Discuss the barriers and 

problems with achieving transparency in decision-making in the Guánica Bay 

Watershed. 

Desired Outcomes: Shared understanding of transparency in decision-making.

4:30 Questions and wrap-up

Process: Each participant completes the exercise individually, answering the 

following questions:

• What is the interaction between you and Decision-Makers?

• What would you say works best in terms of the process of decision-making?

• What are some of the problems in the process of decision-making you would

address if you were in charge?

• Any comments on today’s workshop?

Desired Outcomes: Participants reflect on the day’s exercises and provide 

feedback to EPA.

5:00 End of Day 1
173

Day 2 – Understanding Preferences and Trade-offs in Decisionmaking 

9:00 Introduction

Process: Facilitator reviews the agenda and addresses any issues or topics that 

workshop participants feel should be revisited.

Desired Outcomes: Participants are engaged and ready for day 2.

9:30 Agencies making Investments

Process: In a facilitated discussion, determine which sector of governance 

(private/government or NGO) invests (commits financial or man-power efforts) on 

the various activities and natural resources in Guánica Bay. 

Desired Outcomes: A shared understanding of investments currently being made 

in the Guánica Bay Watershed.

10:30 Recommendations for Investments

Process: In a facilitated discussion, identify and prioritize topics (activities, and 

natural resource conservation issues) for investment (financial or man-power). 

Desired Outcomes: A prioritized list of investment opportunities.

11:30 Break

12:00 Causes of degradation in Guánica Bay Watershed 

Process: In a facilitated discussion, identify the various causes of environmental 

degradation and who is responsible for the degradation. 

Desired Outcomes: A shared understanding of who is causing environmental 

degradation in the Guánica Bay Watershed.

1:00 Lunch

1:30 Non-market valuation of Guánica Bay

Process: In a facilitated discussion, discuss the various environmental non-market

goods and services available in the watershed. Describe the benefits and 

importance of each. Reach consensus on a relative ranking of the non-market 

goods and services. 

Desired Outcomes: A shared understanding and relative ranking of the 

environmental non-market goods and services in the Guánica Bay Watershed.
174

2:30 Cost-Benefits/trade-offs in Guánica Bay

Process: Working with a partner, use the worksheet to analyze a list of 

management actions, and how the costs would compare to the benefits. 

Desired Outcomes: A shared understanding of costs vs. benefits for various 

management actions.

3:30 Economic Development

Process: In a facilitated discussion, discuss the economic sectors in the Guánica

Bay Watershed. Discuss why a given sector should be developed, how, and by 

whom. , Assign a priority for economic development (low, medium, high), as well 

as a rationale.

Desired Outcomes: A prioritized list of potential areas for economic development 

with documented rationale.

4:30 Questions and Wrap-up 

Process: Each participant completes the exercise individually, answering the 

following questions:

• What is the interaction between you and natural resources?

• What would be something you would change in the way decision-makers

 manage the use of natural resources?

• What are some of the problems you would address, and how? 

• Comments on today’s workshop?

Desired Outcomes: Participants reflect on the day’s exercises and provide 

feedback to EPA. 

5:00 End of Workshop

Process: Facilitator thanks participants and reviews how the workshop results 

will be used.
175

Appendix F. 2012 Decision-Making 

Workshop Participants 

Name Organization Phone Number Email Address

Miguel Canals DNER 787-821-5706 menqui@hotmail.com

Ramon Catalan UPR 787-856-1355 ramon.catala1@upr.edu

Luis Conty PR Land Authority 939-630-9549 lconty@gmail.com

Oscar Diaz US F&WS 787-504-5935 oscar_diaz@fws.gov

Lisette Fas Cafiesencia 787-309-6017 lisettefas@gmail.com

Manuel Flores Soto Agriculture 787-821-6822 grabber@coqui.net

Ramon Garcia Fisherman 939-266-1785

Evelyn Huertas EPA R-2 781-977-5852 huertas.evelyn@epa.gov

Darien Lopez DNER 939-865-0401 dlopezocasio@drna.gobierno.pr

Francisco Medina 787-617-2584 fjmedina95@yahoo.es

Jose A Menendez Sierra Club 787-319-6629 jmenen6666@aol.com

Luis Meyer Comas Farmer 787-246-2870 frescuragmeyerpr@yahoo.com

Benjamin Negron PREPA 787-856-1316 b-negron@prepa.gov

Joel Rodriguez Municipality of Guánica 787-297-9390 jrodriguez@guanicapr.net

Miguel Sanchez 787-546-8709 miguelsanchez1950@yahoo.com

Edgar Torres Molini Fisherman 787-689-4257 yeyoyd@gmail.com

Willie Vargas Garcia Fisherman 939-228-9204

Roberto Viqueira Protectores de Cuenca 787-457-8803 rviqueira@hotmail.com
176

Appendix G. 2013 Public Values Forum

Participants 

Name Organization Phone Number Email Address

Genoveva Acosta PathStone Corporation 787-829-6024 rouraacosta@yahoo.com

Richard 

Appeldoorn

University of Puerto Rico 787-899-2048 

ext. 251

richard.appeldoorn@upr.edu

Nashaly Berrios Puerto Rico Aqueduct and 

Sewer Authority 

nashaly.berrios@acueductospr.com

Miguel Canals Sr. Puerto Rico Department of 

Natural and Environmental 

Resources

787-821-5706 menqui@hotmail.com

Héctor Caraballo Puerto Rico Department of 

Natural and Environmental 

Resources, Ranger Corps

Lisamarie 

Carrubba 

NOAA Fisheries Service 787-851-3700 Lisamarie.Carrubba@noaa.gov

Joaquin Chong University of Puerto Rico, 

Agricultural Experiment 

Station

787 767 9705 

ext. 2208

jachong@gmail.com

John Czapiga Citizen 732-521-0580 czapiga@verizon.net

Lisette FasQuiñones Cafiesencia 787-309-6017 lisettefas@gmail.com

Rob Ferguson National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric 

Administration 

787-851-3700 rob.ferguson@noaa.gov

Efra Figueroa Puerto Rico Sea Grant 

Program

787-380-9424 efraphoto@gmail.com

Magaly Figueroa U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service 

787-766-5335 

ext. 118

mafigueroa@fs.fed.us

Javier Hernández 

Vélez 

hervel1803@yahoo.com

Xiomara Labiosa 

Colón 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 

787-851-7297 

ext. 222

xiomara_labiosa@fws.gov

Craig Lilyestrom Puerto Rico Department of 

Natural and Environmental 

Resources

787-999-2200 

ext. 2615

craig.lilyestrom@drna.gobierno.pr

Iván LlerandiRomán U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 

787-851-7297 

ext. 224

ivan_llerandi-roman@fws.gov

Glorimar Lorenzo 

Glez 

Puerto Rico Environmental 

Quality Board

glorimarlorenzo@jca.pr.gov

Michael McGee Caribe Fisheries Inc. 787-643-5083 mvmcgee@caribefish.com

Louis Meyer 

Comas 

Protectores de Cuencas 787-246-2870 frescuragmeyerpr@yahoo.com

Benjamín Negrón Puerto Rico Electric Power 

Authority (PREPA)

b-negron@aeepr.com

José Orengo 

Gómez 

Excursiones Ecoboriken, 

Inc.

787-951-0683 excursionesecoboriken@gmail.com
177

Name Organization Phone Number Email Address

Rabin Ortiz Copamarina Beach Resort 

& Spa 

787-821-0505 rortiz@copamarina.com

Zamira Pagán Conservation Trust of 

Puerto Rico 

787-722-5834 paganz@fideicomiso.org

Kenia Parga 

Rivera 

Puerto Rico Electric Power 

Authority (PREPA)

kapr82@hotmail.com

kenia-parga@aeepr.com

Luis Perez Alegría University of Puerto Rico, 

College of Agricultural 

Sciences 

787-832-4040 

ext. 3337

luisr.perez1@upr.edu

Ariel Ramirez United Front for the 

Defense of the Lajas Valley

ariel_yayo@yahoo.com

Graciela 

Ramírez-Toro 

InterAmerican University 

of Puerto Rico 

gramirez@inter.edu

Lillian RamírezDurand University of Puerto Rico, 

Sea Grant 

787-832-8045 lillian.ramirez@upr.edu

Gabriel Román Student, University of 

Puerto Rico

gabriel.roman1@upr.edu

Miguel Sanchez 

Aponte 

Communities of Rancheras 

and Frailes, Yauco, PR

miguelsanchez1950@yahoo.com

David 

SotomayorRamírez 

University of Puerto Rico, 

College of Agricultural 

Sciences 

787-265-3851 david.sotomayor@upr.edu

Ada TorresRamírez BusinessWise adatorres@getbusinesswise.com

Manuel ValdésPizziniUniversity of Puerto Rico 787-751-8879 mvpizzini@uprm.edu

Rosa Vázquez 

Rivera

Puerto Rico Environmental 

Quality Board 

rosavazquez@jca.pr.gov

Javier VélezArocho Ecostahlia L.L.C. 939-261-8580 jvarocho@ecostahlia.com

Luis VillanuevaCubero Sierra Club 787-431-6639 lvilla2962@gmail.com

Roberto Viqueira Protectores de Cuencas 787-457-8803 rviqueira@hotmail.com
178

Appendix H. Guidance and Sample Agendas for 

Public Values Forum and Objectives Workshops 

A workshop or series of meetings is one way to engage the community but must be well 

organized, with clear goals. The primary purpose of the workshop(s) is to identify and 

understand the values (objectives) of the stakeholders. An iterative process to elicit and 

organize objectives, generate decision alternatives, and summarize effects of decision 

alternatives on multiple objectives will serve to identify, refine, characterize and reinforce 

knowledge of stakeholder values. 

Workshop Invitees

Potential workshop participants should be selected to represent those who are most likely 

to be affected by the decision context. It is useful to develop a balanced list of stakeholder 

categories (interested and affected parties) to vet with your key stakeholders. Having a 

balanced list of categories and balanced representation avoids preferential selections, 

intended or otherwise, and is critical to eliciting a variety of viewpoints and objectives. 

Invitees should be trusted to speak for their peers. Balanced participation by multiple 

stakeholder groups will lend defensibility and relevance to the outcome. 

Although the specific categories of stakeholders for a given engagement process will be 

largely dependent on its goals and objectives, a typical generic profile of stakeholders may 

be categorized into the following types: 

• Government agencies 

• Industry or sector representatives 

• Research (e.g. scientific, technical specialists) or academic institutions 

• Special interest groups 

• Resource users (e.g., hunters, fishers, bird watchers)

• Members of the general public or community at large who are impacted by the 

decision or have an interest in the outcome of the decision 

There are several things that can be done to engage participants and stakeholders before 

the workshop. At the least, participants should be informed of the decision context and 

provided some of the more relevant background material assembled to describe the 

decision landscape. They could also be told why they were selected, i.e., which particular 

occupation or interest group they are representing, and asked whether they are the best 

representative for this group. They can also be informed about what is expected of them 

and asked to begin thinking about, even writing down, some of their objectives regarding 

the issue. 
179

Sample Workshop(s) Agenda

Workshop #1: Public Values Forum

Goal: to produce one common set of objectives that everyone agrees will be used 

to evaluate alternatives.

9:00 Welcome and Introductions

9:15 The Decision Context (four invited presentations) 

Purpose: To provide participants a common factual base relevant to the decision 

context.

Process: The facilitator will introduce each speaker. Each talk will be 30 minutes. 

An unbiased presentation of existing management plans or of a systems 

framework (e.g., DPSIR) could be used to tie together different factors. A 30- 

minute facilitated question and answer session will follow the talks.

12:00 Lunch

1:00 Stakeholder Values

Purpose: To provide participants an opportunity to individually generate a list 

of values.

Process: Once the stakeholders have an understanding of the decision context, 

participants are given time to independently write down what is important to 

them relevant to the decision context (e.g., their values). Stakeholders can be 

asked to generate objectives from their personal perspective, from the perspective 

of the group they represent (institutional) and from a societal perspective. 

This can be framed by open-ended questions or prompts, such as (Keeney 1992):

• What are we trying to achieve?

• What concerns are we trying to address?

• What are the specific issues or concerns you’d like to see addressed?

• What do you think should happen?

• What criteria can we use to compare alternatives?

• What would make a great (or terrible) alternative? Why?
180

Objectives consist of a statement of the thing that matters and (sometimes) 

a verb indicating the preferred direction of change.

1:30 Brainstorming Objectives (Breakout Groups)

Purpose: Each breakout group will develop a simple, concise list of objectives 

that captures all of the ideas from the members of the group 

Process: Participants are assigned to breakout groups (6-8 members). The breakout 

groups can be organized based upon the stakeholders’ expertise, around a 

particular aspect of the decision context, or for comprehensive representation. 

Each breakout group will have a facilitator/note-taker. 

The stakeholders share their objectives with others in the group, and work on developing 

a comprehensive list that includes everyone’s objectives. There are no ‘wrong’ objectives 

so all suggestions should be included. The group can merge objectives if everyone agrees 

the result accounts for all the ideas. The facilitator can assist by ensuring all perspectives 

are being heard, spurring new ideas, and helping to define the objectives being discussed. 

Next the group will turn their brainstormed list into a set of simple, concise objectives. 

Objectives should state the thing that matters and the direction you’d like it to move 

(Mollaghasemi and Pet-Edwards 1997; Dunning et al. 2000; McDaniels 2000; Keeney 

2007; Gregory et al. 2012). Use the terms ‘maximize’ and ‘minimize' to clarify the 

preferred direction of change (e.g., more or less is better). 

For example, objectives for addressing threats to coral reef ecosystems from exposure to 

pollution may be to:

• Minimize point source pollution discharge in coastal waters

• Minimize nonpoint source pollution discharged to coastal waters

Key Ideas:

• Objectives only need to state the thing that matters, and what

direction you’d like it to move.

• Make sure all objectives have a single, clear direction that can be

understood by everyone.

4:30 Master list of objectives

Purpose: Develop a master list of objectives.

Process: When the groups are brought back together, each group reports their list 

of objectives and a summary of the group’s discussion. When all groups have 

reported, the workshop facilitator creates a master list. Redundant objectives from 

different groups can be merged if the result accounts for all the ideas. 

5:00 End of first workshop
181

Between Workshops 1 and 2

Facilitators examine the list of objectives generated during the first workshop to

formulate questions for better understanding, edit objectives into a common format, 

propose further merging of objectives as appropriate, and form preliminary groupings of 

objectives by topic. The edited list will be presented to the participants at the next 

meeting. 

Workshop #2: Developing an Objectives Hierarchy 

9:00 Welcome and Introductions

9:30 Review 1st Meeting

Purpose: Provide a review of the first meeting and present one common set of 

objectives that everyone agrees will be used to evaluate alternatives

Process: The facilitator will present a review of the first meeting, including an 

overview of the decision context, important aspects of the decision landscape, and 

development of the master list of objectives. Participants should be given an 

opportunity to review the master list, especially if facilitators have proposed 

changes. Participants should also be given some time to consider additional 

objectives. 

10:30 Review and Organize Objectives

Purpose: Participants will separate objectives into fundamental objectives 

(which reflect the ends we are trying to achieve) and means objectives 

(which are important ways of achieving them). 

Key concepts:

• Fundamental objectives are the outcomes or ends you really care about, no matter

how they are achieved.

• Means objectives refer to particular ways of achieving the fundamental objectives.

Process: The facilitator will present a preliminary breakdown of the master list into 

major topics. This will vary with the decision context but the number of topics 

should be aimed at the number of subgroups that can be formed. Breakout groups 

can be selected as those most interested or with expertise in the topic or by equal 

representation of stakeholder categories, as noted above. 
182

Prior to breaking into small groups, the facilitator will give a simple example of the 

process, such as the one provided by Compass Resource Management (2015) on their 

Structured Decision Making website: 

Participant: “We should increase the reed coverage of the lake from 10% to 20%”

Facilitator: “Why is that important?”

Participant: “To provide habitat for dragonflies and other insects and to provide cover”

Facilitator: “Why is that important?”

Participant: “Because dragonflies are an important food source for fish, and the cover 

reduces predation”

Facilitator: “Why is that important?”

Participant: “Because we want to protect native fish from extirpation”

Facilitator: “Why is it that important?”

Participant: “Because — it just is!” (Fundamental objective reached)

Presentation of one or two examples of this type of organization should suffice. 

Breakout groups should be given time to organize the objectives that fall within their topic 

area. Organizing the objectives may lead to introduction of new objectives or refinement 

of existing objectives. Good objectives are:

• Fundamental • Sensitive

• Complete • Understandable

• Concise • (Preferentially independent) (Gregory et al. 2012)

To clarify and structure objectives, the facilitator will ask three questions:

• Why is this important?

• What do you mean by that?

• How do I achieve this?

The breakout groups should be asked to document by text or graphics the organizational 

scheme. A good tool to document the organization is an influence diagram (or meansends diagram). The influence diagram visually shows the relationship between 

fundamental objectives (ends) and management actions (means) (Fig. H-1); illustrates 

where and how stakeholder values are addressed; and forms a starting point for

identifying evaluation criteria (Gregory et al. 2012). 
183

Figure H-1. An influence diagram is a tool to separate means and ends. In this example, the ends are 

shown to the far left, and the means are to the right.

The breakout groups should be asked to focus attention on decision alternatives for 

objectives, particularly on lower-level objectives that are more likely to have clear 

implementable options that can be measured. Achievement of higher-level objectives is 

likely to occur from the aggregation of completed objectives at lower-levels.

The group should also identify process and strategic objectives. For example:

• Fundamental – Maximize air quality

• Means – Minimize industrial emissions

• Process – Maximize public involvement in the process

• Strategic – Be consistent with departmental vision

12:00 Lunch

1:00 Objectives Hierarchy

Purpose: Breakout groups each develop an objectives hierarchy to group similar 

objectives.

Process: The facilitators will lead the breakout groups in developing an objectives 

hierarchy (Fig. H-2). 
184

Figure H-2. Example objectives hierarchy for one of the proposed fundamental objectives from the 

Guánica Bay Watershed (Carriger et al. 2013).

Any objective may have different interpretations depending on the decision context. 

Through this hierarchy you have defined exactly what you mean by each fundamental 

objective for this context. With the objectives hierarchy, you have defined all the 

important elements that can be affected by this decision. 

After completing the objectives hierarchy, the participants will next discuss performance 

measures for each ends objective. Some performance measures may have already been 

brought up during earlier brainstorming sessions (e.g., influence diagram exercises, 

separating means and ends) and these should be revisited. The group will also brainstorm 

additional performance measures. Regardless of how a performance measure is 

identified, there are a few criteria that it should meet to qualify as a good measure. Good 

Performance measures are (Keeney and Gregory 2005):

1. Unambiguous: the performance measures should not have uncertainty in 

their portrayal of potential outcomes from the decision

2. Comprehensive: the performance measures should reflect the concerns specified 

in the objectives

3. Direct: the range of the performance measures should cover the range of 

potential outcomes from the decisions 

4. Operational: the performance measures should have data or modeling 

capabilities for assessing the impacts of the decisions and be usable in tradeoff analysis

5. Understandable: the performance measures should be understandable to 

all parties
185

4:30 Reconvene large group - breakout groups present their results 

Purpose: A merged list of objectives organized by topic and hierarchy, with an 

accompanying list of decision alternatives and performance measures. The list of 

decision alternatives will likely include those originally defined in the decision 

context as well as those generated through discussion of objectives.

Process: The large group will reconvene and each breakout group will present their 

objectives hierarchies. This will be followed by a facilitated discussion to merge the 

breakout group objective hierarchies into a single hierarchy. 

5:00 End of second workshop

Between Workshops 2 and 3

Between workshops, the facilitators should examine the relationships generated by the 

subgroups for objectives, edit and adapt as necessary and compile them in a common 

format. The list of decision alternatives should also be coarsely organized and merged as 

appropriate. All edits and organizational changes must be vetted with the participants at 

the next meeting.

Workshop #3: Developing and Analyzing Alternatives

9:00 Welcome and Introductions

9:30 Review 1st and 2nd workshops

Purpose: Bring all participants to a shared understanding of progress to date. 

Process: The facilitator presents a review of the first and second workshops, 

including a brief overview of the decision context and decision landscape, 

development and organization of objectives and decision alternatives. Participants 

should be given an opportunity to review all materials, especially if facilitators 

have proposed changes. 

10:30 Facilitated discussion - Participants are given an opportunity to review all 

materials, especially if facilitators have proposed changes. 

11:00 Introduction to estimating consequences and evaluating tradeoffs

Purpose: To introduce various approaches for estimating consequences and 

evaluating tradeoffs.

Process: The facilitator will provide a brief introduction and then the participants 

will complete several exercises that each demonstrates a different approach.

Eliciting objectives and decision alternatives is informative, but simple tools can be used 

to generate meaningful stakeholder comparisons of different decision options. A 

consequence table and democratic voting are two of these tools. A decision-maker looking 

at results from either tool can see what the stakeholders perceive as acceptable and less 

acceptable. Acceptable decision alternatives may be low-hanging fruit that could be easily 

implemented. Less-acceptable decision alternatives may still be worth implementing but 

stakeholders perceived too many negative tradeoffs (that could be mitigated), too much 
186

uncertainty (that might be alleviated with focused research and education), too high a 

cost (which could require a funding scheme), or confusion over what would be done 

(which could require improved outreach). Decision-makers can benefit not only from 

knowledge of those decisions that were supported but also from analysis of those that 

were not.

Several workshop exercises are possible for evaluating decisions, a consequence table, 

democratic vote, direct weighting and swing-weighting. All rely on previous discussions 

and organization of objectives and decision alternatives. The consequence table should 

precede the other exercises. 

11:15 Exercise 1: The Consequence Table

Purpose: Complete a consequence table 

Process: Through a facilitated discussion, a consequence table is filled out 

collaboratively by all participants and is intended to summarize what they have 

presented for objectives and decision alternatives. Facilitators can make this 

process more efficient by filling in the top row and first column with objectives and 

decision alternatives, respectively. This is best done with using a screen so that 

participants can see and consider each matrix addition. Facilitators walk 

participants through each cell of the matrix to elicit opinions on direction and 

strength of a decision on each objective. 

The consequence table is immediately useful to a decision-maker by summarizing how a 

decision alternative will affect multiple objectives. It can identify whether decisions 

benefit or detract from different objectives, and can be used to identify ‘low-hanging fruit’ 

(low cost, low complexity, good scientific understanding, and no detraction from 

objectives). The consequence table begins to prioritize actions and may also provide a 

sequence, based on timeframes, for implementing decisions.

A consequence table is constructed with alternate decisions listed down the first column 

and different objectives across the top row. The matrix is filled with coarse rankings that 

signify strongly positive, weakly positive, neutral, weakly negative or strongly negative. 

Up, down and horizontal arrows can be used to fill in the boxes. The outcome is a 

summary of how each decision is expected to affect each objective. 

Additional columns added to the consequence table can further characterize the 

decisions; this could be a column for complexity, short-, medium- or long term action, 

funding necessity, or more information needed. Similarly, additional rows for objectives 

characteristics could be added, such as short-term or long-term objective, perceived 

beneficiaries, or perceived ‘weight’ in the decision context.
187

Table H-1. Hypothetical consequence table. 

Objectives

A B C Complex?

Need 

Science?

Need

Funds?

Timeframe

Decision 1 ↑↑ ↓ ↔ Low No None Short

Decision 2 ↓ ↔ ↑↑ High Some Some Med

Decision 3 ↔ ↑ ↑ Low Yes None Short

Decision 4 ↑ ↑↑ ↔ High No Many Long

Goal LongtermShorttermShortterm

Importance High High Med

Best Practices for Developing Consequence tables (Gregory et al. 2012; 

Compass Resource Management 2015) 

● Use the best available information 

o Predictive models

o Expert judgment

o Local and traditional knowledge

● Identify uncertainties

o Epistemic - incomplete knowledge (e.g., measurement error, 

systemic error, model uncertainty, subjective judgments, 

natural variation & randomness)

o Linguistic - ineffective communication e.g., vagueness, ambiguity, 

context dependence, under-specificity, indeterminacy)

• Report consequences in consistent terms across alternatives

• Focus on relative performance

• Provide context for interpreting consequences

• Expose key trade-offs 

• Refine consequences iteratively 

12:30 Lunch
188

1:30 Exercise 2: The democratic vote

Purpose: To get a sense of how different potential actions are perceived by the 

stakeholders. The endpoint of a vote is not to select the best decision but whether 

decisions are viewed as highly supportable, somewhat supportable, or not 

supportable.

Process: The participants will break into small groups. During a facilitated 

discussion, each breakout group will identify 10 top action items. Participants will 

then vote for the top three from that group of 10 actions. 

A major concern with the democratic vote is freedom to choose through anonymity. 

There are often very controversial sides to an issue and some participants might feel 

pressure to vote one way or another by strong advocates. One way to provide anonymity 

is through commercially purchased voting equipment. The equipment consists of handheld remote controls for each participant and a receiver with software package that can 

compile and graph the results almost immediately. Otherwise, using secret ballots or 

some other anonymous procedure is needed. 

The results from voting are very useful to decision makers. Voting implies that individual 

stakeholders, who represent themselves, their institutions and the “greater good” of 

society, and who have been exposed to wide-ranging discussions on objectives, scientific 

evidence, complexity, and unintended consequences, have formed opinions about 

different decision alternatives. It is assumed, whether or not a consequence table was 

generated, that they have taken into account the effects of a decision on all the 

objectives. 

2:30 Exercise 3: Direct ranking (source: Compass Resource Management 2014)

Purpose: Each participant will have a list of ordinal rankings that can be compared 

with the subsequent swing-weighting exercise.

Process: Each participant individually completes this exercise. 

1. Using the information in the consequence table, rank the options from #1 (best) 

to # (worst). More than one option can have the same score. 

2. Assign 100 points to any option ranked #1. 

3. Score the remaining options based on how well they perform against the 

option(s) rated #1. For example, if your feel #2 option is nearly as good as the 

#1 option, assign it close to 100 points. If it is half as good, assign it 50 points. 

Continue down the list in the ranked order, entering points either the same as 

or lower than the one before. If an alternative has no value to you, you may 

assign zero points. All entries must be a whole number between 0 and 100. 

Each individual now has both ranks for each option and scores, which indicate the relative 

value of each option. 
189

Individuals’ scores will be normalized so that they can be compared against other scores. 

The idea is to show how your initial assessment (Direct Ranking) can change after Swingweighting (next exercise). It is an evaluation of your consistency and a deeper probe of 

your preferences. You record results from both scoring methods (described here) and 

compare. 

3:30 Exercise 4: Swing-weighting

Purpose: Each participant uses swing-weighting to develop a ranked order in list of 

performance measures. 

Process: Participants each individually complete the swing-weighting task, and 

may end up with different rankings and weightings. Swing weighting is a useful

way to examine trade-offs and is described in more detail in Clemen and Reilly 

(2014) but summarized below.

Worst and best-case scenarios are first identified using expertise such as knowledge and 

modeling. Next participants are given Table H-2 and told to imagine a hypothetical 

scenario where all of the performance measures are at their worst level. They can then 

make a decision to “swing” one of the performance measures from the worst to the best 

level. Their first choice performance measure to swing from worst to best is then 

recorded and assigned a rank of 1. They can then swing another performance measure 

from its worst to best level, which is then recorded and assigned a rank of 2. This process 

continues until all performance measures are swung from their worst to best level and are 

ranked in the order in which they are chosen from 1 to the number of performance 

measures. 
190

Table H-2. Example of how the predicted change in performance measures from the 

worst-case scenario to best-case scenario (derived from Tables 4-5, 4-6 and 4-7) might 

be considered in a swing-weighting exercise. Individuals would assign ranks and weights 

based on their own values and preferences, here for example, for someone who highly 

values protecting economic opportunities.

Objectives

Performance 

Measure

Best-case 

scenario

Worst-case 

scenario Rank Weight (%)

Protect and create 

economic 

opportunities

$/hectare of crop 

production

$ of jobs created

Cost of water 

infrastructure

1 50

Restore and 

conserve the land 

environment

Index of species 

biodiversity

% reduction in soil 

erosion

4 10

Restore and 

conserve the 

aquatic 

environment

Water turbidity

Diversity of aquatic life

# of recreation 

activities

Hectares forested

3 20

Promote social & 

cultural 

opportunities

Environmental attitude

% people connected to 

wastewater treatment 

plants

2 20

Next, the participants are given the opportunity to refine the weights on the performance 

measures beyond a simple ranking. The rank ordered list is taken and the first measure 

that was swung, with rank=1, is assigned a value of 100. Each of the other performance 

measures is then given a number between 0 and 100 to indicate its preference level in 

relation to the top performance measure. For example, participants might be asked how 

less satisfying was it to improve cost from one million dollars to zero dollars vs. improving 

bird species richness from 2 species to 20 species. If they are almost equally important, 

the second value might receive a score of 80-100. If the second measure is absolutely not 

as important, it might receive a score of 0-20. Tie values are allowed and a zero effectively 

indicates no preference for that performance measure. 

Next the weights are normalized to add to one. In Table K-2, The weight for $/hectare of 

crop production is 100/(100+10+20+70)=0.5. 

4:30 Summary of ranking exercises

Purpose: To show how the participants’ initial assessment (Direct Ranking) can 

change after swing-weighting.

Process: In a facilitated session, the facilitator will capture the individual 

participants’ results in a spreadsheet. The point of the swing-weighting and direct 

ranking exercises is NOT to quantitatively obtain an “optimal” or a “majority wins” 

From 

consequence 

table
191

solution. Instead, it is to help guide discussions of how stakeholders feel about 

tradeoffs using real ranges of possible outcomes (Carriger and Benson 2012). It can 

help identify possible areas of consensus or identify the reasoning behind potential 

conflicts, which may need to be explored further. When faced with realistic 

tradeoffs, it may also expose potential uncertainties where the specified objectives 

or performance measures are not adequately reflecting stakeholder concerns, or 

the proposed decision options may need to be combined or refined, as part of an 

overall iterative process. 

In a facilitated discussion, participants will share the results of their rankings, and 

compare the results of the different approaches. The facilitator will lead the group 

towards a consensus on priorities or an understanding about the sources of 

disagreements.

5:00 Discussion of additional information needs and next steps

Purpose: Wrap up any loose ends and develop a list of next steps.

Process: Facilitated discussion.

5:30 End of third workshop
192

Appendix I. Glossary

Acropora cervicornis (aka Staghorn coral). This species of coral has cylindrical branches 

ranging from a few centimeters to over two meters in length and height. It occurs in back 

reef and fore reef environments from 0 to 30 m depth. Staghorn coral is found throughout 

the Florida Keys, the Bahamas, and the Caribbean islands. The northern limit is on the east 

coast of Florida, near Boca Raton. Since 1980, populations have collapsed throughout 

their range from disease outbreaks, with losses compounded locally by hurricanes, 

increased predation, bleaching, and other factors. This species is also particularly 

susceptible to damage from sedimentation and sensitive to temperature and salinity 

variation. Populations have declined by up to 98% throughout the range, and localized 

extirpations have occurred. On May 4, 2006, Staghorn coral was recognized as a 

threatened species and placed on the Endangered Species List (71 CFR § 89). 

Acropora palmata (aka Elkhorn coral). This species of coral is structurally complex with 

many large branches. These branches create habitats for many other reef species such as 

lobsters, parrotfish, snappers, and other reef fish. Elkhorn coral was once one of the most 

abundant species of coral in the Caribbean and the Florida Keys. Since 1980 it has been 

estimated that 90-95% of elkhorn coral has been lost. Threats to elkhorn coral include 

disease, coral bleaching, predation, climate change, storm damage, and human activity. 

All of these factors have created a synergistic affect that greatly diminishes the survival 

and reproductive success of elkhorn coral. Natural recovery of coral is a slow process and 

may never occur with this species because there are so many inhibitors to its survival. On 

May 4, 2006, Elkhorn coral was recognized as a threatened species and placed on the 

Endangered Species List (71 Federal Register 89 2006). 

actors. In Envision, actors are entities that make decisions about the management of 

particular portions of the landscape for which they have management authority, based on 

balancing a set of objectives reflecting their particular values, mandates and the policy 

sets in force on the parcels they manage.

agriculture. Also called farming or husbandry, is the cultivation of animals, plants, fungi, 

and other life forms for food, fiber, biofuel, drugs, and other products used to sustain and 

enhance human life (Wikipedia 2015a).

algae. Any of various primitive, chiefly aquatic, one- or multi-celled, nonflowering plants 

that lack true stems, roots, and leaves, but usually contain chlorophyll. Algae convert 

carbon dioxide and inorganic nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, into organic 

matter through photosynthesis and form the basis of the marine food chain. Common 

algae include dinoflagellates, diatoms, seaweeds, and kelp. 
193

Alternative-Focused Thinking (AFT). A form of decision-making where decision makers 

choose from specified alternatives (Keeney 1992).

alternatives. Alternative solutions open to a decision-maker.

Analytic-Deliberative (A-D). A term coined in the risk field to describe characterization 

processes able to reconcile “technocratic” and “citizen-centric” approaches (Stern and 

Fineberg 1996). The analytic builds understanding by systematically applying specific

theories, methods and data that have been developed by technical experts. Deliberation 

is an iterative communicative process where stakeholders confer, ponder, exchange 

views, consider evidence, reflect on matters of mutual interest, and negotiate to move

towards a consensus decision.

anemone. A cnidarian of the class Anthozoa that possesses a flexible cylindrical body and 

a central mouth surrounded by tentacles (NOAA 2015).

apex predator. An organism at the top of the food chain, relying on smaller organisms for 

food (NOAA 2015).

archival research. A type of primary research that involves seeking out and extracting 

evidence from original archival records (Wikipedia 2013).

artisanal fishing. Small-scale, low technology, low capital, fishing practices undertaken by 

individual fishing households (as opposed to commercial companies) (Garcia 2009).

attenuation. The gradual loss in intensity of any kind of flux through a medium (NOAA 

2015).

attribute. Any measurable component of a biological system (Karr and Chu 1999).

autotrophic. Relating to organisms that have a type of nutrition in which organic 

compounds used in metabolism are obtained by synthesis from inorganic compounds 

(NOAA 2015).

Bayesian Belief Network (BBN) or Bayesian Network. A graphical probability network in 

which the nodes represent random variables and the connections describe dependencies 

between them. 

bedrock. Solid rock layers of the Earth’s crust which underlie soil and other 

unconsolidated material such as alluvial sediments.

benthic. Living in or on the bottom of a body of water. 

bequest value. Willingness to pay to preserve environmental quality for future 

generations. 
194

Best Management Practices (BMPs). Management practices (such as nutrient 

management) or structural practices (such as terraces) designed to reduce the quantities 

of pollutants—such as sediment, nitrogen, phosphorus, and animal wastes—that are 

washed by rain from farms into nearby receiving waters, such as lakes, creeks, streams, 

rivers, estuaries, and ground water. 

biochemicals. Chemicals that result from biological and chemical processes in living 

organisms.

Biological Condition Gradient (BCG). A scientific model that describes biological response 

to increasing levels of anthropogenic stressors. 

biomass. The mass of living tissues in either an individual or cumulatively across 

organisms in a population or ecosystem (MEA 2009). 

bio-prospecting. An umbrella term describing the process of discovery and 

commercialization of new products based on biological resources.

biota. The animal and plant life of a given region. 

biotic. A term applied to the living components of an area. 

brainstorming. A group problem-solving technique in which members spontaneously 

share ideas and solutions.

brooder. In this reproduction mode, only male gametes are released into the water 

column. The male gametes are negatively buoyant and are transported by waves and 

current before sinking to the ocean floor. If encountered, the male gametes are then 

taken in by female coral polyps containing egg cells. Fertilization occurs inside the female 

coral and produces a small planula. Planulae are released later through the mouth of the 

female coral at an advanced stage of development so that it is capable of settling onto 

hard substrate very soon after release. Thus, brooding species generally disperse their 

larvae shorter distances from the mother colony than broadcasters (NOAA 2015). 

carbon sequestration. The capture and long-term storage of atmospheric carbon dioxide 

in forests, soils, lakes, and oceans; the net process of storing carbon in a carbon sink. Sinks 

can include terrestrial (soil, trees), marine, atmospheric, and geological systems 

(NOAA 2015).

clionid sponges. Any member of the sponge family Clionidae (class Demospongiae, 

phylum Porifera), noted for its ability to dissolve and bore into calcium-containing 

substances, such as limestone, coral, and mollusk shells (Encyclopedia Britannica 2015).
195

coliform bacteria. A group of bacteria primarily found in human and animal intestines 

and wastes. These bacteria are widely used as indicator organisms to show the presence 

of such wastes in water and the possible presence of pathogenic (disease-producing) 

bacteria. Escherichia coli (E. coli) is one of the fecal coliform bacteria widely used for 

this purpose. 

Commonwealth. An organized United States insular area, which has established with the 

Federal Government a more highly developed relationship, usually embodied in a written 

mutual agreement. Currently, two United States insular areas are commonwealths, the 

Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico. A United States insular area from April 11, 

1899, the Philippine Islands achieved commonwealth status on March 24, 1934 (Public 

Law 73-127), and remained as such until the United States recognized the Philippine 

Islands’ independence and sovereignty as of July 4, 1946. 

conceptual model. An abstract framework used to organize ideas and information into 

a form that is more easily examined. These models are often helpful when searching 

for commonalties between apparently unrelated phenomena, or when defining the scope 

of inquiry when organizing and interpreting measurements of biological conditions. 

connectivity. A topological property relating to how geographical features are attached 

to one another functionally, spatially, or logically. 

consequence. Something that logically or naturally follows from an action or condition. 

A logical conclusion or inference.

consequence table. A summary matrix illustrating the performance of each alternative 

on each objective.

contaminant. An undesirable substance not normally present, or an usually high 

concentration of a naturally occurring substance in the environment; a substance in 

water that might adversely affect the health and welfare of the biota (NOAA 2015).

coral. Species of the phylum Cnidaria, including-- (A) all species of the orders Antipatharia 

(black corals), Scleractinia (stony corals), Gorgonacea (horny corals), Stolonifera (organ 

pipe corals and others), Alcyanacea (soft corals), and Coenothecalia (blue coral), of the 

class Anthozoa; and (B) all species of the order Hydrocorallina (fire corals and hydrocorals) 

of the class Hydrozoa (16 U.S.C. 6401 et seq. 2000). 

coral reef. A wave-resistant structure resulting from cementation processes and the 

skeletal construction of hermatypic corals, calcareous algae, and other calcium carbonatesecreting organisms (NOAA 2015). 

Coral Reef Scenario Evaluation Tool (CORSET). A generic, biophysical model for coral reef 

systems that couples dynamics from local to regional scales. 
196

crustacean. Any of various predominantly aquatic arthropods of the class Crustacea, 

including lobsters, crabs, shrimps, and barnacles, having segmented bodies, a chitinous 

exoskeleton, and paired, jointed limbs (appendages). 

crustose coralline algae. Crustose coralline algae are red algae of the division 

Rhodophyta. They are very important members of a reef community in which they 

cement and bind the reef together. They are particularly common in high wave energy 

areas but can also be found throughout all reef zones. Crustose corallines resemble pink 

or purple pavement. Morphology can range from smooth and flat, to rough and knobby, 

or even leafy (NOAA 2015).

dam. A structure formed to hold water back, generally built near uncontaminated water 

collection sources in order to provide a drinking water supply or irrigation to the 

surrounding communities.

damselfish. A large family (Pomacentridae) of bony fishes that are abundant and common 

inhabitants of coral reefs. They possess robust, deep, and laterally compressed bodies. 

The majority of damselfishes do not have particularly brilliant markings or coloration. 

Exceptions are the brilliantly colored anemone fishes, the banded Sargeant major, and the 

bright orange garibaldi. Many species of damselfishes are highly territorial (NOAA 2015).

Decision Analysis (DA). The discipline comprising the philosophy, theory, methodology, 

and professional practice necessary to address important decisions in a formal manner. 

Decision analysis includes many procedures, methods, and tools for identifying, clearly 

representing, and formally assessing important aspects of a decision, for prescribing a 

recommended course of action by applying the maximum expected utility action axiom 

to a well-formed representation of the decision, and for translating the formal 

representation of a decision and its corresponding recommendation into insight for 

the decision maker and other stakeholders (Wikipedia 2015a). 

decision context. The environment in which the decision is made, and the environment 

that will prevail when the effects of the decision are brought to bear, including the set of 

values, preferences, constraints, policies and regulations that will affect both the deciders 

and those identified as the ultimate beneficiaries.

decision landscape. A decision-support framework for capturing the physical, legal, and 

institutional environment in which a particular management choice is made; it includes 

identification of management and policy options, outcomes of interest, and stakeholder 

valuation of outcomes, as well as the key participants involved in making the decision 

(decision makers, information collectors, and stakeholders), the information they use to 

inform the decision and its associated uncertainty, and the methods of assessment they 

use to evaluate outcomes. 
197

decision maker. A person(s) entrusted with the responsibility to make a decision. 

Decision makers include federal, territorial and government managers, corporations, 

non-governmental organizations and the general public. 

decision-making. An outcome of mental processes leading to the selection of a course 

of action among several management options.

decision point. A key step in the decision-making process, when an alternative is selected 

from a set of potential alternatives. 

decision-support framework (DSF). An organizing structure to support decision-making. 

decision-support tools. Software, models, data sets, maps, etc. to support decisionmaking.

demographic information. A characteristic used to describe some aspect of a population 

and that can be measured for that population, such as growth rate, age structure, birth 

rate, and gross reproduction rate.

Diadema. A genus of sea urchins of the Family Diadematidae and is one of the most 

abundant, widespread, and ecologically important shallow water genera of tropical 

sea urchins. 

Diadema antillarum. A species of sea urchins in the Family Diadematidae, characterized 

by its exceptionally long black spines. It was the most abundant and important herbivore 

on the coral reefs of the western Atlantic and Caribbean basin. When the population of 

these sea urchins is at a healthy level, they are the main grazers that prevent algae 

overgrowth of the reef. In 1983, throughout the Caribbean faunal zone as far south as 

South America and north to the Bahamas, Diadema antillarum underwent mass mortality, 

with more than 97% of the urchins dying.

Dictyota. A genus of algae with branches that fork near their ends. The tips may be 

rounded or pointed. Generally they form mats of dense to loose packed flat leaves 

that overgrow the substrate. Light to medium brown and/or green to blue-green, 

occasionally with bright blue tints.

digital elevation model (DEM). The representation of continuous elevation values 

over a topographic surface by a regular array of z-values, referenced to a common datum. 

DEMs are typically used to represent terrain relief.

direct extractive use. Natural resource products of commercial value that are either 

traded or have the potential for trade.

direct non-extractive. Natural resource services of commercial value provided biodiversity 

or related to ecosystems or genetic material.
198

DPSIR. A decision-support framework for capturing the physical and human processes 

in a decision process; it includes the identification of the Driving Forces (socioeconomic 

sectors that drive human activities), Pressures (Driving Force-generated emissions and 

land use changes that affect the environment), resulting environmental and ecological 

States (reflect condition of the natural and living phenomena), Impacts on services and 

values (effects of environmental degradation of ecological attributes and ecosystem 

services), and Responses to those impacts (policies and responses).

Driving Forces. In DPSIR, the socioeconomic sectors that drive human activities 

(Waste disposal, agriculture, construction, fisheries, tourism).

ecological. Relating to the interrelationships of organisms and their environment. 

ecological integrity. The condition of an unimpaired ecosystem as measured by combined 

chemical, physical (including physical habitat), and biological attributes (Karr and Dudley 

1981). 

ecological production function (EPF). A description of the type, quantity and interactions 

of natural features required to generate outputs of natural products and services. For a 

simple example, the biophysical characteristics of a coastal wetland (flooding regimes, 

salinity, nutrient concentrations, plant species abundance, prey and predator abundances, 

etc.) can influence the abundance of a population of watchable wading shorebirds (the 

ecological endpoint). The outputs of ecological production functions, when combined with 

complementary goods and services and demand by humans, produce ecosystem goods 

and services (adapted from Wainger and Boyd 2009 and Wainger and Mazzotta 2009).

ecosystem. A dynamic complex of plant, animal, and microorganism communities and 

their nonliving environment interacting as a functional unit (MEA 2009). 

ecosystem functions. Physical, chemical, and biological processes that occur in 

ecosystems. 

ecosystem services. Benefits that human populations receive from ecosystems. 

ecosystem services valuation functions (EVF). Relate characteristics of society, such as 

demand, accessibility, or substitutability, to derive value for ecosystem services 

(Compton et al. 2011).

elicitation. The process of extracting information from something or someone.

Envision. A GIS-based tool for scenario-based community and regional planning 

and environmental assessments.

erosion. Wearing away of rock or soil by the gradual detachment of soil or rock fragments 

by water, wind, ice, and other mechanical, chemical, or biological forces. 
199

existence or intrinsic value. The amount people are willing to pay to preserve the 

existence of biodiversity for its own sake

expert opinion. The opinion of a person who has extensive skill or knowledge in a field. 

extrapolate. To infer or estimate by extending or projecting known information.

fecal bacteria. Microscopic single-celled organisms (primarily fecal coliforms and fecal 

streptococci) found in the wastes of warm-blooded animals. Their presence in water 

is used to assess the sanitary quality of water for body-contact recreation or for 

consumption. Their presence indicates contamination by the wastes of warm-blooded 

animals and the possible presence of pathogenic (disease producing) organisms 

(USGS 2015).

Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA). A federal statute of the United States enacted in 

1938. The FLSA introduced a 40-hour, seven-day workweek, established a national 

minimum wage, guaranteed “time-and-a-half” for overtime in certain jobs, and 

prohibited most employment of minors in "oppressive child labor", a term that is 

defined in the statute.

fleshy algae. Large, soft algae (sometimes called “seaweed”) on a reef, including 

Lobophora (a type of brown algae) and Halimeda (green algae). 

flocs. A mass of particles that form into a clump as a result of a chemical reaction; 

having a fluffy appearance; resembling bits of wool; flaky (NOAA 2015).

Foraker Act. Public Law 56-191, 31 Statute 77, enacted April 12, 1900, officially known as 

the Organic Act of 1900, is a United States federal law that established civilian (albeit 

limited popular) government on the island of Puerto Rico, which had recently become 

a possession of the United States as a result of the Spanish-American War 

(Wikipedia 2015c). 

fundamental objectives. Reflect concerns that are important for their own reasons and 

not because they contribute to something that is more valuable (Keeney 1992). They are 

fundamental because most stakeholders will agree with them, even if varying in degree.

Geographic Information System (GIS). A collection of computer hardware, software, 

and geographic data designed to capture, store, update, manipulate, analyze, and display 

geographically referenced data. 

gorgonians. An anthozoan of the subclass Octocorallia, commonly called sea fans and 

sea whips (NOAA 2015).
200

grouper. Any species of bony fishes in the subfamily Epinephelinae of the sea bass family, 

Serranidae. Groupers have a typical sea bass appearance with robust bodies, large mouths 

and sharp teeth (NOAA 2015).

habitat. A place where the physical and biological elements of ecosystems provide a 

suitable environment including the food, cover, and space resources needed for plant 

and animal livelihood (EPA 2009).

habitat structure. The composition and arrangement of physical matter at a location. 

A complex habitat structure is critical to many species.

herbivores. An animal that feeds on plants (EPA 2010). 

heterotrophic. An organism that cannot manufacture its own food, and therefore 

requires external sources of energy (NOAA 2015).

hydrology. The science of water relating to occurrence, properties, distribution, 

circulation and transport of water. 

hydropower. Power derived from the energy of falling water and running water, which 

may be harnessed for useful purposes. Since ancient times, hydropower has been used 

for irrigation, and the operation of various mechanical devices, such as watermills, 

sawmills, textile mills, etc. Since the early 20th century, the term is used almost 

exclusively in conjunction with the modern development of hydroelectric power, 

which allowed use of distant energy sources. 

hydroseeding. A planting process which utilizes a slurry of seed and mulch, which is 

transported in a tank, either truck- or trailer-mounted and sprayed over prepared ground 

in a uniform layer. 

impacts. In DPSIR, quality and value of ecosystem services. 

indirect use value. Ecological values including services provided by ecosystems, 

which may not have direct commercial value. 

infrastructure. The basic physical systems of a business or nation. Transportation, 

communication, sewage, water and electric systems are all examples of infrastructure. 

These systems tend to be high-cost investments, however, they are vital to a country's 

economic development and prosperity.

instrumental value. The amount people are willing to pay to preserve the existence of 

biodiversity because it provides a means for acquiring something else of value.
201

intractable problems. Problems that are difficult to manage, deal with, or change to an 

acceptable condition. Causes include: irreconcilable moral differences (e.g., conflicts 

about right and wrong, good and evil), high stakes distributional issues (over who gets 

what), and conflicts over power and status.

invertebrates. Animals that lack a spinal column or backbone, including molluscs (e.g., 

clams and oysters), crustaceans (e.g., crabs and shrimp), insects, starfish, jellyfish, 

sponges, and many types of worms that live in the benthos. 

Jones-Costigan Amendment, also known as the Sugar Act of 1934. An amendment to the 

Agricultural Adjustment Act that reclassified sugar crop as basic commodity, subject to the 

provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act enacted the previous year. Sponsored by 

Senator Edward P. Costigan (Progressive, Colorado) and Representative John Marvin Jones 

(Democrat, Texas), the act was a New Deal effort to salvage an ailing sugar industry by 

imposing protective tariffs and quotas along with a direct subsidy to growers of sugar 

cane and sugar beet. 

Jones–Shafroth Act, also known as the Jones Act of Puerto Rico, or Jones Law of Puerto 

Rico. Public Law 64-368, 39 Statute 951, enacted March 2, 1917, was an Act of the United 

States Congress, signed by President Woodrow Wilson. The act granted U.S. Citizenship to 

the people of Puerto Rico. It also created the Senate of Puerto Rico, established a bill of 

rights, and authorized the election of a Resident Commissioner (previously appointed by 

the President) to a four-year term (Wikipedia 2015d).

lagoon. A body of comparatively shallow salt or brackish water separated from the deeper 

sea by a shallow or exposed barrier beach, sandbank of marine origin, coral reef, or similar 

feature.

Lajas Valley Irrigation System (LVIS). A series of 5 dams and an extensive irrigation canal 

and drainage system

land cover. Anything that exists on, and is visible from above the Earth’s surface. 

Examples include vegetation, exposed or barren land, water, snow, and ice. 

land use. The way land is developed and used in terms of the kinds of anthropogenic 

activities that occur (e.g., agriculture, residential areas, and industrial areas). 

landscape. The spatial pattern or structure of a geographic area (including its biological 

composition, its physical environment, and its anthropogenic or social patterns) and is 

designed to identify repeating patterns associated with dominant land uses in an area. 

The relative proportion of forest, agriculture, and urban land cover contained in the area 

also defines a landscape as does the interrelationships between them. 
202

landscape dynamic model. Spatially explicit models aiming at projecting a landscape

(structure, function, composition) over time. They can include spatial interactions, 

community dynamics or/and ecosystem processes. Landscape models are typically used 

to simulate different management or global change scenarios. Two broad classes of 

examples are gap/ landscape models (e.g. LANDIS, ForCLIM) and dynamic vegetation 

models (e.g. IBIS, LPJ).

macroalgae. Non-rooted aquatic plants commonly referred to as seaweed. 

macroinvertebrates. Animals without backbones of a size large enough to be seen by the 

unaided eye. EPA’s coral reef surveys document selected commercially and ecologically 

important macroinvertebrates, including Queen Conch (Strombus gigas), spiny lobster 

(Panilaurus argus), reef crabs larger than 20 cm, sea urchins and long-spined sea urchins 

(Diadema antillarum).

management and policy options. A number of alternatives that are under the control of 

decision makers and from which one or a combination of several of them (to be 

implemented as a strategy) can be chosen.

mangroves. Salt-tolerant woody plants that grow in muddy swamps inundated by tides. 

Mangrove plants form communities that help stabilize banks and coastlines (Conservation 

International 2009).

Marine Protected Area (MPA). Any area of the marine environment that has been 

reserved by federal, state, tribal, territorial, or local laws or regulations to provide lasting 

protection for part or all of the natural and cultural resources therein (EO 13158). 

market value. The price at which an asset would trade in a competitive auction setting; 

this is the true underlying value” according to theoretical standards.

means objectives. Objectives that provide a means to fulfill the fundamental objectives 

(Keeney 1992). 

mechanistic model. A model that assumes that a complex system can be understood by 

examining the workings of its individual parts and the manner in which they are coupled. 

Mechanistic models typically have a tangible, physical aspect, in that system components 

are real, solid and visible.

metric. An observable measure linked to a fundamental (ends) objective used to evaluate 

an alternative’s ability to achieve the objective. Metrics should be understandable, 

measurable, and operational.

model. A physical, mathematical, or logical representation of a system of entities, 

phenomena, or processes; i.e., a simplified abstract view of the complex reality. For 

example, meteorologists use models to predict the weather. 
203

Montastraea. A genus of hard (stony) coral that includes the boulder coral and the great 

star coral (NOAA 2015).

natural products. A chemical compound or substance produced by a living organism– 

found in nature that usually has a pharmacological or biological activity for use in 

pharmaceutical drug discovery and drug design. A natural product can be considered as 

such even if it can be prepared by total synthesis. 

natural resources. The natural wealth of a country, consisting of land, forests, mineral 

deposits, water, etc. 

Netica. A program for working with belief networks and influence diagrams. It has an 

intuitive and smooth user interface for drawing the networks, and the relationships 

between variables may be entered as individual probabilities, in the form of equations, or 

learned from data files (which may be in ordinary tab-delimited form and have "missing 

data").

nonmarket values. Most environmental goods and services, such as clean air and water, 

and healthy fish and wildlife populations, are not traded in markets. Their economic value 

-how much people would be willing to pay for them- is not revealed in market prices. The 

only option for assigning monetary values to them is to rely on non-market valuation 

methods.

nonpoint source (NPS) pollution. Any source of water pollution that does not meet the 

legal definition of “point source” in section 502(14) of the Clean Water Act. NPS pollution 

is widespread because it can occur any time activities disturb the land or water. 

Agriculture, forestry, grazing, septic systems, recreational boating, urban runoff, 

construction, physical changes to stream channels, and habitat degradation are potential 

sources of NPS pollution. NPS pollution includes adverse changes to the vegetation, 

shape, and flow of streams and other aquatic systems. NPS pollution also results from 

land runoff, precipitation, atmospheric deposition, drainage, seepage or hydrologic 

modification that can pick up pollutants, and deposit them into rivers, lakes and coastal 

waters or introduces them into ground water. NPS sources are automobile emissions, 

road dirt and grit, and runoff from parking lots; runoff and leachate from agricultural 

fields, barnyards, feedlots, lawns, home gardens and failing on-site wastewater treatment 

systems; and runoff and leachate from construction, mining and logging operations. Most 

NPS pollutants fall into six major categories: sediment, nutrients, acid and salts, heavy 

metals, toxic chemicals and pathogens. The cumulative impact of nonpoint source 

pollution is significant.
204

non-use value. Value prescribed to ecosystems not related to direct commercial or 

indirect use, including the possibility for having the option to use the resource in the 

future or willingness to pay to preserve the existence of biodiversity.

nutrients. Chemicals that are needed by plants and animals for growth (e.g., nitrogen, 

phosphorus). In water resources, if other physical and chemical conditions are optimal, 

excessive amounts of nutrients can lead to degradation of water quality by promoting 

excessive growth, accumulation, and subsequent decay of plants, especially algae. Some 

nutrients can be toxic to animals at high concentrations. 

objectives. Statements of what is valuable to stakeholders under a certain context 

(Keeney 1992)

octocorals. Water-based organisms formed of colonial polyps with 8-fold symmetry. 

Operation Bootstrap. The name given to the ambitious projects that industrialized Puerto 

Rico in the mid-20th century. The program allowed “exemption from insular taxes for any 

corporation that build a plant in a new industry, expanded approved existing industry or 

constructed a new hotel.” 

option value. The desire for potentially using a resource in the future, rather than using it 

in the present. 

outcomes. The results, impacts or consequences of making a decision.

Palythoa caribaeorum. A white encrusting zooanthid. Colonies form thick, encrusting 

mats on dead corals and other hard substrates. The skeleton is hard, somewhat cork-like 

in consistency. The outer surface is covered with large, round calices surrounded by a low, 

rounded ridge or lip. 

pathogens. An agent of disease. A disease producer. The term pathogen most commonly 

is used to refer to infectious organisms. These include bacteria (such as staphylococcus), 

viruses (such as HIV), and fungi (such as yeast). 

pharmaceuticals. Man-made and natural drugs used to treat diseases, disorders, and 

illnesses. 

policy. A principle or rule to guide decisions and achieve rational outcomes. Policy differs 

from law. While law can compel or prohibit behaviors (e.g. a law requiring the payment of 

taxes on income), policy merely guides actions toward those that are most likely to 

achieve a desired outcome.

polychaetes. A class of annelid worms, generally marine. Each body segment has a pair of 

fleshy protrusions that bear many bristles made of chitin. Polychaetes are sometimes 

referred to as bristle worms. 
205

polygon. A planar (2-D) figure that is bounded by a closed path or circuit, composed of a 

finite sequence of straight-line segments (i.e., by a closed polygonal chain). These 

segments are called its edges or sides, and the points where two edges meet are the 

polygon's vertices or corners. 

population structure. The patterns of demographic variation seen within and among 

populations.

porosity. The degree to which the total volume of soil, gravel, sediment, or rock is 

permeated with pores or cavities through which fluids (including air) can move. 

pressures. In DPSIR, the human activities that stress the environment (Discharge, boating 

activities, climate change, land use/land cover change, coastal erosion).

process objectives. Objectives that are designed to improve the decision process itself 

and do not focus on what should be done, but rather how it should be done 

(Keeney 1992).

qualitative. Descriptive of kind, type, or direction.

quantitative. Descriptive of size, magnitude, or degree. 

quasi-option value. The potential value of a resource for future (direct or indirect use), 

emphasizing the value of avoiding the risk of losing that resource.

recreation. Refreshment of strength or spirits after work; also: a means of refreshment or 

diversion (Merriam Webster 2010). Both tourists and residents of a given geographic 

location enjoy recreational activities. However, the common practice of economists is to 

differentiate between tourism and recreation based upon the source of demand. 

recruitment. The measure of the number of young individuals (e.g., fish and coral larvae, 

algae propagules) entering the adult population, in other words, it is the supply of new 

individuals to a population.

reductionist approach. The analysis of complex things (facts, entities, phenomena, 

or structures) into less complex constituents.

reforestation. The natural or intentional restocking of existing forests and woodlands that 

have been depleted.

reservoir. A man-made body of water (it is replenished by rain and river or stream flow), 

which is formed after a dam is built on a river, and is used for the collection and storage of 

water. In addition to providing municipal water supplies, reservoirs provide recreational 

areas, are used for irrigation, hydroelectric power, and flood control. 
206

responses. The term “response” is used in two contexts in this report: 1) Human actions, 

including policies, strategies, and interventions, to address specific issues, needs, 

opportunities, or problems. In the context of ecosystem management, responses may be 

of legal, technical, institutional, economic, and behavioral nature and may operate at local 

or micro, regional, national, or international level and at various time scales (MEA 2009), 

2) Ecosystem processes occurring due to the effect of some stressor or combination of

stressors.

riparian. Areas adjacent to rivers and streams with a high density, diversity, and 

productivity of plant and animal species relative to nearby uplands. 

root node. In a BBN, the topmost node in a tree. It has no parent nodes. Each node 

represents a variable. 

rugosity. Describes the amount of “wrinkling” or roughness of the physical reef profile. 

It is an index of substrate complexity. Areas of high complexity are likely to provide more 

cover for reef fishes and more places of attachment for algae, corals, and various sessile 

invertebrates (NOAA 2015). 

runoff. The flow of water, usually from precipitation, which is not absorbed into the 

ground. It flows across the land and eventually runs to stream channels, lakes, oceans, 

or depressions or low points in the Earth’s surface. The characteristics that affect the rate 

of runoff include rainfall duration and intensity as well as the ground's slope, soil type, 

and ground cover. Runoff can pick up pollutants from the air and land, carrying them into 

the streams, lakes, etc. 

sanitary sewer system. An underground carriage system specifically for transporting 

sewage from houses and commercial buildings to treatment or disposal. Sanitary sewers 

are operated separately and independently of storm drains, which carry the runoff of rain 

and other water, which wash into city streets. Sewers carrying both sewage and 

stormwater together are called combined sewers (Wikipedia 2015e).

seagrasses. A flowering plant, complete with leaves, a rhizome (an underground, usually 

horizontally-oriented stem), and a root system. They are found in marine or estuarine 

waters. Most seagrass species are located in soft sediments. However, some species are 

attached directly to rocks with root hair adhesion. Seagrasses tend to develop extensive 

underwater meadows (NOAA 2015). 

sediment. Particles and/or clumps of particles of sand, clay, silt, and plant or animal 

matter that are suspended in, transported by, and eventually deposited by water or air. 

sedimentation. The removal, transport, and deposition of detached soil particles by 

flowing water or wind. 
207

sessile. Characteristic of an immobile organism because of its attachment to a substrate. 

The term has also been applied to organisms, such as anemones, that move very slowly 

(NOAA 2015).

shade-grown coffee. A form of the beverage produced from coffee plants grown under 

a canopy of trees.

shoreline. The intersection of the land, including man-made waterfront structures, 

with the water surface. The shoreline depicted on NOAA National Ocean Service (NOS) 

maps and charts represents the line of contact between the land and a selected water 

elevation. In areas affected by tidal fluctuations, the shoreline is the interpreted mean 

high water line. In confined coastal water of diminished tidal influence, the mean water 

level line may be used. In non-tidal waters, the line represents the land/water interface 

at the time of survey. In areas where the land is obscured by marsh grass, cypress or 

similar marine vegetation, the actual shoreline cannot be accurately represented. 

Instead the outer limit line of the vegetation area is delineated (where it would appear 

to the mariner as the shoreline); in this case, it is referred to as the apparent shoreline 

(NOAA 2015). 

shoreline protection. The ability of reefs to attenuate offshore wave energy, to provide 

sheltered nearshore waters, and to protect coastlines from erosion, flooding, and 

storm damage. 

snapper. Any species of bony fishes in the family Lutjanidae. Snappers are found in the 

tropical and subtropical regions of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans. A few are 

estuarine to entirely freshwater. Many species are popular food and game fishes 

(NOAA 2015).

social network. A decision-support framework for capturing the people involved in a 

decision-making process and the relationships between them, such as who has authority 

to make decisions and who they work or interact with. Social relationships are typically 

depicted in terms of nodes (individuals within networks) and ties (relationships between 

the individuals)

sovereign. An independent or non-independent jurisdiction which itself possesses or 

whose people possess in their own right the jurisdiction’s supreme authority, regardless 

of the jurisdiction’s or people’s current ability to exercise that authority (DOI 2009). 

spatially-explicit model. A model is spatially explicit when the variables, inputs, or 

processes have explicit spatial locations and, moreover, that location matters to the 

process being modeled.
208

spawn. To produce or deposit eggs; the eggs of aquatic animals; the mass of eggs 

deposited by fishes, amphibians or mollusks; offspring in great numbers or masses; 

to give forth young in large numbers (NOAA 2015).

species. A category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and 

consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding. Also refers to an organism 

belonging to such a category. 

species abundance. The number of individuals per species.

species diversity. The number of different species in an area and their relative abundance 

(NOAA 2015).

species richness. The number of species in an area or biological collection (NOAA 2015).

sponge. A sessile (nonmoving), multi-cellular marine animal whose body consists of a 

jelly-like endoskeleton sandwiched between two layers of cells. Sponges comprise the 

phylum Porifera.

stakeholder. Someone having a stake or interest in a physical resource, ecosystem 

service, institution, or social system, or someone who is or may be affected by a public 

policy (MEA 2009). All citizens of the nation are stakeholders, including residents of local 

communities adjacent to coral reefs, tourists and the tourism industry, fishermen and 

other marine- based industries, land-based industries, conservation and environmental 

groups, research organizations, and educational institutions. 

state. In DPSIR, reflects the condition of the natural and living phenomena (such as air, 

water and soil parameters and growth, survival and reproductive parameters).

stated choice surveys. A flexible approach to collecting preference data (generally, 

choices and rankings, whether full or partial) from subjects in hypothetical situations. The 

objective is to place the decision-maker in a realistic frame of mind to compare a number 

of alternatives, each described in terms of some number of attributes.

stated preference surveys. An approach that asks people to directly state their values, 

rather than inferring values from actual choices (e.g., much they would agree to pay for 

avoiding a degradation of the environment or, alternatively, how much they would ask as 

a compensation for the degradation).

statistical models. A formalization of relationships between variables in the form of 

mathematical equations. A statistical model describes how one or more variables are 

related to one or more other variables.
209

stony corals. A group of coral species known as hard coral that form the hard, calcium 

carbonate skeleton. Such types include the brain corals, fungus or mushroom corals, 

staghorn, elkhorn, and table corals, flowerpot corals, bubble corals and lettuce corals. 

stormwater. Water from rain that flows over the ground surface and is subsequently 

collected by natural channels or artificial conveyance systems, and also includes water 

that has infiltrated into the ground but nonetheless reaches a stream channel relatively 

rapidly and that contributes to the increased stream discharge that commonly 

accompanies almost any rainfall event in a human-disturbed watershed. 

stratified random survey. The process of dividing members of the population into 

homogeneous subgroups before sampling. The strata should be mutually exclusive: every 

element in the population must be assigned to only one stratum. The strata should also 

be collectively exhaustive: no population element can be excluded. Then simple random 

sampling or systematic sampling is applied within each stratum. This often improves the 

representativeness of the sample by reducing sampling error. It can produce a weighted 

mean that has less variability than the arithmetic mean of a simple random sample of the 

population.

strength or magnitude of the relationship (between variables). The degree to which one 

variable is associated with or can cause a change in a second variable (i.e., between 

decisions and outcomes).

stressors. Physical, chemical and biological factors that adversely affect aquatic organisms 

(EPA 2009). 

structured decision-making (SDM). An organized approach to identifying and evaluating 

alternatives that focuses on engaging stakeholders, experts and decision-makers in 

productive decision-oriented analysis and dialogue and that deals proactively with 

complexity and judgment in decision-making. It provides a framework that becomes a 

decision-focused roadmap for integrating activities related to planning, analysis and 

consultation.

sun-grown coffee. Product from coffee plants grown in full sun, with all other vegetation 

having been cleared.

swing-weighting. One of the available methods for eliciting weights for the various 

criteria defined for multi-criteria analysis. The swing weight method requires specifying 

hypothetical changes (swings) in the level of performance against different objectives and 

then obtaining judgments of the relative preferences for obtaining those swings, typically 

using a 0-to-100 scale. For example, if the most desirable swing is given a swing weight of 

100 points, how many points would be assigned to obtaining the next most desirable 

swing? Although the swing weight method is not necessarily the most accurate method 
210

for eliciting weights, for objectives it provides much more reliable results than assigning 

weights based on abstract "importance" of each criterion. 

systems thinking. The process of understanding how things, regarded as systems, 

influence one another within a whole (Wikipedia 2015f).

Tainos. Seafaring indigenous peoples of the Bahamas, Greater Antilles, and the northern 

Lesser Antilles (Wikipedia 2015g).

terrestrial. Things related to land or the planet Earth (Wikipedia 2015h).

territory. Under Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, a territory is subject to and belongs to 

the United States (but not necessarily within the national boundaries or any individual 

state). This includes tracts of land or water not included within the limits of any State and 

not admitted as a State into the Union. U.S. territories with coral reefs include American 

Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Guam, Puerto Rico, and 

the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI).

tertiary treatment. Advanced cleaning of wastewater during which nutrients (such as 

phosphorous and nitrogen) and most suspended solids are removed (Business 

Dictionary.com 2015). 

topographic complexity. The three-dimensional arrangement of structural features over 

the seafloor surface, spanning all spatial scales (Zawada 2011).

topography. The physical features of a surface area including relative elevations and the 

position of natural and man-made (anthropogenic) features.

tourists. People who travel to and stay in places outside their usual environment for more 

than twenty-four (24) hours and not more than one consecutive year for leisure, business 

and other purposes not related to the exercise of an activity remunerated from within the 

place visited (UNWTO 1995). 

toxic pollutants. Pollutants that are poisonous, carcinogenic, or otherwise directly 

harmful to plants and animals. 

toxics. Any chemical listed in EPA rules as “Toxic Chemicals Subject to Section 313 of 

the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986” (EPA 2010). 

trade-off. A situation that involves losing one quality or aspect of something in return for 

gaining another quality or aspect. It often implies a decision to be made with full 

comprehension of both the upside and downside of a particular choice (Wikipedia 2015).

trophic. Describing the relationships between the feeding habits of organisms in a 

food chain. 
211

turbidity. The amount of solid particles that are suspended in water and that cause light 

rays shining through the water to scatter. Thus, turbidity makes the water cloudy or even 

opaque in extreme cases. High levels of turbidity are often harmful to aquatic life. 

turf algae. Turf algae are a multi-specific assemblage of diminutive, often filamentous, 

algae that attain a canopy height of only 1 to 10 mm. These microalgal species have 

a high diversity (>100 species in western Atlantic), although only 30 to 50 species 

commonly occur at one time. There is a high turnover of individual turf algal species 

seasonally and only a few species are able to persist or remain abundant throughout the 

year. But turf algae, when observed as a functional group, remain relatively stable year 

round (Steneck and Dethier 1994). They are often able to recovery rapidly after being 

partially consumed by herbivores. Turfs are capable of trapping ambient sediment and 

kill corals by gradual encroachment (AGRRA 2015).

uncertainty. Inability to predict outcomes due to random variability (for example, 

streamflow is sometimes high and sometimes low) or incomplete scientific knowledge 

regarding causal relationships (for example, how does exposure to a given concentration 

of sediments affect coral reef growth rates). 

United Nations Biosphere Reserves. Sites established by countries and recognized under 

UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Program to promote sustainable development 

based on local community efforts and sound science.

United States Coral Reef Task Force (USCRTF). Established in 1998 by Presidential 

Executive Order to lead U.S. efforts to preserve and protect coral reef ecosystems. 

The USCRTF includes leaders of 12 Federal agencies, seven U.S. States, Territories, 

Commonwealths, and three Freely Associated States. The USCRTF helps build 

partnerships, strategies, and support for on-the-ground action to conserve coral reefs.

Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE). A widely used mathematical model that describes 

soil erosion processes.

valuation. The process of expressing a value for a particular good or service in a certain 

context (e.g., of decision-making) usually in terms of something that can be counted, 

often money, but also through methods and measures from other disciplines (sociology, 

ecology, and so on) (MEA 2009).

value-focused thinking (VFT). A philosophy to guide decision-makers. It has three major 

ideas: start with values, use values to generate better alternatives, and use values to 

evaluate those alternatives (Keeney 1992). 

values. The things that people believe are important in the way they live and work.
212

vertebrate. An animal that possesses a vertebral column (back bone), such as fishes, 

amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals (NOAA 2015). 

visibility. The distance at which an object underwater can be readily identified. 

Underwater visibility is measured two ways. There is horizontal visibility — how far you 

can see looking straight ahead — and vertical visibility — how far you can see looking up 

or down.

water quality. A term for the combined biological, chemical, and physical characteristics 

of water with respect to its suitability for a beneficial use. 

watershed. The entire area of land whose runoff of water, sediments, and dissolved 

materials (e.g., nutrients, contaminants) drain into a river, lake, estuary, or ocean. 

wicked problem. "Wicked" problems are complex policy problems over natural resources 

exemplified by intertwined and competing social, economic, and environmental values. 
213

References

16 USC § 6401, et seq. 2000. The Coral Reef Conservation Act.

17 C.F.R. §89. 2006. Endangered and Threatened Species: Final Listing Determinations for 

Elkhorn Coral and Staghorn Coral.

Agar JJ, Shivlani M, Waters JR, Pizzini MV, Murray TJ, Kirkley JE and Suman DO. 2005. U.S. 

Caribbean Fish Trap Fishery Costs and Earnings Study. Volume 534 of NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Social Science 

Research Group. 127pp.

Aguilar-Perera A, Schärer M and Valdés-Pizzini M. 2006. Marine protected areas in Puerto 

Rico: Historical and current perspectives. Ocean & Coastal Management 49: 961–975. 

Alvarez-Filip L, Kulvy N, Gill JA, Isabelle M and Watkinson AR. 2009. Flattening of 

Caribbean coral reefs: Region wide declines in architectural complexity. Proceedings of 

the Royal Society B 276: 3019–3025.

Anonymous. 1949. Operation Bootstrap. Government Document—marked 'confidential'.

Applied Systems Thinking (AST). 2008. What is systems thinking?

URL: http://www.appliedsystemsthinking.com/whatis_st.html

Arvai J and Gregory R. 2003. Testing alternative decision approaches for identifying 

cleanup priorities at contaminated sites. Environmental Science and Technology 37(9): 

1469–1476. 

Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment (AGRRA). 2015. Algae. 

URL: http://www.agrra.org/background/algaeback.html. 

Ault JS, Bohnsack JA, Smith SG and Luo J. 2005. Towards sustainable multispecies fisheries 

in the Florida, USA, coral reef ecosystem. Bulletin of Marine Science 76: 595–622.

Balint PJ, Stewart RE, Desai A and Walters LC. 2011. Wicked Environmental Problems: 

Managing Uncertainty and Conflict. Island Press. 256 pp.

Ballantine DL, Weil E and Ruiz H. 2005. Coralline white band syndrome, a coralline algal 

affliction in the tropical Atlantic. Coral Reefs 24: 117

Beaumont NJ, Austen MC, Mangi SC and Townsend M. 2008. Economic valuation for the 

conservation of marine biodiversity. Marine Pollution Bulletin 56(3): 386–396.

Bergström S. 1992. The HBV model–its structure and applications. SMHI Hydrology, RH 

No.4, Norrköping, 35 pp.

Bishop RS, Chapman DJ, Kanninen BJ, Krosnick JA, Leeworthy B and Neade NF. 2011. 

Total Economic Value for Protecting and Restoring Hawaiian Coral Reef Ecosystems 

Final Report. Silver Spring, MD: NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Office 

of Response and Restoration, and Coral Reef Conservation Program. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum CRCP 16, 405 pp.
214

Black P and Stockton T. 2009. Basic Steps for the Development of Decision Support 

Systems in: Decision Support Systems for Risk-Based Management of Contaminated 

Sites, A. Marcomini, G.W. Suter II, A. Critto. Eds. Springer.

Bolte J. 2009. Envision: A Guide to Application Development. Biological and Ecological 

Engineering Department, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

Borkhataria R, Collazo JA, Groom MJ and Jordan-Garcia. 2011. Shade-grown coffee in 

Puerto Rico: Opportunities to preserve biodiversity while reinvigorating a struggling 

agricultural commodity. Agriculture, Ecosystems and the Environment

doi:10.1016/j.agee.2010.12.023.

Boumans R. 2012. Personal Communication, U. S. EPA Special Government Employee, 

University of Vermont.

Bousquin J, Fisher WS, Carriger J and Huertas E. 2014. A Bayesian belief network approach

to explore alternative decisions for sediment control and water storage capacity at 

Lago Lucchetti, Puerto Rico. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research 

and Development, Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, FL, EPA/600/R/14/296. 113 pp.

Bowman K. 2002. Slavery in Puerto Rico. URL: 

www.maxweber.hunter.cuny.edu/pub/eres/BLPR243_PIMENTAL/slavery.pdf. 11pp. 

Bradley P and Yee S. 2015. Using the DPSIR Framework to Develop a Conceptual Model: 

Technical Support Document. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Research and Development, Atlantic Ecology Division, Narragansett, RI, EPA/600/R15/154, 69 pp.

Bradley P, Fisher W, Dyson B and Rehr A. 2015. Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems

Decision Support Workshop, April 27–29, 2010, Caribbean Coral Reef Institute, La 

Parguera, Puerto Rico. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and 

Development, Narragansett, RI. EPA/600/R-14/386. 138 pp. 

Bradley P, Fisher W and Fore L. 2014. Coral Reef Monitoring Needs Assessment Workshop, 

U.S. Virgin Islands, September 11–13, 2007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Research and Development, Narragansett, RI. EPA/600/R-14/368. 132 pp.

Bradley P, Fore LS, Fisher WS and Davis WS. 2010. Coral Reef Biological Criteria: Using the 

Clean Water Act to Protect a National Treasure. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Research and Development, Narragansett, RI. EPA/600/R-10/054, 141 pp.

Bradley P, Santavy DL and Gerritsen J. 2014. Workshop on Biological Integrity of Coral 

Reefs, August 21–22, 2012, Caribbean Coral Reef Institute, Isla Magueyes, La Parguera, 

Puerto Rico. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and 

Development, Narragansett, RI. EPA/600/R-13/350. 

Brander LM, Rehdanz K, Tol RSJ and van Beukering PJH. 2009. The Economic Impact of 

Ocean Acidification on Coral Reefs. ESRI Working Paper No. 282.
215

Brown CA. 1984. The Central Arizona water control study: A case for multiobjective 

planning and public involvement. Water Resources Bulletin 20(3): 331–337.

Bruckner AW and Bruckner RJ. 1997. Outbreak of coral disease in Puerto Rico. Coral Reefs

16:260. 

Bruckner AW and Bruckner RJ. 2006. Consequences of yellow band disease (YBD) on 

Montastraea annularis (species complex) populations on remote reefs off Mona 

Island, Puerto Rico. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 69: 67–73. 

Burke L, Greenhalgh S, Prager D and Cooper E. 2008. Coastal Capital–Economic Valuation 

of Coral Reefs in Tobago and St. Lucia. Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute.

Business Dictionary.com. 2015. Tertiary treatment. URL: 

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/tertiary-treatment.html

Carriger J and Benson WH. 2012. Restoring and Managing Gulf of Mexico Fisheries: A Path 

toward Creative Decision-Making. Chapter 13 in: Estuaries, Classification, Ecology, and 

Human Impacts. Nova Science Publishers, Inc., Hauppage, NY, 291–334.

Carriger J, Yee SH and Fisher WS. 2011. The potential for Bayesian Belief Networks to 

quantify uncertainty between measures of coral reef condition and ecosystem services. 

Chapter 5 in Yee, SH, P Bradley, DE Campbell, J Carriger, PP Principe, WS Fisher, JA 

Dittmar, LM Oliver, R Boumans, and C Fonyo, (2011). Measures and Methods to 

Quantify Production of Coral Reef Ecosystem Services. APM Report 111, APG 57, ESRP 

Long-Term Goal 4.

Carriger JF, Fisher WS, Stockton TB and Sturm PE. 2013. Advancing the Guánica Bay 

(Puerto Rico) Watershed Management Plan. Coastal Management 41: 19–38. 

Carrión AM. 1983. Puerto Rico: A Political and Cultural History. New York: W.W. 

Norton & Company, Inc.

Center for Watershed Protection (CWP). 2008. Guánica Bay Watershed Management 

Plan. Prepared for the NOAA Coral Reef Program. Center for Watershed Protection, 

Ellicott City, MD. 

Cesar H and Chong CK. 2005. Economic Valuation and Socioeconomics of Coral Reefs: 

Methodological Issues and Three Case Studies. In, Mahfuzuddin Ahmed et al.,

Economic Valuation and Policy Priorities for Sustainable Management of Coral Reefs,

Penang, Malaysia, World Fish Center, pp. 14–40.

Cesar HSJ. 2002. The biodiversity benefits of coral reef ecosystems: Values and markets.

Working Party on Global and Structural Policies Working Group on Economic Aspects of 

Biodiversity, OECD, Paris. URL: http://www.cbd.int/doc/external/oecd/oecd-coralreefs-2002-en.pdf

Chambal S, Shoviak M and Thal AE. 2003. Decision analysis methodology to evaluate 

integrated solid waste management alternatives. Environmental Modeling and 

Assessment 8: 25–34.
216

Clemen RT and Reilly T. 2014. Making Hard Decisions with Decision Tools, 3 Edition. 

Mason, OH: South-Western. First edition 2001, Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Press.

Compass Resource Management. 2014. Introduction to Structure Decision Making. Course 

presented at US EPA, November 2014.

Compass Resource Management. 2015. Structured Decision Making. 

URL: http://www.structureddecisionmaking.org/

Compton JE, Harrison JA, Dennis RL, Greaver TL, Hill BH, Jordan SJ, Walker H and Campbell 

HV. 2011. Ecosystem services altered by human changes in the nitrogen cycle: A new 

perspective for US decision-making. Ecology Letters 14: 804–815.

Conroy MJ, Barker RJ, Dillingham PW, Fletcher D, Gormley A and Westbrooke IM. 2008. 

Application of decision theory to conservation management: Recovery of Hector’s 

dolphin. Wildlife Research 35: 93–102

Conservation International. 2009. Glossary. URL: 

http://www.conservation.org/resources/glossary/Pages/m.aspx.

Corner J, Buchanan and Henig M. 2001. Dynamic decision problem structuring. Journal of 

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 10(3): 129–141.

Corti L. 2004. Archival Research. In: The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research

Methods. Eds. Lewis-Beck MS, Bryman A and Futing Liao T. SAGE Publications, Inc. 

Cróquer A and Weil E. 2009. Changes in Caribbean coral disease prevalence after the 2005 

bleaching event. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 87: 33–43.

David G, Herrenschmidt J-B, Mirault E and Thomassin A. 2007. Social and Economic Values 

of Pacific Coral Reefs. Coral Reef Initiatives for the Pacific (CRISP) Component 1A, 

Project 1A4 Integrated Coastal Management (GERSA). Noumea, New Caledonia. 44 pp.

Davies SP and Jackson SK. 2006. The Biological Condition Gradient: A descriptive model 

for interpreting change in aquatic ecosystems. Ecological Applications

16: 1251–1266.

Davis K. 1948. Puerto Rico's population problem: Research and policy. The Milbank 

Memorial Fund Quarterly 26(3): 300–308.

Davis SA and Skaggs LL. 1992. Catalog of Residential Depth-Damage Functions Used by the 

Army Corps of Engineers in Flood Damage Estimation. Alexandria, VA: Army Corps of 

Engineers Institute for Water Resources.

Dietz JL. 1986. Economic History of Puerto Rico: Institutional Change and Capitalist

Development. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 

Dunning DJ, Ross QE and Merkhofer MW. 2000. Multiattribute utility analysis for 

addressing Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act. Environmental Science and Policy

3: S7-S14. 
217

Encyclopedia Britannica. 2015. Clionid Sponge. 

URL:http://www.britannica.com/animal/clionid. 

European Environment Agency (EEA). 1999. Environmental Indicators: Typology and

Overview. Technical Report No. 25. 

URL:http://reports.eea.eu.int/TEC25/en/tab_content_RLR.

Executive Order (EO) 13158. 2000. Marine Protected Areas. May 26, 2000.

Executive Order (EO) 13514. 2009. Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and

Economic Performance. October 5, 2009. 

Failing L, Gregory R and Harstone M. 2007. Integrating science and local knowledge in 

environmental risk management: A decision-focused approach. Ecological Economics

64: 47–60. 

Farber S, Costanza R and Wilson M. 2002. Economic and ecological concepts for valuing 

ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 41: 375–392

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2007. Guidelines and Specifications for

Flood Hazard Mapping Partners, Appendix D. FEMA, Washington, D.C 

Fisher WS. 2007. Stony Coral Rapid Bioassessment Protocol. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Research and Development, EPA/600/R-06/167, Washington, D.C. 

60 pp.

Fisher WS, Fore LS, Hutchins A, Quarles RL, Campbell JG, LoBue C and Davis WS. 2008. 

Evaluation of stony coral indicators for coral reef management. Marine Pollution 

Bulletin 56: 1737–1745.

Fisher WS, Fore LS, Oliver LM, LoBue C, Quarles RL, Campbell JG, Harris PS, Hemmer BL, 

Vickery S, Parsons M, Hutchins A, Bernier K, Rodriguez D and Bradley P. 2014. Regional 

status assessment of stony corals in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Environmental Monitoring 

and Assessment 186(11): 7165–7181.

Flynn K and Weil E. 2009. Variability of aspergillosis in Gorgonia ventalina in La Parguera, 

Puerto Rico. Caribbean Journal of Science 45(2–3): 215–220.

Fore LS, Karr JR, Fisher WS, Bradley P and Davis WS. 2009. Heeding a call to action for U.S. 

coral reefs: The untapped potential of the Clean Water Act. Marine Pollution Bulletin

58:1421-1423.

French S, Insua DR and Ruggeri F. 2007. e-participation and decision analysis. Decision 

Analysis 4(4): 211–226.

French S, Maule J and Papamichail N. 2009. Decision Behavior, Analysis, and Support. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Gamper D and Turcanu C. 2007. On the governmental use of multi-criteria analysis. 

Ecological Economics 62: 298–307.
218

Garcia SM. 2009. "Glossary". In: Cochrane K and Garcia SM. A fishery managers’ 

handbook. FAO and Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 473–505.

García-Sais JR, Appeldoorn R, Bruckner A, Caldow C, Christensen JD, Lilyestrom C, Monaco 

ME, Sabater J, Williams E and Diaz E. 2005. The state of coral reef ecosystems of 

the commonwealth of Puerto Rico. pp. 91–134. In: J.E. Wadell (Ed.). The State of 

Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States and Pacific Freely Associated States: 

2005. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 11. Silver Spring, MD. 522 pp. 

García-Sais JR, Castro R, Sabater-Clavell J, Esteves R and Carlo M. 2006. Monitoring of

Coral Reef Communities from Natural Reserves in Puerto Rico, 2006: Isla Desecheo, 

Rincon, Mayagüez Bay, Guánica, Ponce and Isla Caja de Muerto. Final Report 

submitted to the Department of Natural and Environmental Resources of Puerto Rico. 

San Juan, PR. 151 pp. 

García-Sais J, Appeldoorn R, Battista T, Bauer L, Bruckner A, Caldow C, Carrubba L, 

Corredor J, Diaz E, Lilyestrom C, García-Moliner G, Hernández-Delgado E, Menza C, 

Morell J, Pait A, Sabater J, Weil E, Williams E and Williams S. 2008. The State of Coral 

Reef Ecosystems of Puerto Rico. In: The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United 

States and Pacific Freely Associated States: 2008. Waddell JE and Clarke AM. (Eds). 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 73. 569 pp. 

Gellis AC, Webb RMT, Wolfe WJ and McIntyre SCI. 1999. Effects of Land Use on Upland 

Erosion, Sediment Transport and Reservoir Sedimentation, Lago Loíza Basin, Puerto 

Rico. Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigation Report 

99-4010.

Ghermandi A, Nunes PALD, Porela R, Rao N and Teelucksingh SS. 2009. Recreational, 

Cultural and Aesthetic Services from Estuarine and Coastal Ecosystems. Nota 

di Lavoro 121.

Gladfelter WB. 1982. White-Band Disease in Acropora palmata: Implications for the 

structure and growth of shallow reefs. Bulletin of Marine Science 32: 639–643.

Goenaga C, Vicente VP and Armstrong RA. 1989. Bleaching induced mortalities in reef 

corals from La Parguera, Puerto Rico: A precursor of change in the community 

structure of coral reefs? Caribbean Journal of Science 25: 59–65.

Gould WA, Alarcon C, Fevold B, Jimenez ME, Martinuzzi S, Potts G, Quinones M, Solórzano 

M and Ventosa E. 2008. The Puerto Rico Gap Analysis Project Volume 1: Land Cover, 

Vertebrate Species Distributions, and Land Stewardship. Gen. Tech. Rep. IITF-39.

Gourlay MR and Colleter G. 2005. Wave-generated flow on coral reefs: An analysis for 

two-dimensional horizontal reef-tops with steep faces. Coastal Engineering

52: 353–387.

Gregory L. Morris Engineering (GME). 1999a. Guánica Lagoon Hydrology & Restoration 

Alternatives. Prepared for Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources. San Juan, PR.
219

Gregory L. Morris Engineering (GME). 1999b. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis: Guánica 

Lagoon Restoration Impacts on Regulatory [Controlled] Flood Levels. Prepared for 

Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources. San Juan, PR.

Gregory L. Morris Engineering (GME). 2011. Hydrologic-Hyrdraulic Study of Laguna 

Guánica Restoration Impacts on Regulatory Flood Levels, Guánica, Puerto Rico. GL 

Morris Engineering, Santurce, PR. 292 pp.

Gregory RS. 1999. Identifying Environmental Values. In: V.H. Dale & M.R. English (Eds.), 

Tools to Aid Environmental Decision Making. Springer, New York, NY. 

Gregory R and Gonzalez J. 2013. Protecting the Guánica Bay Watershed: A Public Values

Forum. Guánica Bay Public Values Forum, Final Workshop Report. Value Scope 

Research, Vancouver Canada. March 2013. 

Gregory R and Keeney RL. 2002. Making smarter environmental decisions. Journal of the 

American Water Resources Association 38(6): 1601–1612

Gregory R, Failing L, Harstone M, Long G, McDaniels T and Ohlson D. 2012. Structured 

Decision-making: A Practical Guide to Environmental Management Choices. West 

Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. 

Gregory R, Failing L, Ohlson D and McDaniels TL. 2006. Some pitfalls of an overemphasis 

on science in environmental risk management decisions. Journal of Risk Research 

9(7): 717–735. 

Gregory R, Arvai J and Gerber LR. 2013. Structuring decisions for managing threatened 

and endangered species in a changing climate. Conservation Biology 27(6): 1212–21. 

Gregory RS and Keeney RL. 1994. Making Smarter Environmental Management Decisions. 

Journal of the American Water Resources Association 38(6): 1601–1612.

Grossarth S and Hecht A. 2007. Sustainability at the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. 1970-2020. Ecological Engineering 30(1): 1–8.

Harvell CD, Altizer S, Cattadori IM, Harrington L and Weil E. 2009. Climate change and 

wildlife diseases: when does the host matter the most? Ecology 90(4): 912–920.

Healthy Reefs Initiative. 2010. Report Card for the Mesoamerican Reef. Smithsonian 

Institution, Washington, D.C.

Homer C, Huang C, Yang L, Wylie B, and Coan M. 2004. Development of a 2001 national 

land cover database for the United States. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote

Sensing 70: 829–840.

Howard RA. 1966. Decision Analysis: Applied Decision Theory. In Proceedings of the Fourth 

International Conference on Operational Research. New York: John Wiley, pp. 55–71.

Hu W, Yuan Y and Li G. 2015. Evaluation of soil erosion and sediment yield for ridge 

watersheds using the SWAT model. Hydrological Sciences Journal (submitted).
220

Hughes TP. 1994. Catastrophes, phase shifts, and large-scale degradation of a Caribbean 

coral reef. Science 265: 1547–1551.

Jackson J, Cramer K, Donovan M, Friedlander A, Hooten A and Lam V. 2012. Tropical 

Americas Coral Reef Resilience Workshop. 29 April–5 May 2012, Tupper Center, 

Smithsonian Tropical Research Center, Panama City, Republic of Panama. 

Jackson JBC. 1997. Reefs since Columbus. Coral Reefs 16: S23–S32.

Jackson JBC, Donovan MK, Cramer KL and Lam VV (editors). 2014. Status and Trends 

of Caribbean Coral Reefs: 1970–2012. Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, IUCN, 

Gland, Switzerland.

Jackson JBC, Kirby MX, Berger WH, Bjorndal KA, Botsford LW, Bourque BJ, Bradbury RH, 

Cooke R, Erlandson J, Estes JA, Hughes TP, Kidwell S, Lange CB, Lenihan HS, Pandolfi JM, 

Peterson CH, Steneck RS, Tegner MJ and Warner RR. 2001. Historical overfishing and 

the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293: 629–638.

Johns GM, Leeworthy VR, Bell FW and Bonn MA. 2001. Socioeconomic Study of Reefs in 

Southeast Florida. Report (Hazen and Sawyer) to Broward County, Palm Beach County, 

Miami-Dade County (Florida), Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission, and the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 255 pp.

Karr JR and Chu EW. 1999. Restoring Life in Running Waters: Better Biological Monitoring. 

Island Press, Washington, DC, 206 pp.

Karr JR and Dudley DR. 1981. Ecological perspectives on water quality goals. 

Environmental Management 5: 55–68.

Keel S. 2005. Caribbean Ecoregional Assessment: Puerto Rico. The Nature Conservancy. 

http://conserveonline.org/docs/2005/09/PuertoRicoTerrERAMay05.pdf 

(accessed June 25, 2012).

Keeney RL. 1982. Decision analysis: An overview. Operations Research 30(5): 803–838.

Keeney RL. 1992. Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decision-making. Harvard 

University Press, Cambridge. 

Keeney RL. 2007. Developing Objectives and Attributes. In Advances in Decision Analysis: 

from Foundations to Applications, Eds. Edwards W, Miles Jr. RF and von Winterfeldt D. 

pp. 104–128. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Keeney RL and Gregory RS. 2005. Selecting attributes to measure the achievement of 

objectives. Operations Research 53: 1–11. 

Kendall MS, Monaco ME, Buja KR, Christensen JD, Kruer CR, Finkbeiner M and Warner RA. 

2001. Methods Used to Map the Benthic Habitats of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands. http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/products/biogeography/usvi pr 

mapping/manual.pdf (accessed June 25, 2012).

Kent D. 1992. America the Beautiful. Puerto Rico: Childrens Press. 
221

Kjaerulff U and Madsen A. 2008. Bayesian Networks and Influence Diagrams: A Guide

to Construction and Analysis. New York, NY: Springer. 

Knowlton N. 2001. The future of coral reefs. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences 98: 5419–5425. 

Kunkel CM, Hallberg RW and Oppenheimer M. 2006. Coral reefs reduce tsunami impact 

in model simulations. Geophysical Research Letters 33: L23612.

Layke C. 2009. Measuring Nature’s Benefits: A Preliminary Roadmap for Improving 

Ecosystem Service Indicators. WRI Working Paper. World Resources Institute, 

Washington DC. 

Leeworthy VR and Bowker JM. 1997. Nonmarket Economic User Values of the Florida 

Keys/Key West. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring MD.

Leeworthy VR and Vanasse P. 1999. Economic Contribution of Recreating Visitors to the

Florida Keys/Key West: Updates for Years 1996–97 and 1997–98. National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring MD.

Leeworthy VR and Wiley PC. 1996. Importance and Satisfaction Ratings by Recreating 

Visitors to the Florida Keys/Key West. Silver Spring, MD. National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. Strategic Environmental Assessments Division.

Leeworthy VR and Wiley PC. 1997. A Socioeconomic Analysis of the Recreation Activities

of Monroe County Residents in the Florida Keys/Key West. National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring MD.

Leeworthy VR and Wiley PC. 2003. Profiles and Economic Contribution: General Visitors 

to Monroe County, Florida 2001–2001. National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Silver Spring MD.

Leeworthy VR, Wiley PC and Hospital JD. 2004. Importance-satisfaction Ratings Five-year

Comparison, SPA & ER Use, and Socioeconomic and Ecological Monitoring Comparison 

of Results 1995–1996 to 2000–2001. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), Silver Spring, MD. 

Leujak W and Ormond RFG. 2007. Visitor perceptions and the shifting social carrying 

capacity of South Sinai’s coral reefs. Environmental Management 39: 472–489.

Lewis GK. 1963. The Present. In: Puerto Rico: Freedom and Power in the Caribbean.

Monthly Review Press.

Lowe RJ, Falter JL, Bandet MD, Pawlak G, Atkinson MJ, Monismith SG, and Koseff JR. 2005. 

Spectral wave dissipation over a barrier reef. Journal of Geophysical Research

110: C04001.

Lozado JLA and Mora EI. 2014. Economic Feasibility Study for the Restoration of the

Guánica Lagoon Final Report. University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez, PR. 221 pp.
222

Madin JS, Black KP and Connolly SR. 2006. Scaling water motion on coral reefs: From 

regional to organismal scales. Coral Reefs 25: 635–644.

Marcot BG, Thompson MP, Runge MC, Thompson FR, McNulty S, Cleaves D, Tomosy M, 

Fisher LA and Bliss A. 2012. Recent advance in applying decision science to managing 

national forests. Forest Ecology and Management 285: 123–132

Maxam A, Lyew-Ayee P and McIntyre K. 2011. A Classification of the Protection given

by Reef Systems in Jamaica‒Utilizing GIS and Oceanographic Methods of Analysis.

Working Paper. Kingston, Jamaica: Mona Geoinformatics Institute (MGI). 

McDaniels TL. 2000. Creating and using objectives for ecological risk assessment and 

management. Environmental Science and Policy 3: 299–304. 

McField M and Kramer PR. 2007. Healthy Reefs for Healthy People: A Guide to Indicators

of Reef Health and Social Wellbeing in the Mesoamerican Reef Region. Smithsonian 

Institution, Washington, DC. 

Melbourne-Thomas, J. 2010. CORSET Documentation. Institute for Marine and Antarctic 

Studies. University of Tasmania.

Merriam Webster. 2013. URL: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decide. 

Accessed July 10, 2013. 

Merriam Webster. 2010. Recreation. URL: http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/recreation. 

Merrick J, Parnell G, Barnett J and Garcia M. 2005. A multiple-objective decision analysis 

of stakeholder values to identify watershed improvement needs. Decision Analysis

2: 44–57.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: 

Current State and Trends. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). 2009. Glossary. URL: http://www. 

millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.59.aspx.pdf.

Miller G and Lugo A. 2009. Guide to the Ecological Systems of Puerto Rico. General 

Technical Report. IITF-GTR-35. San Juan, PR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, International Institute of Tropical Forestry. 437 p.

Moberg F and Folke C. 1999. Ecological goods and services of coral reef ecosystems. 

Ecological Economics 29: 215–233.

Mollaghasemi M and Pet-Edwards J. 1997. IEEE Computer Society Technical Briefing: 

Making Multiple-Objective Decisions. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA. 

Morelock J, Ramirez W, Bruckner A and Carlo M. 2001. Status of coral reefs, southwest 

Puerto Rico. Caribbean Journal of Science, Online Special Publication 4: 57. 

URL: www.uprm.edu/biology/cjs/reefstatus.htm. 
223

Mumby PJ, Broad K, Brumbaugh DR, Dahlgren CP, Harborne AR, Hastings A, Holmes KE, 

Kappel CV, Micheli F and J. N. Sanchirico JN. 2008. Coral reef habitats as surrogates 

of species, ecological functions, and ecosystem services. Conservation Biology 

22: 941–951.

Mumby PJ. 2006. Connectivity of reef fish between mangroves and coral reefs: Algorithms 

for the design of marine reserves at seascape scales. Biological Conservation

128: 215–222.

Munda G. 2008. Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation for a Sustainable Economy. SpringerVerlag, Berlin Heidelberg. 

Naber H, Lange GM and Hatziolos ME. 2008. Valuation of Marine Ecosystem Services:

A Gap Analysis. World Bank. 

National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 2013. Environmental Decisions in the Face of 

Uncertainty. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2009. Coral Reef Habitat 

Assessment for U.S. Marine Protected Areas: Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 

NOAA National Ocean Service, Silver Spring, MD. 54pp. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2009. Puerto Rico Coastal Zone 

Management Program Revision and Update. Silver Spring, MD. 362 pp.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2015. Glossary of Terminology. 

Coral Reef Information Management System. URL: 

http://www8.nos.noaa.gov/coris_glossary/index.aspx?letter=v. 

National Research Council (NRC). 2011. Sustainability and the U.S. EPA. The National 

Academies Press, Washington, DC. 286 pp.

Norsys. 2010. NeticaTM 4.16. Vancouver, BC: Norsys Software Corp.

Nunes PALD, Ding H and Markandya A. 2009. The Economic Valuation of Marine 

Ecosystems. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Working Paper 329. 

URL: http://www.bepress.com/feem/paper329/. 

Ohlson DW and Serveiss VB. 2007. The integration of ecological risk assessment and 

structured decision making into watershed management. Integrated Environmental 

Assessment and Management 3(1): 118–128. 

Oliver LM, Fisher WS, Dittmar J, Hallock P, Campbell J, Quarles RL, Harris P and LoBue C. 

2014. Contrasting responses of coral reef fauna and foraminiferal assemblages to 

human influence in La Parguera, Puerto Rico. Marine Environmental Research 

99: 95–105. 
224

Paddack MJ, Reynolds JD, Aguilar C, Appeldoorn RS, Beets J, Burkett EW, Chittaro PM, 

Clarke K, Esteves R, Fonseca AC, Forrester GE, Friedlander AM, García-Sais J, GonzálezSansón G, Jordan LK, McClellan DB, Miller MW, Molloy PP, Mumby PJ, Nagelkerken I, 

Nemeth M, Navas-Camacho R, Pitt J, Polunin NV, Reyes-Nivia MC, Robertson DR, 

Rodríguez-Ramírez A, Salas E, Smith SR, Spieler RE, Steele MA, Williams ID, Wormald 

CL, Watkinson AR and Côté IM. 2009. Recent region-wide declines in Caribbean reef 

fish abundance. Current Biology 19: 590–595.

Pandolfi J and Jackson JBC. 2006. Ecological persistence interrupted in Caribbean coral 

reefs. Ecology Letters 9: 818–826.

Pandolfi JM, Bradbury RH, Sala E, Hughes TP, Bjorndal KA, Cooke RG, McArdle D, 

McClenachan L, Newman MJH, Paredes G, Warner RR, Jackson JBC. 2003. Global 

trajectories of the long-term decline of coral reef ecosystems. Science 301: 955–958.

Parnell GS, Conley HW, Jackson JA, Lehmkuhl LJ and Andrew JM. 1998. Foundations 2025: 

A value model for evaluating future air and space forces. Management Science

44: 1336–1350.

Pendleton LH. 1994. Environmental quality and recreation demand on a Caribbean coral 

reef. Coastal Management 22: 399–404.

Phillips LD. 1984. A theory of requisite decision models. Acta psychologica 56(1–3):

29–48. 

Pierce M. 1998. Computer-Based Model in Integrated Environmental Assessment.

European Environmental Agency (EEA).

Prada C, Weil E and Yoshioka P. 2009. Octocoral bleaching under unusual thermal stress. 

Coral Reefs 29: 41–45.

Principe P, Bradley P, Yee S, Fisher W, Johnson E, Allen P and Campbell D. 2012. 

Quantifying Coral Reef Ecosystem Services. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA/600/R-11/206. 

Puerto Rico (PR) Government. 2015. Puerto Rico Governmental Portal for Geographic 

Data. URL: gis.pr.gov. 

Reckhow K. 1994. A decision analytic framework for environmental analysis and 

simulation modeling. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13(12): 1901–1906. 

Rehr AP, Small MJ, Bradley P, Fisher WS, Vega A, Black K and Stockton T. 2012. A decision 

support framework for science-based, multi-stakeholder deliberation: A coral reef 

example. Environmental Management 50(6): 1204–18. 

Rehr AP, Small MJ, Fischbeck PS, Bradley P, and Fisher WS. 2014. The role of scientific 

studies in building consensus in environmental decision making: A coral reef example. 

Environment Systems and Decisions 34: 60–87.
225

Remoundou K, Koundouri P, Kontogianni A, Nunes PALD and Skourtos M. 2009. Valuation 

of natural marine ecosystems: An economic perspective. Environmental Science & 

Policy 12(7): 1040–1051.

Rittel HWJ and Webber M. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences

4: 155–169.

Rodriguez P, Sotomayor-Ramirez D, Martinez G, Perez-Alegria L, Lopez C and Bachoon D. 

2014. Citizen-volunteer and Professional Monitoring to Identify Fecal Sources of 

Contamination in Southwestern Puerto Rico. Poster presented at the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency Caribbean Science/Citizen Science Workshop. 

San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Russell M, Teague A, Alvarez F, Dantin D, Osland M, Harvey J, Nestlerode J, Rogers J, 

Jackson L, Pilant D, Genthner F, Lewis M, Spivak A, Harwell M and Neale A. 2013. 

Neighborhood Scale Quantification of Ecosystem Goods and Services. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Gulf Breeze, 

FL, EPA/600/R-13/295, 46 pp.

Santavy DL, Fisher WS, Campbell JG and Quarles RL. 2012. Field Manual for Coral Reef 

Assessments. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and 

Development, Gulf Breeze FL, EPA /600/R-12/029, 80 pp.

Schmidt L. 2011. Using Archives: A Guide to Effective Research. The Society of American 

Archivists. 

Sheppard C, Dixon DJ, Gourlay M, Sheppard A and Payet R. 2005. Coral mortality increases 

wave energy reaching shores protected by reef flats: examples from the Seychelles. 

Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 64: 223–234.

Shivlani M and Koeneke R. 2010. Spatial characterization of artisanal fisheries in Puerto 

Rico: Geographic Information Systems (GIS) approach for assessing the regional effort 

and landings. Proceedings of the 63rd Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 63: 60–66.

Silvestrini BG and Sánchez MDL. 1988. Historia de Puerto Rico: trayectoria de un pueblo. 

Ediciones Cultural Panamericana. San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Simley JD and Carswell WJ Jr. 2009. The National Map—Hydrography. U.S. Geological 

Survey Fact Sheet 2009–3054. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2009/3054/ (accessed 

June 25, 2012).

Smeets E and Weterings R. 1999. Environmental Indicators: Typology and Overview. 

European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. Report No. 25, 19 pp. 

Smith A, Yee SH, Russell M, Awkerman J and Fisher WS. (In review). Linking ecosystem 

services supply to stakeholder values in Guánica Bay Watershed, Puerto Rico. 

Ecosystem Services. (In Review). 
226

Smith MB. 2007. Potential Changes in Ecosystem Services from Land use Policy in 

Puerto Rico. MS Thesis, Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Science, 

Duke University.

Soler-López LR, Webb RMT and Pérez-Blair F. 1999. Sedimentation Survey of Lago 

Yahuecas, Puerto Rico, March 1997. San Juan, P.R. U.S. Geological Survey.

Soler-López LR. 2001. Sedimentation Survey Results of the Principal Water Supply 

Reservoirs of Puerto Rico. In Sylva WF (ed.) Proceedings of the Sixth Caribbean Islands 

Water Resources Congress, Mayagüez, Puerto Rico, February 22–23, 2001. 

Soler-López LR. 2002. Sedimentation Survey of Lago Loco, Puerto Rico, March 2000. 

U.S. Geological Survey. Water Resources Investigations Report 01-4187, 26 pp.

Soler-López LR and Webb RMT. 1999. Sedimentation Survey of Lago Prieto, Puerto Rico, 

October 1997. San Juan, Puerto Rico. US Geological Survey. Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 99-4169.

Sotomayor-Ramírez D. 2015. Summary Report for Project: Citizen Monitoring of Water

Sanitation in a Rural Puerto Rico Watershed. Submitted to the U.S. EPA. 17 pp. 

Spurgeon JPG. 1992. The economic valuation of coral reefs. Marine Pollution Bulletin

24(11): 529–536.

Steneck RS and Dethier MN. 1994. A functional group approach to the structure of algal 

dominated communities. Oikos 69: 476–498.

Stern PC and Fineberg HV (Editors). 1996. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in 

a Democratic Society. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. 264 pp.

Sturm P, Viqueira-Rios R, Medina J, Padilla G, Hernández-Delgado EA, González-Ramos C, 

Montañez-Acuña A, Otaño-Cruz A and Cabrera-Beauchamp G. 2015. Cabo Rojo

Community Watershed Action Plan for Water Quality and Coral Reefs. Prepared for 

National Fish And Wildlife Foundation, NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program, Puerto 

Rico DRNA and the Municipality Of Cabo Rojo. 87 pp.

Sturm P, Viqueira-Rios R, Meyer-Comas L, Hernández-Delgado EA, González-Ramos C, 

Montañez-Acuña A and Otaño-Cruz A. 2014. Culebra Community Watershed Action 

Plan for Water Quality and Coral Reefs. Prepared for NOAA Coral Reef Conservation 

Program, Puerto Rico DRNA and the Culebra Office of the Mayor. 81pp.

Tallis HT, Ricketts T, Guerry AD, Wood SA, Sharp R, Nelson E, Ennaanay D, Wolny S, 

Olwero N, Vigerstol K, Pennington D, Mendoza G, Aukema J, Foster J, Forrest J, 

Cameron D, Arkema K, Lonsdorf E, Kennedy C, Verutes G, Kim CK, Guannel G, Papenfus 

M, Toft J, Marsik M, Bernhardt J and Griffin R. 2013. InVEST 2.5.3 User’s Guide. The 

Natural Capital Project, Stanford.

The Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN) 2013. URL: www.cran.r-project.org. 
227

Toledo-Hernández C, Sabat AM and Zuluaga-Montero A. 2007. Density, size structure 

and aspergillosis prevalence in Gorgonia ventalina at six localities in Puerto Rico. 

Marine Biology 152: 527–535.

Toledo-Hernández C, Yoshioka P, Bayman P and Sabat AM. 2009. Impact of disease 

and detachment on growth and survivorship of sea fans Gorgonia ventalina. 

Marine Ecology Progress Series 393: 47–54.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2007. GEO4: Global Environment 

Outlook – Environment for Development. Nairobi, Kenya.

United Nations World Tourism Office (UNWTO). 1995. Glossary of Tourism Terms. 

URL: http://www2.unwto.org/. 

U.S. v. PRASA, Civil Action 78-0038 (CC). 1978. Complaint. United States District Court 

for the District of Puerto Rico. 

U.S. v. PRASA, Civil Action 78-0038 (TR), 83-0105 (TR). 1985. Order Further Modifying 

and Amending the Final Judgment. United States District Court for the District of 

Puerto Rico. 

U.S. v. PRASA, Civil Action 78-0038 (CC) and 83-0105 (CC). 1997. Joint Stipulation of the 

Parties Concerning Achievement of Final NPDES Permit Limitations. United States 

District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2009. NSSH part 622: Ecological and Interpretative 

Groups (Part 622). In: National Soil Survey Handbook, title 430-VI. 

<http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/home/?cid=nrcs142p2_054226>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004. Constructed Treatment Wetlands. 

Office of Water, EPA/843-F-03-013, Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008. Handbook for Developing Watershed 

Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters. EPA 841-B-08-002. URL: 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/watershed_handbook. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. USEPA Office of Research and

Development Ecosystem Services Research Program (ESRP): Decision Support 

Framework (DSF) Team Research Implementation Plan. EPA/600/R-09/104, 

Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. Terms of Environment: Glossary, 

Abbreviations and Acronyms. URL: http://www.epa.gov/OCEPAterms/. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012a. Sustainable and Healthy

Communities Research Fact Sheet. U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development, 

Science in Action. 2pp.
228

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012. Decision Support Framework

Implementation of the Web-based Environmental Decision Analysis Application 

DASEES: Decision Analysis for a Sustainable Environment, Economy, and Society.

EPA/600/R-12/008.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014a. ReefLink Database. URL: 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryId=242306.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014b. Tutorial on Systems Thinking 

Using the DPSIR Framework. URL:

http://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryId=225356. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015. STORET/WQX. URL: 

http://www.epa.gov/storet/. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2015. National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) 

Glossary. URL: http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/glos.html. 

Uyarra MC, Watkinson AR and Cote IM. 2009. Managing dive tourism for the sustainable 

use of coral reefs: Validating diver perceptions of attractive site features. 

Environmental Management 43: 1–16.

Valdés-Pizzini M. 2001. Historical Contentions and Future Trends in the Coastal Zone: The 

Environmental Movement in Puerto Rico. University of Puerto Rico Sea Grant College 

Program, Mayagüez. Publication Number UPRSGCP-R-80.

van Beukering PJH and Cesar HSJ. 2004. Ecological economic modeling of coral reefs. 

Pacific Science 58: 243–260.

Velazco-Domínguez AT, Weil E and Bruckner A. 2003. Climate Change and Coral Bleaching 

in Puerto Rico: Efforts and Challenges. Presentation given in Oahu, Hawaii.

Vicente-Chandler J, Abruña F, Bosque-Lugo R and Silva S. 1968. Intensive Coffee Culture in 

Puerto Rico. Bulletin 211. University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez Campus: Agricultural 

Experiment Station.

Vincenty Heres & Lauria, Sociedad Ambiental, Malcom Pirnie and HydroQual, Inc. 1997. 

Advance Wastewater Treatment Assessment- Phase I. Watershed Characterization 

Assessment Reports, Executive Summary. PRASA, EQB, EPA. San Juan, PR. pp. 1–12.

von Bertalanffy L. 1972. The history and status of general systems theory. The Academy 

of Management Journal 15(4): 407–426. 

von Winterfeldt D and Edwards W. 1986. Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research. 

Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press, 604 pages.

Wainger L and Mazzotta M. 2009. Proposed Framework for Quantifying Ecosystem 

Services and Their Economic Benefits–Guidance for Creating Ecological Endpoints. 

ESRP Working Paper Series #2.
229

Wainger LA and Boyd JW. 2009. Valuing Ecosystem Services. Pages 92–111 in K. McLeod 

and H. Leslie, editors. Ecosystem-based Management for the Oceans. Island Press, 

Washington, D. C.

Warne AG, Webb RMT and Larsen MC. 2005. Water, Sediment, and Nutrient Discharge

Characteristics of Rivers in Puerto Rico and Their Potential Influence on Coral Reefs.

USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5206.

Webb RMT and Soler-López LR. 1997. Sedimentation history of Lago Loíza, Puerto Rico, 

1953–94: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4108, 

18 pps.

Weil E. 2004. Coral Reef Diseases in the Wider Caribbean. In: Rosenberg E, and Loya Y 

(eds). Coral Reef Health and Diseases. Springer, Berlin, pp. 35–68. 

Weil E, Urrieztieta I and Garzon-Ferreira. 2002. Local and geographic variability in the 

incidence of disease in western Atlantic coral reefs. Proceedings of the 9th 

International Coral Reef Symposium 2: 1231–1238.

Weil E, Hernandez EA, Bruckner AW, Ortiz AL, Nemeth M and Ruiz H. 2003. Distribution 

and Status of Acroporid (scleractinia) Coral Populations in Puerto Rico. Proceedings 

of the Caribbean Workshop: Potential Application of the US Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) as a Conservation Strategy. NOAA-NMFS and NCORE–RSMAS. University of 

Miami. April 16–18. Pp. 71–92.

Weil E, Smith GW and Agudelo DG. 2006. Status and progress in coral disease research. 

Diseases of Aquatic Organisms Special Issue I 69: 1–7.

Weil E, Cróquer A and Urreiztieta I. 2009. Temporal variability and consequences of coral 

diseases and bleaching in La Parguera, Puerto Rico from 2003-2007. Caribbean Journal 

of Science 45: 221–246.

Weil E and Rogers CS. 2011. Coral Reef Disease in the Atlantic-Caribbean. In Z Dubinski 

and N Stambler. (Eds.). Coral Reefs: An Ecosystem in Transition. Chapter 27. 

pp. 465–492. Springer-Verlag. 

Wells H. 1969. The Modernization of Puerto Rico: A Political Study of changing Values

and Institutions. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 440 pp. 

Whitall D, Bauer LJ, Sherman C, Edwards K, Mason A, Pait T and Caldow C. 2013. Baseline 

Assessment of Guánica Bay, Puerto Rico in Support of Watershed Restoration. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 176.

Whitewater River Alliance. 2015. Learn About Watersheds. 

URL: http://thewhiteriveralliance.org/resources/what-is-a-watershed/. 

Wielgus J, Chadwick-Furman NE, Zeitouni N and Shechter M. 2003. Effects of coral reef 

attribute damage on recreational welfare. Marine Resource Economics 18: 225–237.
230

Wielgus J, Cooper E, Torres R and Burke L. 2010. Coastal Capital: Dominican Republic. 

Case Studies on Economic Value of Coastal Ecosystems in the Dominican Republic. 

Working Paper, DC: World Resources Institute.

Wikipedia. 2013. Archival Research. URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archival_research. 

Wikipedia. 2014. Guánica, Puerto Rico. URL: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gu%C3%A1nica,_Puerto_Rico. 

Wikipedia. 2015a. Agriculture. URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture. 

Wikipedia. 2015b. Decision Analysis. URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_analysis. 

Wikipedia. 2015c. Foraker Act. URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foraker_Act. 

Wikipedia. 2015cd. Jones–Shafroth Act. URL: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones%E2%80%93Shafroth_Act. 

Wikipedia. 2015de. Sanitary Sewer. URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanitary_sewer. 

Wikipedia. 2015f. Systems Thinking. URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_thinking. 

Wikipedia. 2015g. Taíno. URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ta%C3%ADno. 

Wikipedia. 2015h. Terrestrial. URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial. 

Wikipedia. 2015i. Trade-off. URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade-off. 

Williams EH Jr., Goenega C and Vicente V. 1987. Mass bleaching on Atlantic coral reefs.

Science 237: 877–878. 

Williams EH Jr. and Bunkley-Williams L. 1989. Bleaching of Caribbean coral reef symbionts 

in 1987–1988. Proceedings of the 6th International Coral Reef Symposium 3: 313–318.

Williams EH Jr. and Bunkley-Williams L. 1990. The world-wide coral reef bleaching cycle 

and related sources of coral mortality. Atoll Research Bulletin 335: 1–71.

Williams ID and Polunin N. 2002. Differences between protected and unprotected reefs of 

the western Caribbean in attributes preferred by dive tourists. Environmental 

Conservation 27: 382–391.

Wilson HM. 1899. Water Resources of Puerto Rico, Water-Supply and Irrigation Papers of 

the United States Geological Survey. No. 32 Washington D.C.: Department of the 

Interior 48 pp. 

Wooldridge S, Done T, Berkelmans R, Jones R and Marshall P. 2005. Precursors for 

resilience in coral communities in a warming climate: A belief network approach. 

Marine Ecology Progress Series 295: 157–169. 

World Resources Institute (WRI). 2009. Value of Coral Reefs and Mangroves in the

Caribbean. Economic Valuation Methodology v3.0. World Resources 

Institute, Washington, DC. 
231

Yee SH, Bradley P, Fisher WS, Perreault SD, Quackenboss J, Johnson ED, Bousquin J and

Murphy PA. 2012a. Integrating human health and environmental health into the DPSIR 

framework: A tool to identify research opportunities for sustainable and healthy 

communities. Ecohealth 9(4): 411–426.

Yee SH, Carriger J, Fisher WS, Bradley P and Dyson B. 2014a. Developing scientific 

information to support decisions for sustainable reef ecosystem services. Ecological 

Economics 115: 39–50.

Yee SH, Dittmar J and Oliver LM. 2014b. Comparison of methods for quantifying reef 

ecosystem services: A case study mapping services for St. Croix, USVI. Ecosystem 

Services 8: 1–15.

Yee SH, Rogers JE, Harvey J, Fisher W, Russell M and Bradley P. 2011. Concept Mapping 

Ecosystem Goods and Services. Pages 193-214 In: Moon BM, Hoffman RR, Novak JD 

and Canas AJ (Eds.) Applied Concept Mapping: Capturing, Analyzing, and Organizing 

Knowledge. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 

Yee SH, Vache K, Oliver L and Fisher W. 2012b. Development of Envision, a Spatiallyexplicit Framework for Modeling Future Scenarios: Assessing Sustainability of Reef 

Ecosystem Services under Water Quality Criteria in St. Croix, USVI. EPA Internal Report.

Yuan Y, Mbonimpa G, Hu W, Fisher W and Casper A. 2013. Quantifying Sediment 

Contributions to Guánica Bay, Puerto Rico. American Water Resources Association 

Meeting.

Zawada DG. 2011. Reef Topographic Complexity. In: Encyclopedia of Modern Coral Reefs, 

Hopley D (Ed.). Springer, Netherlands. pp. 902–906.
 

EPA/600/R-15/248| January 2016

www.epa.gov/ord

United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

Oce of Research and Development

National Health and Environmental

 Eects Research Laboratory

Atlantic Ecology Division

Narragansett, RI 02882

Ocial Business

Penalty for Private use

$300

Recycled/Recyclable

Printed with vegetable-based ink on paper that 

contains a minimum of 50% post-consumer 

fiber and is processed chlorine free.