NATIONAL CENTERS FOR COASTAL OCEAN SCIENCE

HUMAN DIMENSIONS

STRATEGIC PLAN

FY 2009 - 2014
Suggested Citation

National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science. 2007. National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science Human Dimensions Strategic 

Plan (FY2009-FY2014). Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, 

National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science. 46 pp.

Acknowledgments

The National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science extends sincere gratitude to our partners in the coastal and ocean science 

and management community who provided valuable feedback on a draft of this plan; Lynn Dancy for editorial review; 

Kevin McMahon for report layout and graphic design; and Brigitte Tran for graphic design.

Front Cover Photos

Robert H. Richmond, Ph.D., Kewalo Marine Laboratory, University of Hawaii at Manoa (top, left); Terry McTigue, Ph.D., 

National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment (top, right); Fridays Films 

(bottom, right).

For more information, to provide feedback, or to request a copy, please contact:

Marybeth Bauer, Ph.D.

Human Dimensions Research Coordinator

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Ocean Service

National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science

1305 East-West Highway, Room 8110, Silver Spring, MD 20910

Phone: (301) 713-3020, Fax: (301) 713-4353

Email: nccos.hd@noaa.gov

Internet: http://coastalscience.noaa.gov
Message from the Director

The mission of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Centers 

for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) is to provide coastal resource managers, other decisionmakers, 

and stakeholders with scientific information and tools needed to balance society’s environmental, 

social, and economic goals. Humans are integral to ecosystems, and the human dimensions of ecosystems are an integral focus of the science needed to achieve this mission.

This document establishes goals and objectives for fostering improved support of coastal decisionmaking by expanding NCCOS’ science program to include an integral focus on human causes, consequences, and responses to ecosystem stress. It provides the basis for subsequent development of an 

NCCOS Human Dimensions Research Implementation Plan specifying strategies, partnerships, fiscal 

and human resources needs, and expected outcomes. The goals and objectives established in this 

document build on NCCOS’ Strategic Plan for FY 2005 – FY 2009 and respond to numerous statutory 

authorities and other drivers summarized in Appendix 1. 

This document was developed through an internal NCCOS process including content analysis of 

significant coastal and ocean science and management documents, vetted throughout NOAA, and 

revised in response to public review and comment through a Federal Register Notice. It is intended 

not only as a strategic guide for NCCOS, but also as an educational resource for the broader coastal 

and ocean science and management community. As with all of its products, NCCOS is interested in 

determining the value of this document, especially for coastal and ocean science and decisionmaking. 

We encourage you to provide feedback via email or telephone, and assure you that we will appreciate and consider all comments in directing our future efforts.

Gary C. Matlock, Ph.D.

Director, NOAA National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science
Acronyms

CRRC Coastal Response Research Center 

ECSC Environmental Cooperative Science Center

GIS Geographic information system

HAB Harmful algal bloom

HABHRCA Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Amendments Act of 2004

HARRNESS Harmful Algal Research and Response: A National Environmental Science Strategy

IHDP International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change

ISDR United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction 

JSOST Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology

LEK Local ecological knowledge

MPA Marine protected area

MPAC National Marine Protected Area Center

NCCOS National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOS National Ocean Service

NRC National Research Council

NSTC National Science and Technology Council

PPBES Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution System

SIA Social impact assessment

SIMOR Subcommittee on Integrated Management of Ocean Resources

TEK Traditional ecological knowledge

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization

USCOP United States Commission on Ocean Policy
Table of Contents

1. Summary ............................................................................................................................................1

2. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................3

A. Purpose .....................................................................................................................................3

B. Future Directions .....................................................................................................................3

C. Human Dimensions Research Drivers .................................................................................4

D. Human Dimensions of Ecosystems ......................................................................................4

E. Human Dimensions Research ..............................................................................................7

3. National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science .................................................................................8

A. Ecosystem Science Focus ........................................................................................................8

B. Integrative Role .......................................................................................................................8

C. Integrated Assessments ..........................................................................................................9

D. Customers .................................................................................................................................9

E. Ecosystem Regions ..................................................................................................................9

F. NCCOS Human Dimensions Research ................................................................................9

4. Goals and Objectives ......................................................................................................................13

Goal 1: Provide Human Dimensions Understanding Critical to Support an 

Ecosystem Approach to Management.....................................................................................13

Objective 1.1 Coastal Decisionmaking .............................................................................13

Objective 1.2 Human Causes and Socioeconomic Drivers of Ecosystem Stress .......14

Objective 1.3 Societal Consequences of Policy and Management ...............................14

Objective 1.4 Traditional and Local Ecological Knowledge .........................................16

Objective 1.5 Institutional Strategies ................................................................................17

Objective 1.6 Evaluation of Products and Services ........................................................18

Objective 1.7 Socially Responsible Science .....................................................................18

Goal 2: Provide Integrative Ecosystem Understanding Critical to Support an 

Ecosystem Approach to Management.....................................................................................20

Objective 2.1 Integrative Ecosystem Models and Decision Support Tools ................20

Objective 2.2 Integrated Ecosystem Assessments ..........................................................20

Goal 3: Promote Ecosystem Resilience ....................................................................................22

Objective 3.1 Risk and Vulnerability Assessment ..........................................................22

Objective 3.2 Risk Communication .................................................................................23

Goal 4: Provide Critical Support for Human Dimensions Research ...................................24

Objective 4.1 Organizational Capabilities .......................................................................24

Objective 4.2 Communications, Outreach, and Education ...........................................25

Appendix 1 Human Dimensions Research Drivers ......................................................................27

Appendix 2 Excerpts from NCCOS and NOAA Strategic Plans .................................................40

Appendix 3 References ......................................................................................................................41

Summary 

1. Summary

The mission of the National Centers for Coastal 

Ocean Science (NCCOS) within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

is to “provide coastal managers and other decisionmakers with scientific information and tools 

needed to balance society’s environmental, social, 

and economic goals” (NOAA NCCOS, 2004, p. 5) 

in mitigating and adapting to ecosystem stressors 

such as climate change, extreme natural events, 

pollution, invasive species, and resource use. 

Humans are integral to ecosystems, and the human dimensions of ecosystems are an integral 

focus of the science needed to achieve this mission. Understanding the impact of humans on the 

ocean, the impact of the ocean on humans, and 

the human aspects of ocean governance provides 

the scientific basis for ensuring ocean health and 

quality of life for this and future generations 

(Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology, 2007).

Marine science and policy institutions in the 

United States and worldwide recognize that a 

deeper understanding of the human dimensions 

of ecosystems – human causes, consequences, 

and responses to ecosystem stress – is needed to 

foster improved support for coastal and ocean 

decisionmaking. Examples include statements 

by the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science 

and Technology (JSOST) (2007), Subcommittee 

on Integrated Management of Ocean Resources 

(SIMOR) (2006), United States Commission on 

Ocean Policy (USCOP) (2004), Pew Oceans Commission (2003), International Human Dimensions 

Programme on Global Environmental Change 

(IHDP) (e.g., 2005), and NOAA’s External Ecosystem Task Team (2006) (see Appendix 1, Human 

Dimensions Research Drivers). 

This plan establishes goals and objectives to 

foster improved support of coastal and ocean 

decisionmaking by expanding NCCOS’ science 

program to include an integral focus on human 

dimensions. It provides the basis for subsequent 

development of an implementation plan specifying programmatic elements such as strategies, 

partnerships, fiscal and human resources needs, 

and expected outcomes. The following list summarizes the human dimensions research goals 

and objectives established in this plan:

Goal 1

Provide Human Dimensions 

Understanding

Critical to Support an Ecosystem Approach 

to Management

 

Coastal Decisionmaking 

Objective 1.1: Develop and apply existing tools 

to foster effective local, regional, and national 

coastal decisionmaking processes that integrate 

scientific analysis and stakeholder deliberation.

Human Causes and Socioeconomic Drivers 

of Ecosystem Stress

Objective 1.2: Assess the status and trends 

in human behavioral patterns contributing 

to coastal ecosystem stress and their 

complex socioeconomic drivers. Help coastal 

decisionmakers identify and facilitate strategies 

for changing human behavior when desirable 

to achieve environmental, social, and economic 

goals. 

Societal Consequences 

of Policy and Management 

Objective 1.3: Help resource managers and 

other coastal decisionmakers anticipate the 

social, cultural, economic, and public health 

consequences of alternative actions and evaluate 

the consequences of actions taken.

Traditional and Local Ecological Knowledge

Objective 1.4: Conduct community-based 

research documenting traditional and local 

ecological knowledge, facilitate its application 

to enhance coastal and ocean science and 

management, and equitably share benefits with 

local communities. 
 Summary

Institutional Strategies

Objective 1.5: Analyze existing institutional 

approaches, and evaluate and facilitate prospects 

for (re)designing institutions, to enhance coastal 

and ocean science and management.

Evaluation of Products and Services

Objective 1.6: Determine the effectiveness of 

NCCOS’ products and services in promoting 

social, economic, and human health objectives.

Socially Responsible Science

Objective 1.7: Consult appropriate human 

dimensions specialists to address societal and 

ethical questions that arise in the conduct and use 

of NCCOS science.

Goal 2

Provide Integrative Ecosystem 

Understanding

Critical to Support an Ecosystem Approach 

to Management

Integrative Ecosystem Models 

and Decision Support Tools

Objective 2.1: Provide decisionmakers with 

integrative ecosystem models and other decision 

support tools linking changes in ecosystem 

services to human causes, consequences, and 

responses.

Integrated Ecosystem 

Assessments

 Objective 2.2: Provide leadership among 

scientific, management, and other stakeholder 

partners to define, produce, and facilitate the 

use of Integrated Ecosystem Assessments 

incorporating critical human dimensions 

information.

Goal 3

Promote Ecosystem Resilience

Risk and Vulnerability Assessment

 Objective 3.1: Assess the risk and vulnerability 

of coastal communities to ecosystem stress, 

responding to the needs of decisionmakers and 

stakeholders to support mitigation planning.

Risk Communication

Objective 3.2: Reduce the vulnerability of coastal 

systems and human communities to ecosystem 

stress by applying research-based strategies to 

communicate scientific information in ways that 

foster public understanding, trust, and riskreducing behavior.

Goal 4

Provide Critical Support 

for Human Dimensions Research

Organizational Capabilities

Objective 4.1: Build organizational capabilities 

needed to foster improved support for coastal 

decisionmaking by expanding NCCOS’ science 

program to include an integral focus on human 

dimensions.

Communications, Outreach, 

and Education

Objective 4.2: Identify and implement 

communications, outreach, and education 

strategies needed to foster improved support for 

coastal decisionmaking by expanding NCCOS’ 

science program to include an integral focus on 

human dimensions. 
Introduction 

2. Introduction

A. Purpose 

The mission of NCCOS is to “provide coastal 

managers and other decisionmakers with scientific information and tools needed to balance 

society’s environmental, social, and economic 

goals” (NOAA NCCOS, 2004, p. 5). NCCOS’ science program currently focuses on changes in the 

structure and function of environmental systems 

influenced by stressors such as climate change, 

extreme natural events, pollution, invasive species, and resource use. This plan establishes goals 

and objectives for expanding NCCOS’ science 

program to include an integral focus on the 

human dimensions of coastal ecosystems and 

decisionmaking. It summarizes broad human 

dimensions research needs that cut across multiple stressors and ecosystems, and are critical to 

achieve NCCOS’ mission. 

Expanding human dimensions research will 

enhance NCCOS’ ecosystem science and foster 

improved support for coastal and ocean decisionmaking. As early as 1935, ecologists cautioned 

that limiting analysis to environmental systems is 

neither scientifically sound nor practically useful (Tansley, 1935). As with any system, understanding an ecosystem requires understanding 

complex interactions among system components. 

An ecosystem is defined by interactions between 

human and environmental systems (elaborated 

below). Recognizing these interactions, ecology is 

increasingly adopting a systems approach focusing on coupled social-ecological systems (also 

called human-environmental systems) (e.g., Collins et al., 2007; Colding et al., 2000; Berkes et al., 

1998). Expanding NCCOS’ scientific focus from 

interactions within environmental systems to 

interactions between coupled social and ecological systems will foster holistic ecosystem understanding.

From a practical perspective, human dimensions 

understanding enhances coastal decisionmaking and its scientific support. This plan provides 

many examples. It begins by highlighting the 

effectiveness of coastal decisionmaking that 

integrates ecosystem understanding with meaningful stakeholder engagement. Social science 

offers techniques and approaches, based on an 

understanding of human and organizational 

behavior, that help decisionmakers work with 

diverse stakeholders to define and achieve management priorities in the face of challenges such 

as conflicting and changing societal values, multiagency authorities, and scientific uncertainty. The 

plan further highlights the integral role of human 

dimensions understanding in the ecosystem science supporting decision processes. For example, 

protecting and restoring coastal and ocean systems - a NOAA strategic goal - generally requires 

accommodating or changing human behavioral 

patterns associated with coastal development, 

agricultural practices, and resource uses. Developing effective intervention strategies in turn 

requires understanding these behavioral patterns 

and their complex socioeconomic drivers.

B. Future Directions 

Providing human dimensions understanding 

critical to support coastal decisionmaking will 

require retooling of many NCCOS activities. The 

NCCOS research agenda must be established 

through customer-informed strategies that identify complementary human dimensions and 

environmental research priorities. Innovative approaches are needed to link the concepts, methods, and results of environmental and human 

dimensions research. Organizationally, critical 

needs include greater capacity in human dimensions disciplines; workforce training in missioncritical human dimensions research; environmental science training for human dimensions staff; 

leadership with interdisciplinary team-building 

skills; practices that identify, encourage, and 

reward mission-critical human dimensions research; integrated environmental and human 

dimensions research planning; and adequate 

funding for human dimensions research. 

This plan provides the basis for subsequent development of an NCCOS Human Dimensions Research Implementation Plan. The implementation 

plan will specify needed program- and projectlevel actions, fiscal and human resources needs, 

potential partnerships, expected outcomes, and 
 Introduction

other programmatic elements to develop an integral human dimensions research focus in NCCOS – including its component research centers, 

laboratories, and partnerships with cooperating 

institutions such as NCCOS’ coral reef research 

institutes. It will be collaboratively developed by 

the NCCOS centers through a process facilitated 

by the NCCOS Human Dimensions Research 

Coordinator. 

The effective dates of this plan (FY 2009 - FY 

2014) coincide with NCCOS’ next strategic plan, 

which will integrate human dimensions research 

objectives.

C. Human Dimensions Research Drivers

The National Research Council (NRC) recognizes 

that “coupling the social and natural sciences 

is an increasingly important element of emerging research and development programs in the 

federal agencies” (NRC, 2005, p. 21). NCCOS’ 

initiative to expand its human dimensions focus 

is responsive to numerous legal authorities and 

scientific reports, including guidance from the 

JSOST (2007), SIMOR (2006), USCOP (2004), and 

Pew Oceans Commission (2003) (see Appendix 1, 

Human Dimensions Research Drivers). 

A significant driver is NOAA’s Strategic Plan, 

New Priorities for the 21st Century FY 2006 – FY 

2011. In this plan, NOAA recognizes that “humans are an integral part of an ecosystem” and 

that the environment includes “social conditions 

that surround organisms.” It also defines an 

ecosystem approach to management as one that 

“strives to balance diverse societal objectives” 

(NOAA, 2005, p. 3) (see Appendix 2, Excerpts 

from NCCOS and NOAA Strategic Plans). 

Another significant driver is a finding by the 

external Social Science Review Panel to NOAA’s 

Science Advisory Board (2003, pp. 1-2) that “the 

capacity of NOAA to meet its mandates and 

mission is diminished by the under-representation and under-utilization of social science.” Yet 

developing adequate capacity is challenged by “a 

lack of formal understanding of what social science is and what its contributions can be, leading 

to an organizational culture that is not conducive 

to social science research.” Among its recommendations, the Panel advised integrating social 

science goals, plans, and outcomes into strategic 

plans; developing initiatives in mission critical 

social science; developing social science capabilities, including senior-level social science representation; and increasing social science literacy 

throughout NOAA.

The Social Science Review Panel recommendations prompted NCCOS to develop a “societal 

stressors” goal in its Strategic Plan for FY 2005 

- FY 2009. This goal directs NCCOS to provide 

scientific information and tools critical to help 

coastal managers and other decisionmakers reduce human causes of ecosystem stress (NOAA 

NCCOS, 2004) (see Appendix 2, Excerpts from 

NCCOS and NOAA Strategic Plans). This Human 

Dimensions Strategic Plan expands NCCOS’ focus 

on societal stressors to develop more comprehensive guidance in providing mission critical 

human dimensions research. It also represents 

the development of NCCOS’ human dimensions 

vision since its contribution to the 2005 NOAA 

National Ocean Service (NOS) Social Science 

Plan.

Finally, a review of NOAA’s ecosystem science 

enterprise by an External Ecosystem Task Team 

(2006) entitled Evolving an Ecosystem Approach to 

Science and Management throughout NOAA and its 

Partners echoes the Social Science Review Panel’s 

recommendations. The Task Team’s final report 

to NOAA’s Science Advisory Board affirms that 

“both natural and social science, including communication of science, are critical elements at 

whatever scale and for whatever purpose ecosystem approaches are being developed” (p. 26). It 

also emphasizes that “transitioning from the current set of [NOAA] programs and mandates to an 

integrated ecosystem science enterprise [requires] 

understanding how humans take benefits from 

marine ecosystems and their components, and 

how those uses alter the ecosystems” (p. 8). 

D. Human Dimensions of Ecosystems

NCCOS has adopted a conceptual model developed by the NRC (1992) that describes the human 

dimensions of ecosystems in terms of human 
Introduction 

causes, consequences, and responses to ecosystem stress. As illustrated in Figure 1 and elaborated below, changes in the structure and function 

of environmental systems influence the quantity, 

quality, and sustainability of benefits that humans derive from them (ecosystem services). 

Ecosystem services are commonly categorized as 

supporting (e.g., nutrient cycling and soil formation), provisioning (e.g., timber and food), regulating (e.g., water purification and flood control), 

and cultural (e.g., spiritual opportunities and aesthetic experiences) (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Changes in ecosystem services 

influence the achievability and sustainability of 

societal values such as security from natural disasters, health, good social relations, and freedom

to pursue personal and cultural interests (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Ecosystem 

stress is defined as change in the quantity, quality, and sustainability of ecosystem services that 

has undesirable consequences for human health 

and other societal values. Humans respond to 

ecosystem stress through mitigative and adaptive 

measures. In addition to modifying social systems, these responses feed back to influence the 

structure and function of environmental systems. 

Stakeholders’ values influence their attitudes, 

intentions, management preferences, satisfaction levels, and norms for behavior. Values differ 

among individuals, but can be studied at the 

group level. For example, groups engaging in 

similar activities at similar locations and rates of

participation, and using similar equipment can 

be expected to share values. Stakeholder values 

is an important topic of human dimensions research, enabling understanding of: (1) how coastal resource conditions and management decisions 

are likely to be perceived by different groups; (2) 

how differing value systems interact to influence 

coastal resource management planning and effectiveness; and (3) interactions among changing 

value systems, management decision processes 

and outcomes, and resource conditions (e.g., Dietz et al., 2005). 

Figure 1. Human-environment interactions integral to ecosystems (Adapted from NRC, 1992).
 Introduction

Human Causes

Human activities have globally transformed 

the land and sea, altered major biogeochemical 

cycles, and added and removed species from ecosystems (Lubchenco, 1998). Natural and humancaused factors that directly or indirectly change 

the structure or function of ecosystems are called 

drivers. A direct driver unequivocally influences 

ecological processes. An indirect driver influences 

one or more direct drivers (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Indirect drivers include 

environmental and socioeconomic factors (e.g., 

demographic, economic, sociopolitical, cultural, 

religious, scientific, and technological) (Nelson et 

al., 2006).

For example, our nation’s coral reefs are threatened by direct drivers such as destructive fishing 

practices and overexploitation of reef resources. 

Overexploitation is influenced by indirect socioeconomic drivers associated with the way a 

society organizes resource access, extraction, and 

commerce (Ostrom, 1990). A striking example is 

the community of Andra Island off the coast of 

Papua New Guinea, where coral mining for lime 

production is a predominant livelihood. Individual- and clan-based ownership of reef areas 

creates incentives for sustainable harvesting to 

sustain ecosystem services. Yet the community’s 

regional monopoly over lime production for the 

traditional practice of betel nut chewing creates 

a stronger incentive to overharvest. A lapse in 

lime production could enable other areas to gain 

a market share, threatening the community’s 

predominant livelihood (Cinner et al., 2005). By 

providing an incentive to overharvest, the regional monopoly over lime production functions 

as an indirect driver of coral reef degradation.

Human Consequences

Changes in the quantity, quality, and sustainability of ecosystem services can promote or threaten 

societal values. To continue with the example 

above, coral reef disease and mortality result in 

a decline in the quantity and diversity of available reef products such as fish, seaweed, crabs, 

sea cucumbers, and lime (i.e., provisioning services). Reduced flow of these valued ecological 

components can threaten the food security and 

livelihood stability of reef-dependent communities and increase conflict among reef stakeholders 

(Whittingham et al., 2003). 

Human Responses

Ecosystem stress is addressed by human intervention striving to restore declining benefits. 

Mitigation measures aim to “prevent, limit, 

delay, or slow the rate of undesired impacts by 

acting directly or indirectly on environmental 

systems” (NRC, 1992). Such measures include 

directly modifying environmental systems (e.g., 

installing artificial coral reefs to provide essential 

fish habitat); reducing human causes of ecosystem stress (e.g., regulating a fishery to prevent 

depletion of stocks); and intervening with social 

drivers (e.g., providing education and financial 

assistance to promote agricultural practices that 

reduce nitrogen inputs). Adaptive responses aim 

to reduce or eliminate deleterious consequences 

of environmental degradation for human wellbeing. These include blocking impacts of environmental degradation on human values (e.g., 

improving diagnosis and treatment of illness 

caused by harmful algal blooms, or HABs); adjusting to experienced impacts (e.g., evacuating 

a flooded area); and modifying human systems 

to reduce anticipated impacts (e.g., establishing 

early warning systems for hazards) (NRC, 1992). 

This document describes research critical to 

improve several dimensions of human response 

such as decisionmaking, institutional strategies, 

and communication. 

In a recent discussion paper informed by a broad 

spectrum of the coastal management community, NOAA and the Coastal States Organization 

(2006) discuss “articulating a vision” as one of 

five “big picture” challenges to coastal decisionmaking. The challenge stems from the need to 

integrate deliberation of societal values with a 

traditional decision focus on analysis of scientific 

information. For planning purposes, a management vision must specify means-end outcomes 

(objectives) identifying ecosystem services required to sustain societal values. For example, 

clean water is an ecosystem service that promotes 

human health. Objectives must be further trans-
Introduction 

lated into measurable indicators, such as incidence of disease, suitable for evaluating alternative actions and tracking progress.

The crux of the challenge is balancing competing

objectives. To maximize benefits in the face of 

conflict, resource managers seek win-win solutions. When win-win solutions are elusive, articu

lating a vision requires making tradeoffs – compromising one of two desired outcomes, to some

extent, in favor of the other. Different tradeoffs 

entail different arrangements of risks, costs, and 

benefits for stakeholders over space (e.g., local, 

regional, and national scales); time (e.g., current 

and future generations); and social groups (e.g., 

sectors and user groups). For example, managing “a forest for tree production (a provisioning 

service) may affect water quality downstream (a 

regulating service) or decrease the value of the 

land for recreation (a cultural service)” (Rodriguez et al., 2006). Subsistence users may be particularly vulnerable to declining water quality. 

Evaluating tradeoffs is fundamental to coastal 

management, and is essentially an enterprise 

in making an ethical choice among alternative 

futures. 

D. Human Dimensions Research 

Human dimensions research describes, explains, 

and predicts the roles of humans in ecosystems to 

support resource decisionmaking. Diverse quantitative and qualitative methods cut across interrelated disciplines in the social and behavioral 

sciences, humanities, communication sciences, 

and interdisciplinary fields (Figure 2). The distinction between the terms “human dimensions” 

and “social science” often generates confusion. 

“Human dimensions” refers conceptually to 

the roles of humans in ecosystems and resource 

management, whereas the term “social science” 

denotes a subset of the disciplines useful for describing, explaining, and predicting these roles.

Figure 2. Diverse disciplines integral to human dimensions research.

-
 National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science

3. National Centers for

Coastal Ocean Science

NOAA created NCCOS in 1999 to strengthen and 

integrate its coastal science programs in ways 

that encourage strong external partnerships, increase and protect their integrity, and ensure that 

they focus on NOAA’s coastal ocean missions. 

NCCOS is the focal point of ecosystem science 

in NOAA’s NOS and Ecosystem Goal Team. The 

Ecosystem Goal Team coordinates efforts across 

NOAA’s line offices, including NOS, to achieve 

NOAA’s Ecosystems Mission Goal. As defined 

in NOAA’s Strategic Plan (2005), NOAA’s Ecosystems Mission Goal is to “protect, restore, and 

manage the use of coastal and ocean resources 

through an ecosystem approach to management” 

(p. 2). NOAA defines an ecosystem approach 

to management as “management that is adaptive, specified geographically, takes into account 

ecosystem knowledge and uncertainties, considers multiple influences, and strives to balance 

diverse societal objectives” (p. 3). 

NCCOS is comprised of science centers and 

laboratories that cooperatively identify and 

implement ecosystem science needed to achieve 

NOAA’s Ecosystems Mission Goal (Figure 3). 

Figure 3. NCCOS centers and laboratories.

A. Ecosystem Science Focus 

NCCOS’ ecosystem science program focuses on 

the individual and interactive significance of five 

categories of stressors affecting ecosystems of 

concern to NOAA (Figure 4). 

B. Integrative Role 

NCCOS’ primary role in the coastal and ocean 

science and management community is to synthesize ecosystem understanding critical to 

support coastal and ocean decisionmaking. This 

integrative function has three components. 

Research Collaboration: NCCOS coordinates research across diverse partners within NOAA and 

in other Federal and state agencies, tribes, communities, and universities.

Interdisciplinary Scientific Synthesis: NCCOS is 

developing an integrative ecosystem research approach focusing on coupled social and ecological 

systems.

Science Supporting Decisionmaking: NCCOS provides scientific information and tools that are 

informed by and support coastal and ocean decisionmakers.

Center for Coastal

Monitoring and

Assessment

Silver Spring, MD

Center for

Sponsored

Coastal Ocean

Research

Silver Spring, MD

Center for Coastal

Environmental

Health and

Biomolecular

Research

Charleston, SC

Center for Coastal

Fisheries and

Habitat Research

Beaufort, NC

Hollings Marine

Laboratory

Charleston, SC

Cooperative

Oxford Laboratory

Oxford, MD

Kasitsna Bay

Marine Laboratory

Seldovia, AK

National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science
National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science 

C. Integrated Assessments

NCCOS’ fundamental strategy is the integrated 

assessment (Figure 5). Integrated assessments 

synthesize available environmental and human 

dimensions information to forecast the status, 

sustainability, and tradeoffs among societal objectives under alternative management scenarios. 

This information provides a focus for collaborative decisionmaking across sectors, agencies, and 

stakeholder groups (e.g., Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, 2000).

D. Customers

NCCOS informs coastal and ocean decisionmaking across spatial scales extending from the local 

to the global and social scales extending from individuals to intergovernmental, intersectoral networks. Customers include state and local coastal 

resource managers; the greater coastal and ocean 

science community; tribes; local, state, and Federal governmental agencies; nongovernmental 

organizations; private industry; resource user 

groups; and other stakeholders who influence 

and are influenced by coastal and ocean systems 

and their societal linkages.

E. Ecosystem Regions

The USCOP (2004, p. 87) recommends a regional 

approach to coastal and ocean research and management to enable “decisionmakers at all levels to 

coordinate their activities, reduce duplication of 

efforts, minimize conflicts, and maximize limited 

resources.” Following this recommendation and 

its endorsement in the President’s United States 

Ocean Action Plan (Executive Office of the President, Council on Environmental Quality, 2004), 

NOAA delineated eight regional ecosystems as 

a focus for internal and external coordination, 

ecosystem observation, ecosystem modeling, and 

stewardship and management. These regional 

delineations are based on Large Marine Ecosystem boundaries adopted by the World Bank 

and Global Environment Facility. NCCOS supports NOAA’s regional foci: the Northeast Shelf, 

Southeast Shelf, Caribbean, Great Lakes, Gulf of 

Mexico, California Current, Alaskan Ecosystem 

Complex, and Pacific Island Ecosystem Complex 

(Figure 6). 

F. NCCOS Human Dimensions Research

Capabilities

NCCOS has developed significant capabilities to 

further its human dimensions research initiative. 

These include a Human Dimensions Research 

Coordinator and a memorandum of agreement 

with two premiere human dimensions-related 

academic departments. NCCOS is also funding 

graduate assistantships in human dimensions 

research. In addition, NCCOS serves as the technical representative for the Environmental Cooperative Science Center (ECSC), a research and 

training center sponsored by NOAA and Florida 

A&M University (http://www.ecsc.famu.edu/). 

The ECSC’s research themes include conceptual 

modeling of coupled social-ecological systems 

(see Reiter et al., 2006; Reiter, 2004), social and 

economic analysis, and environmental justice. 

Through capabilities such as these, NCCOS is 

already providing human dimensions and integrated ecosystem information critical to support 

coastal and ocean decisionmaking. The following 

Figure 4. NCCOS’ ecosystem science focal areas and stressors.

Ecosystems of Concern Ecosystem Stressors

National Marine Sanctuaries

Coral Reefs

Coastal Oceans

Estuaries 

(Including National Estuarine Research Reserves)

Climate Change

Extreme Natural Events

Pollution

Invasive Species

Land and Resource Use
10 National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science

highlighted publications and projects provide analytical guidance in identifying and implementing human dimensions research critical to inform 

coastal management. Additional relevant publications can be found by searching the web-based 

NCCOS Project Explorer (http://coastalscience.

noaa.gov/research/welcome.html).

Publications

Effects of Nutrient Enrichment in the Nation’s Estuaries: A Decade of Change (Bricker et al., 2007) 

assesses the status and trends in nutrient-related 

water quality conditions, causes, and outlook for 

national estuaries and other water bodies, including evaluation of impairments to human use.

Harmful Algal Research and Response: A Human Dimensions Strategy (Bauer, 2006) provides a multiagency strategy for human dimensions research 

critical to reduce impacts of HABs. Research priorities and example projects inform implementation of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia 

Amendments Act of 2004 (HABHRCA), National 

Plan for Algal Toxins and Harmful Algal Blooms 

(Harmful Algal Research and Response: A National 

Environmental Science Strategy, HARRNESS), and 

Oceans and Human Health Act. 

Improving Methods and Indicators for Evaluating 

Coastal Water Eutrophication (Bricker at al., 2006) 

uses an assessment of Gulf of Maine and MidAtlantic estuaries to improve nutrient-related 

eutrophication assessment methods, including 

development of an indicator to evaluate human 

and socioeconomic costs of nutrient-related degradation. 

Human Dimensions of Coastal Restoration (Salz and 

Loomis, 2005) provides technical assistance for 

developing and implementing sound scientific 

monitoring of coastal restoration, including selection of indicators for assessing the benefits of 

coastal restoration projects to human communities and economies. 

Visual Impact Assessment of Small Docks and Piers: 

Theory and Practice (Bliven and Kelty, 2005) summarizes legal bases for developing visual impact 

standards and analysis techniques, local and 

state capabilities to implement visual impact 

standards, and mitigation projects.

Evaluation of the Economic Costs and Benefits of 

Methods for Reducing Nutrient Loads to the Gulf of 

Mexico (Doering et al., 1999) evaluates the social 

and economic costs and benefits of alternative 

methods for reducing nutrient loads to the Gulf 

of Mexico. The report is part of a hypoxia science 

assessment documenting the state of knowledge 

of the extent, characteristics, causes, and effects 

(ecological and economic) of hypoxia in the 

northern Gulf of Mexico.

Integrating Biology and Economics in Seagrass Restoration: How Much is Enough and Why? (Fonseca 

et al., 2000) discusses a technique for integrating field data and economic methods (Habitat 

Equivalency Analysis) to determine the amount 

of habitat that must be restored to compensate 

for the loss of public services resulting from environmental damage. 

Socioeconomic Causes and Consequences of Coastal 

Ecosystem Change (Huppert et al., 1998) describes 

methods to understand the linkages among 

human causes, consequences, and responses to 

ecosystem change. Figure 5. Schematic reflecting synthesis of information 

in integrated assessments (Adapted from Michigan 

Sea Grant, 2005).

MANAGEM

E

N

T

ENV

RI

O

N

M

ENTAL RESEARCH

HUMAN DIMENSIONS RESEARCH

DISCONNECTED

FROM SOCIETY

DISCONNECTED

FROM DECISIONS

DISCONNECTED

FROM ENVIRONMENT

INFORMED

DECISIONS
National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science 11

The Effects of Urbanization on Human and Ecosystem Health (Vernberg et al., 1996) discusses the 

impact of environmental change on water quality and human health. 

Economic Valuation of Natural Resources: A Handbook for Coastal Resource Policymakers (Lipton et 

al., 1995) explains basic economic concepts and 

tools used in environmental decisionmaking 

such as willingness-to-pay, cost effectiveness 

analysis, economic impact analysis, and sustainable development.

Ongoing Projects

Assessing the biogeographic and socioeconomic effects of a no-take area established in 

2001 in the Tortugas Ecological Reserve in 

the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

(http://www8.nos.noaa.gov/nccos/npe/

projectdetail.aspx?id=28&fy=2002).

Assessing community vulnerability to 

tidal creek flooding and the effects of wa-

•

•

ter quality on property values and other 

aspects of quality of life in the Mid-Atlantic and Gulf Coast states (http://www8.

nos.noaa.gov/nccos/npe/projectdetail.

aspx?id=215&fy=2007).

Documenting and incorporating traditional 

ecological knowledge (TEK) and local ecological knowledge (LEK) into resource management programs in Alaska (http://www8.

nos.noaa.gov/nccos/npe/projectdetail.

aspx?id=517&fy=2007).

Collecting and analyzing socioeconomic information supporting the Southeast Florida 

Coral Reef Initiative, Florida Reef Resiliency 

Program, and Florida Keys National Marine 

Sanctuary.

Other Highlights

The NCCOS-sponsored project Coral Reef Ecosystems Study: Integrating Science and Management in the Caribbean documented LEK and TEK 

•

•

Figure 6. United States regional ecosystems delineated by NOAA.
12 National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science

and perceptions of marine resource use, management systems, and coral reef health to inform 

the establishment and co-management of marine 

protected areas (MPAs) in Puerto Rico (http://

www8.nos.noaa.gov/nccos/npe/projectdetail.

aspx?id=42&fy=2007).

As part of the NCCOS-sponsored project Coral 

Reef Ecosystems Study: Integrating Science and Management in the Tropical Pacific Islands, the Palau 

International Coral Reef Center used the results 

of community surveys to focus outreach efforts 

informing Palauan traditional leaders and communities about the impacts of erosion on coral 

reefs. These outreach efforts led to community 

engagement and a moratorium on mangrove 

clearing, ultimately facilitating conservation of 

the reefs and sustainability of the vital services 

they provide to Palauan communities (http://

www8.nos.noaa.gov/nccos/npe/projectdetail.

aspx?id=468&fy=2007).

A chapter of the National Coastal Condition Report 

II, “Health of Galveston Bay for Human Use” 

assesses the health of Galveston Bay relative to 

its capacity to provide for human uses such as 

marine transportation; commercial and recreational fishing; receiving waters for industrial, 

municipal, and thermal wastes; recreational activities; oil and gas production sites; and residential housing. This assessment complements other 

chapters focusing on environmental impacts 

of human activities (Environmental Protection 

Agency, 2004).
Human Dimensions Research Goals and Objectives 13

4. Goals and Objectives

Goal 1

Provide Human Dimensions 

Understanding Critical to Support an 

Ecosystem Approach to Management

Coastal Decisionmaking

Objective 1.1: Develop and apply existing tools 

to foster effective local, regional, and national 

coastal decisionmaking processes that integrate 

scientific analysis and stakeholder deliberation.

Rationale

Articulating a vision for resource management 

and other coastal decisions requires deliberation 

of conflicting societal objectives. Stakeholder 

participation in deliberation fosters a broadly 

acceptable vision and effective strategies to 

achieve it. The USCOP (2004) calls for changes in 

governance to foster stakeholder participation. 

This call echoes an influential NRC study (1996) 

recommending decisionmaking that integrates 

scientific analysis and broad-based stakeholder 

participation in deliberation. Leadership guided 

by decisionmaking tools is needed to structure 

effective analytic-deliberative processes in local, 

regional, and national coastal decisionmaking. 

Discussion

Stakeholder participation in decisionmaking is 

an opportunity to elicit diverse societal values, 

establish clear objectives linking values to resource outcomes, develop measurable indicators, and examine tradeoffs through broad-based 

deliberation. Participatory decisionmaking not 

only honors the democratic right of citizens to 

participate meaningfully in public decisions, 

but also fosters a broadly acceptable vision and 

effective strategies to achieve it (e.g., Mascia, 

2003; NRC, 1996). Recognizing this opportunity, 

the USCOP (2004, p. 66) calls for governance 

changes fostering broad stakeholder participation 

to help decisionmakers balance “multiple desirable but competing objectives.” In addition, in a 

2006 survey of coastal managers sponsored by 

NOAA’s Coastal Services Center, almost half of 

the respondents rated stakeholder engagement 

processes as highly useful and another 23 percent gave a rating of medium usefulness (NOAA 

Coastal Services Center, 2006). These examples 

echo an influential 1996 NRC study recommending approaches integrating scientific analysis and 

broad stakeholder participation in deliberation 

(an analytic-deliberative approach) (NRC, 1996). 

In addition to conflicting (and changing) values, 

coastal decisionmaking is often challenged by the 

complexity of coupled social-ecological systems, 

scientific uncertainty, multi-scale management, 

multi-agency authority, multiple stakeholders, 

time pressure, and scarce funds (NRC, 2005). 

Leadership is needed to foster an analytic-deliberative approach to addressing these challenges in local, regional, and national resource 

management and other coastal decisionmaking 

processes. This leadership must be guided by an 

understanding of human judgment and organizational behavior, as well as tools and techniques 

for structuring analysis and deliberation (e.g., 

Gregory et al., 2001; Gregory and Wellman, 2001; 

Brown et al., 2001).

There is no standard procedure for structuring an 

analytic-deliberative approach to decisionmaking. Needs and effective tools will depend on the 

decision context, including stressors and risks addressed, legal mandates, and governance structure (NRC, 1996). The field of decision science 

has developed tools and techniques for purposes 

such as clarifying participants’ values and preferences for specific action alternatives; addressing 

uncertainty and disagreement about the implications of action alternatives; and arriving at a 

social choice despite conflicting individual understandings and values (NRC, 2005). Such techniques can be applied in the context of innovative 

approaches to participatory decisionmaking such 

as co-management of protected areas (EndterWada et al., 1998). In addition to decision science, 

fields such as psychology, organizational studies, applied ethics, professional facilitation, and 

economics offer important perspectives. The 2005 

NRC study, Decision Making for the Environment: 

Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities, 

reviews decision support tools and recommends 

research to improve environmental decisionmaking.
14 Human Dimensions Research Goals and Objectives

The social science method of stakeholder analysis 

provides a starting point for structuring decisionmaking processes by identifying and describing 

key stakeholders. Methods such as focus groups, 

interviews, and surveys provide information 

on stakeholders’ values, desired uses, and other 

characteristics that inform the evaluation of 

tradeoffs. Description of other stakeholder characteristics can help decisionmakers anticipate the 

effectiveness of alternative actions and design 

effective communications to facilitate stakeholder 

support. These include stakeholder interrelations 

(e.g., conflicts), attitudes, motivations, beliefs, 

intentions, satisfaction with management, perceptions of risk and resource quality, and preferences for management actions.

Human Causes and Socioeconomic 

Drivers of Ecosystem Stress

Objective 1.2: Assess the status and trends in human behavioral patterns contributing to coastal 

ecosystem stress and their complex socioeconomic drivers. Help coastal decisionmakers identify 

and facilitate strategies for changing human behavior when desirable to achieve environmental, 

social, and economic goals. 

Rationale

Reducing stress on coastal systems generally 

requires accommodating or encouraging change 

in human behavioral patterns such as exurban 

development, agricultural practices, and resource 

use. Developing effective intervention strategies requires understanding behavioral patterns 

requiring remediation and their complex natural 

and socioeconomic drivers.

Discussion

Coastal resource management requires accommodating or encouraging change in human behavioral patterns such as resource uses to reduce the 

threat they pose to ecosystem goods and services. 

Understanding and monitoring environmentally 

significant behavioral patterns and the socioeconomic factors driving them is critical to help 

resource managers identify effective and efficient 

strategies (Sutinen et al., 2005; Endter-Wada et 

al., 1998). Socioeconomic drivers of environmentally significant human behavior include demographic (e.g., population growth and migration); 

economic (e.g., income growth and distribution); sociopolitical (e.g., resource use conflict); 

psychological (e.g., values, attitudes, and beliefs 

influencing human decisions); and scientific and 

technological factors (e.g., new technologies for 

resource harvest) (Nelson et al., 2006). 

For example, nutrient pollution fueling hypoxic 

conditions and some harmful algal species is 

caused by sewage and wastewater treatment 

effluent, agricultural and other fertilizer runoff, 

waste from animal feed operations, aquaculture 

discharge, and atmospheric deposition from fossil fuel combustion (Anderson et al., 2002). Understanding how economic factors influence the 

use of fertilizers and fossil fuels (such as government programs supporting fertilizer intensive 

crops) provides insight into the effectiveness 

of alternative pollution abatement approaches 

(Segerson and Walker, 2002). From a cultural 

perspective, an anthropological study by Urban 

(2005, p. 177) concluded that farming decisions 

are also influenced by farmers’ ideals of “what it 

means to be a progressive or successful farmer.” 

Efforts to change farming decisions may be enhanced by framing scientific and other guidance 

to resonate with these ideals.

Societal Consequences 

of Policy and Management

Objective 1.3: Help resource managers and other 

coastal decisionmakers anticipate the social, cultural, economic, and public health consequences 

of alternative actions and evaluate the consequences of actions taken.

Rationale

Coastal decisionmaking requires anticipating 

and weighing the costs and benefits of alternative actions (including policies, programs, plans, 

and projects) across environmental, social, cultural, economic, and public health dimensions. 

Methods of social, economic, and health impact 

assessment complement environmental impact 

assessment to provide decisionmakers with a full 

understanding of potential intended and unintended consequences. Such an understanding 

helps decisionmakers identify alternatives that 

promote benefits (and equitable distribution of 

benefits) and avoid unacceptable costs. This pri-
Human Dimensions Research Goals and Objectives 15

ority echoes an objective in the NCCOS Strategic 

Plan (FY 2005 – FY 2009) to assess the social and 

economic costs and benefits of alternative development scenarios for navigation and aquaculture 

(NOAA NCCOS, 2004) (see Appendix 2, Excerpts 

from NCCOS and NOAA Strategic Plans).

Discussion 

Social Impact Assessment. Social impact assessment (SIA) grew out of the impact assessment 

provisions of the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. § 4332). The NEPA-implementing regulations require Federal agencies to 

assess “aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, 

social, or health” effects of major actions “whether direct, indirect, or cumulative” (40 C.F.R. §§ 

1500-1508). In addition to NEPA, the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.) and Executive Order 

12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations, require Federal agencies to analyze 

and consider social and economic consequences 

in decisionmaking. Although these are Federal 

regulations, the value of SIA to coastal decisionmaking extends beyond Federal agencies to 

inform a diverse array of coastal decisionmakers. 

A statement of SIA principles endorsed by the 

International Association for Impact Assessment 

defines SIA as a collection of methods for “analyzing, monitoring, and managing the intended 

and unintended social consequences, both positive and negative” of alternative actions (Vanclay, 2003, p. 6; see also Interorganizational Committee on Principles and Guidelines for Social 

Impact Assessment, 2003). The statement characterizes the wide range of social factors considered 

in SIAs, including:

Way of life – how people live, work, play, and

interact with one another;

Culture – people’s shared beliefs, customs, values,

and language or dialect;

Community – its cohesion, stability, character,

services, and facilities;

•

•

•

Political systems – the extent to which people are

able to participate in decisions affecting their lives,

and the resources provided for this purpose;

Environment – the quality of the air and water

people use; the availability and quality of the food

they eat; the level of hazard or risk, dust, and noise

to which they are exposed; the adequacy of sanitation; their physical safety; and their access to and

control over resources;

Health – a state of complete physical, mental,

social, and spiritual well-being and not merely the

absence of disease or infirmity;

Personal and property rights – particularly whether

people are economically affected, or experience

personal disadvantage which may include a violation of their civil liberties; and

Fears and aspirations – people’s perceptions about

their safety, their fears about the future of their

community, and their aspirations for their future

and the future of their children (modified from 

Vanclay, 2003, p. 8).

Economic Impact Analysis. Economic impact analysis is a method for determining how an action 

will affect economic activities such as revenues, 

expenditures, and employment (Lipton et al., 

1995). Methods for putting a dollar figure on the 

costs and benefits of alternative management 

actions are contested and require improvement 

(e.g., accounting for the true costs and benefits of 

alternative actions for non-market values). Nonmarket values are outcomes (such as the preservation of cultural heritage) that are valued, but 

not traded directly in markets. Moreover, it is important to point out that conducting an economic 

impact analysis does not eliminate the need for 

assessing the social impacts of alternative actions, 

as these methods reveal different kinds of consequences. For example, “an economic analysis of 

a proposed fishery allocation might suggest an 

increase in jobs, local trade, and tax bases. The 

same data subjected to a social impact assessment 

might indicate community changes and losses 

due to a shift from year-round to seasonal employment ... [as well as] decreased opportunities 

for crew members to become vessel owner/oper-

•

•

•

•

•
16 Human Dimensions Research Goals and Objectives

ators, loss of cultural values, and a rise in cultural 

costs to families and communities as they deal 

with the social effects of under employment” 

(NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, 1997, 

App. 2g, Section 1). 

Health Impact Assessment. Health impact assessment is commonly defined as “a combination 

of procedures, methods, and tools by which a 

policy, program, or project may be assessed and 

judged for its potential effects on the health of the 

population and the distribution of these impacts 

within the population” (European Centre for 

Health Policy, 1999; see also World Health Organization: http://www.who.int/hia/en/ and 

Centers for Disease Control: http://www.cdc.

gov/healthyplaces/hia.htm).

Traditional and Local Ecological Knowledge

Objective 1.4: Conduct community-based research documenting traditional and local ecological knowledge, facilitate its application to 

enhance coastal and ocean science and management, and equitably share benefits with local 

communities. 

Rationale

Community-based documentation of TEK and 

LEK enhances coastal science and management, 

and benefits communities.

Discussion

Community-based documentation of TEK and 

LEK can enhance coastal and ocean science and 

management by supporting or augmenting scientific observations, suggesting testable hypotheses, 

contributing explanatory and predictive models, 

and expressing novel ways of understanding the 

relation of humans to the rest of nature (Drew, 

2005; Huntington, 2000). TEK is “a cumulative 

body of knowledge, practice, and belief, evolving 

by adaptive processes and handed down through 

generations by cultural transmission, about the 

relationship of living beings (including humans) 

with one another and with their environment” 

(Berkes et al., 2000, p. 1252). “Traditional knowledge systems are based on the shared experiences, 

customs, values, traditions, subsistence lifestyles, 

social interactions, ideological orientations, and 

spiritual beliefs unique to aboriginal communities” (Stevenson, 1996, p. 281).

Like TEK, LEK “is tied to place (e.g., specific hunting or fishing grounds) and is acquired through 

experience and observation. LEK differs from TEK 

in that it does not require an ancient or even multigenerational accumulation of knowledge, it does 

not require that the population be indigenous, 

and it does not require embedding in a broader 

shared culture” (NOAA National Marine Fisheries 

Service Local Fisheries Knowledge Project, http://

www.st.nmfs.gov/lfkproject/02_c.definitions.

htm).

TEK and LEK encompass taxonomic, population, 

and ecosystem levels (Drew, 2005) including human dimensions such as resource use patterns, 

community attitudes, and management practices. 

For example:

Practices found both in conventional resource 

management and in some local and traditional 

societies (e.g., monitoring resource abundance, 

protection of vulnerable life history stages, 

protection of habitats, temporal restrictions of 

harvest, and species protection);

Practices largely abandoned by conventional 

resource management but still found in some 

local and traditional societies (e.g., multiple 

species management, resource rotation, and 

succession management); and

Practices related to the dynamics of complex systems, seldom found in conventional 

resource management but found in some 

traditional societies (e.g., management of 

landscape patches, watershed-based management, managing ecological processes at multiple scales, and responding to and managing 

pulses and surprises) (Berkes et al., 2000; 

Folke et al., 1998).

TEK and LEK have not been widely integrated 

into coastal and ocean science or resource management in part due to the unfamiliarity of environmental scientists and managers with social 

science methods required for documentation 

(Huntington, 2000). The purpose of this objective 

•

•

•
Human Dimensions Research Goals and Objectives 17

is to build on NCCOS’ success documenting and 

using TEK and LEK to enhance coastal and ocean 

science, including incorporating these forms of 

knowledge into Integrated Ecosystem Assessments (see Objective 2.2, Integrated Ecosystem 

Assessments) and other tools supporting coastal 

decisionmaking. Following international law and 

policy regarding the rights of indigenous peoples 

(United Nations Environment Programme Convention on Biological Diversity, http://www.

biodiv.org/doc/legal/cbd-un-en.pdf; Mauro 

and Hardison, 2000), research should incorporate community participation at all stages and 

demonstrate respect for community self-determination and cultural heritage – for example, 

by equitably sharing any benefits arising from 

documentation.

Institutional Strategies

Objective 1.5: Analyze existing institutional approaches, and evaluate and facilitate prospects 

for (re)designing institutions, to enhance coastal 

and ocean science and management.

Rationale

Analysis and development of institutional approaches is critical to foster formal and informal 

interactions across multiple scales, regions, stakeholders, and sectors that facilitate an ecosystem 

approach to coastal and ocean resource management.

Discussion 

For purposes here, institutions are defined as the 

patterns of interaction among scientists, resource 

managers, stakeholders, and others integral to 

coastal decisionmaking and its scientific support. 

Some interactions are shaped by formal laws 

and policies. For example, the Magnuson Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act of 1976 created eight regional fishery management councils 

to manage the living marine resources within the 

United States Exclusive Economic Zone. The Act 

also created a formal structure governing councils by specifying their membership, functions, 

and operating procedures, and the required and 

discretionary contents of fishery management 

plans. Other interactions are structured by informal norms such as communication and leadership styles that vary across disciplines, organizations, and individuals (for a more nuanced 

definition of institutions, see IHDP, 2005).

An ecosystem approach to management is fundamentally an endeavor in designing, managing, 

and maintaining institutions. The social scientific 

discipline of Institutional Analysis focuses on the 

role that institutions play in resource management, including strategies for generating understanding of social and environmental systems, 

stakeholder participation, handling scientific uncertainty in decisionmaking, resolving conflicts, 

promoting compliance with rules of resource use, 

and translating scientific information into policy 

change (e.g., Dietz et al., 2003; Juda, 1999; Hanna, 

1998; Ostrom, 1990). In addition, the institutionalization of social science data collection, storage, management, and mining is a fundamental 

problem for incorporating human dimensions 

consideration into coastal decisionmaking (Collins et al., 2007). 

The United Nations Joint Group of Experts on the 

Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (2001, p. 97) recognizes that “Institutional 

Analysis provides a systematic way of obtaining an understanding of the nature, strengths, 

and weaknesses of institutions within the context in which they are operating or in which it is 

proposed they may operate in the future. It is, 

therefore, a key element in moving away from 

sectoral-based management of natural resources 

to an holistic [ecosystem] approach that is likely 

to require modifications in the roles of different 

institutions” (see also Imperial, 1999a and 1999b). 

Leschine and Chadsey (in prep.) provide an example. They applied an institutional framework 

to analyze Washington State’s management of 

recreational shellfish harvests using scientific 

information related to domoic acid contamination. Recommendations for institutional analysis 

aiding HAB research and response are provided 

by Bauer (2006). 

The SIMOR (2006, pp. 1-2) echoes this objective by identifying several institutional research 

needs as priority focal areas, including the need 

to: (1) “identify opportunities for improvements 

in the application of science in collaborative ef-
18 Human Dimensions Research Goals and Objectives

forts;” (2) “analyze ways to improve efficiency 

and effectiveness of interagency ocean, coastal, 

and Great Lakes resource management activities;” and (3) “identify next steps to enhance 

interagency coordination on use and conservation of marine resources (e.g., energy, fisheries, 

recreation, and transportation).” 

Evaluation of Products and Services

Objective 1.6: Determine the effectiveness of 

NCCOS’ products and services in promoting 

social, economic, and human health objectives.

Rationale

Social science methods are critical to link program outputs to intended social, economic, and 

human health objectives. Evaluation of program 

outputs demonstrates measurable success, enhancing public accountability and informing 

future program development.

Discussion

The Government Performance and Results Act 

of 1993 requires Federal agencies to provide the 

President and Congress an annual report evaluating the effectiveness of program activities in 

achieving strategic performance goals. Among 

other purposes, this requirement is intended to: 

(1) “improve Federal program effectiveness and 

public accountability,” (2) “help Federal managers improve service delivery by requiring that 

they plan for meeting program objectives and by 

providing them with information about program 

results and service quality,” and (3) “improve 

congressional decisionmaking by providing more 

objective information on achieving statutory 

objectives, and on the relative effectiveness and 

efficiency of Federal programs and spending” (31 

U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.). In addition, pursuant to 

Executive Order 12862, Setting Customer Service 

Standards (1993), measurement of customer satisfaction is required to evaluate program outputs.

Program evaluation is a distinct discipline with 

theories and methods related to diverse subjects 

and settings. The social, behavioral, and health 

sciences provide methods for gathering data that 

link program outputs to intended outcomes such 

as social, economic, and public health benefits. 

For example, a “value of information” approach 

estimates the economic value of market and 

non-market benefits resulting from improved 

decisionmaking enabled by information such 

as synthesized data and forecast products (e.g., 

Kite-Powell et al., 2004). Risk communication 

specialists use a variety of social science methods 

to retrospectively evaluate the efficacy of communications for program goals such as audience 

understanding of messages, targeted changes in 

attitudes or behavior that reduce impacts, and 

facilitation of successful stakeholder participation 

(Bostrom et al., 1994). 

Socially Responsible Science

Objective 1.7: Consult appropriate human dimensions specialists to address societal and ethical 

questions that arise in the conduct and use of 

NCCOS science.

Rationale

Socially responsible science requires anticipating and critically addressing societal and ethical 

questions related to issues such as stakeholder 

participation in research prioritization, public 

perceptions and societal implications of emerging science and technology, personal and professional decisionmaking, and defining success in 

restoration.

Discussion

The following examples illustrate the kinds of 

ethical questions that arise in the conduct and use 

of NCCOS science. 

Stakeholder Involvement in Research Prioritization.

The rationale for broad stakeholder participation 

in governmental decisionmaking is democratic, 

substantive, and instrumental. From a democratic 

standpoint, stakeholder participation upholds 

citizens’ right to meaningfully participate in governmental decisionmaking. From a substantive 

perspective, stakeholders can contribute important insights, questions, concerns, and observations that may otherwise remain unaddressed. 

Instrumentally, public participation can facilitate 

public acceptance of and trust in decisions (NRC, 

1996). NCCOS will consult appropriate human 

dimensions specialists to design research prioritization processes effective for facilitating these 

democratic, substantive, and instrumental out-
Human Dimensions Research Goals and Objectives 19

comes – both in developing the NCCOS research 

agenda and in facilitating regional and other 

research planning initiatives.

Public Deliberation of Emerging Coastal Science and 

Technology. Responsible development of emerging coastal science and technology requires 

analyzing and managing anticipated risks. Risk 

governance incorporates technical assessment of 

environmental, health, and safety risks as well as 

ethical, legal, and other societal issues. It further 

integrates technical assessment with understanding of public perceptions, attitudes, and concerns 

about the risk and benefits of emerging science 

and technology. Both of these components are 

critical to effectively engage all sectors of society 

in scientific (evidence-based) and societal (valuebased) deliberation about scientific and technological development (International Risk Governance Council, 2006). 

For example, clay flocculation has emerged as a 

promising method for reducing the significant 

public health, socioeconomic, and ecosystem 

impacts of HABs by directly controlling their 

causative organisms (e.g., Sengco and Anderson, 

2004). At a recent public forum on HABs held 

in Southwest Florida, coastal residents, environmental activists, and others expressed attitudes 

toward clay flocculation and other methods of 

HAB control that ranged from reasonably doubtful to strongly negative. Concerns included the 

ethical unacceptability of interfering in natural 

processes (appeals to the ideal of nature) and 

the possibility of unforeseen environmental and 

public health impacts of control mechanisms that 

may be worse than the blooms themselves (fear 

that the treatment will be worse than the disease). 

Democratic decisionmaking about the course of 

HAB control experimentation requires engaging 

stakeholders in weighing risks and opportunities. 

Engaging stakeholders in such deliberation requires not only correcting misconceptions about 

risk by providing information on technical risk 

assessment, but also understanding and addressing such concerns.

Personal and Professional Responsibility. The conduct and use of coastal and ocean science raises 

controversial ethical questions where legal guidance leaves off and personal-professional decisionmaking is required. When such questions 

arise, there is a need to bring ethicists, scientists, 

and resource managers together in collaborative 

problem-solving (Minteer and Collins, 2005). 

For example, participants in a recent human 

dimensions workshop sponsored by NOAA’s 

Coastal Research and Response Center (CRRC) 

highlighted numerous ethical quandaries with 

which they have grappled in the context of spill 

response and restoration: Does it make sense to 

spend thousands of public dollars to rehabilitate an individual bird that has a low likelihood 

of surviving and is ecologically insignificant? 

Would euthanasia be a more appropriate option? 

Are the expected benefits of response actions 

associated with protecting a resource, cleaning a 

shoreline, or salvaging a leaky tanker worth the 

risk of worker injury or fatality? Are the benefits 

of response actions such as burning oil worth 

the risk of damage to otherwise uncontaminated 

resources? Is it morally permissible to harvest or 

intentionally dose healthy animals to study contaminants? Under what criteria is in-situ burning 

an appropriate containment and cleanup method 

– considering the risk of harm to proximate human populations, air quality degradation, and 

injury to response personnel? 

Defining Success in Restoration. Participants at the 

CRRC workshop also raised the question of how 

to define success in the context of oil spill restoration. On the one hand, this is a legal question. 

Natural Resource Damage Assessment regulations promulgated under the Oil Pollution Act of 

1990 establish “baseline conditions” as the legal 

standard of success. Baseline refers to the “condition of natural resources and services that would 

have existed had the incident not occurred” 

(NOAA, 1997). However, this legal standard 

invokes ethical questions with serious practical 

import. Do spill responders, regulators, and other 

parties integral to restoration have a responsibility to restore public health, sociocultural, and 

economic conditions degraded by an incident, 

including natural resource services not traded in 

markets? Such a responsibility would necessitate 

broadening restoration practice to conduct injury 

assessment and restoration planning explicitly 
20 Human Dimensions Research Goals and Objectives

with respect to social values related to culture, 

family, and community.

On the other hand, even if the legal standard 

is understood to encompass social values, the 

acceptability of “baseline” as the legal endpoint 

for restoration is itself questionable. On what 

grounds should historical conditions (i.e., those 

characterizing a community and its natural 

environment at the time of an oil spill) receive 

favored status? Is there good reason to think that 

the standard for restoration ought to demand 

engagement, coordination, and enhancement of 

community capacities to improve sociocultural, 

public health, economic, and environmental 

conditions from baseline in so far as practicable? 

An affirmative answer to this question would 

demand a standard of community engagement 

and development rather than restoration of the 

status quo.

Goal 2

Provide Integrative Ecosystem 

Understanding Critical to Support an 

Ecosystem Approach to Management

Integrative Ecosystem Models 

and Decision Support Tools

Objective 2.1: Provide decisionmakers with 

integrative ecosystem models and other decision support tools linking changes in ecosystem 

services to human causes, consequences, and 

responses.

Rationale

Coastal decisionmaking to sustain societal values 

requires scientific monitoring, analysis, and forecasting that links changes in ecosystem services 

to human causes, consequences, and responses.

Discussion

An ecosystem approach to management requires 

an ecosystem approach to science supporting 

management. For example, understanding the 

implications of ecosystem stress for societal benefits requires understanding changes in ecosystem 

services. Understanding changes in ecosystem 

services requires understanding the interactive, 

cumulative effects of human activities and their 

complex socioeconomic drivers. Protecting and 

restoring societal benefits in response to such 

changes requires anticipating the environmental 

and societal consequences of policy and management options. 

Recommendations of an External Ecosystem Task 

Team to NOAA’s Science Advisory Board (2006) 

urge the development of social science capabilities needed to understand human causes, consequences, and responses. Approaches to linking 

human dimensions and environmental information may include, but should not be limited to 

geographic information systems (GIS); analytic 

approaches such as Integrated Ecosystem Assessments (see Objective 2.2, Integrated Ecosystem Assessments); and ecosystem forecasts and 

conceptual models. Four component models link 

human activities as drivers of environmental 

change, mechanisms of environmental change, 

effects of environmental change on valued ecosystem components, and resulting alterations of 

flows of goods and services valued by humans 

(Reiter, 2004; Reiter et al., 2006). Integrative 

approaches will require active, persistent, and 

adaptive interdisciplinary learning and collaboration throughout the process of research design, 

implementation, application, and evaluation.

Integrated Ecosystem Assessments

Objective 2.2: Provide leadership among scientific, 

management, and other stakeholder partners to 

define, produce, and facilitate the use of Integrated Ecosystem Assessments incorporating critical 

human dimensions information.

Rationale

Integrated Ecosystem Assessments are a priority 

for NCCOS in supporting regional ecosystembased approaches to coastal decisionmaking. NCCOS is uniquely positioned to provide leadership 

among scientific, management, and other stakeholder partners in incorporating critical human 

dimensions components into Integrated Ecosystem Assessments.
Human Dimensions Research Goals and Objectives 21

Discussion

The Pew Oceans Commission (2003) and USCOP 

(2004) call for regional ecosystem-based approaches to coastal decisionmaking. NOAA’s External Ecosystem Task Team (2006) and NCCOS 

have identified the development of Integrated 

Ecosystem Assessments as a priority to provide 

scientific support for regional ecosystem-based 

approaches. Integrated Ecosystem Assessments 

synthesize available scientific information to assess the status and trajectory of regional ecosystems, and anticipate costs and benefits of alternative resource management actions. They provide 

a scientific foundation for regional resource 

managers and stakeholders to work together to 

clarify objectives and develop indicators; evaluate tradeoffs; and select, implement, and evaluate 

strategies. Integrated Ecosystem Assessments are 

iteratively developed and revisited. Subsequent 

assessments evaluate past success in predicting 

the consequences of alternative management 

strategies as well as implementing previously 

identified research needs.

Human dimensions considerations are fundamental to both the science and the purpose of 

Integrated Ecosystem Assessments. First, the 

assessment component is intended to describe 

the capability of ecosystem services to support 

diverse societal objectives. Stakeholder assessment and participation in decisionmaking (e.g., 

through community visioning excercises) are 

required to clarify societal values, link values to 

supporting ecosystem services, and develop a 

broadly acceptable set of measurable indicators 

as criteria for assessment. Second, assessment 

focuses on ecosystem-level interactions, including human drivers and consequences of ecosystem stress (as discussed in Objective 1.2, Human 

Causes and Socioeconomic Drivers of Ecosystem 

Stress). Third, the predictive component of Integrated Ecosystem Assessments must anticipate 

consequences of alternative resource management actions for social, cultural, economic, and 

human health dimensions in addition to the state 

of the environment (as discussed in Objective 

1.3, Societal Consequences of Policy and Management). This information is critical to evaluate 

tradeoffs and select approaches that maximize 

benefits while avoiding unacceptable costs. 

NCCOS’ emerging focus on integrative ecosystem science (coupled social-ecological systems) 

puts it in a unique position to provide leadership 

among scientific, management, and stakeholder 

partners in developing Integrated Ecosystem 

Assessments that include the following critical 

human dimensions components:

1. Ecosystem Assessment Criteria. As illustrated 

by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 

(2005), ecosystem assessment links changes in 

ecosystem services to measurable indicators 

of societal values. Development of indicators 

for regional ecosystem assessment should be 

informed by understanding of stakeholder 

values and ecosystem services required to 

support them. Understanding of stakeholder 

values is provided by the social science method of stakeholder analysis and stakeholder 

participation in decisionmaking. The adequacy of social science information to develop 

criteria for ecosystem assessment will vary 

by region. When sufficiently descriptive or 

broadly representative information is lacking, 

decision processes guided by social science 

tools must be developed and implemented to 

establish a regional management vision and 

indicators (stakeholder analysis and participatory decision processes are described in Objective 1.1, Coastal Decisionmaking). 

2. Causes of Ecosystem Stress: Integrated Ecosystem Assessments should synthesize existing 

information on the status and trends in human 

and natural causes of ecosystem stress, and 

underlying socioeconomic drivers. Such information is critical to complement understanding of the status and trends in biogeographic 

characteristics and ecological mechanisms of 

ecosystem stress.

3. Human and Societal Consequences of Ecosystem 

Stress: Integrated Ecosystem Assessments 

should synthesize existing information on 

status and trends in ecosystem services and 

consequences for social, cultural, economic, 

and human health dimensions.

4. Predicted Consequences of Management Options: 

Integrated Ecosystem Assessments should 

help resource managers and other coastal 
22 Human Dimensions Research Goals and Objectives

decisionmakers evaluate tradeoffs by anticipating and weighing the costs and benefits 

of alternative actions. Toward this end, they 

should predict the likely consequences of 

alternatives (including no action) across environmental, social, cultural, economic, and 

public health dimensions. 

5. Research Needs: Integrated Ecosystem Assessments should identify gaps in critical human 

dimensions understanding, and provide 

recommendations for needed research. Gaps 

in human dimensions information are likely to 

be significant and require the development of 

NCCOS and NOAA social science capabilities. 

Goal 3

Promote Ecosystem Resilience 

Promoting ecosytem resilience is a national and 

international priority (e.g., NRC, 2006; United 

Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, 2005; Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000). 

As defined by the United Nations International 

Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) (2005, p. 

4), resilience is the capacity of a “system, community, or society potentially exposed to hazards to 

adapt, by resisting or changing, in order to reach 

an acceptable level of functioning and structure. 

This is determined by the degree to which the 

social system is capable of organizing itself to 

increase its capacity for learning from past disasters for better future protection and to improve 

risk reduction measures.” A hazard is “an act 

or phenomenon that has the potential to produce harm or other undesirable consequences to 

humans or what they value” (NRC, 1996, p. 215). 

Hazards encompass human-caused and natural, 

and chronic and episodic phenomena – including 

the ecosystem stressors that serve as focal areas 

for NCCOS science (i.e., climate change, extreme 

natural events, pollution, invasive species, and 

resource use). 

Conversely, vulnerability refers to an erosion 

of resilience – i.e., the susceptibility of coastal 

systems, coastal communities, and specific human populations (e.g., subsistence users) to 

impacts from hazards. Vulnerability is influenced 

by characteristics of and linkages among the 

natural, built, and sociocultural environments 

(Heinz Center, 2000). For example, global coastal 

vulnerability is increasing due to the interplay 

of changing demographic, technological, and 

socioeconomic conditions; unplanned urbanization; development within high-risk zones; 

environmental degradation; climate variability 

and change; geological hazards; competition for 

scarce resources; and the impact of health epidemics (ISDR, 2005). The vulnerability of small 

island communities is heightened by factors such 

as the infeasibility of migrating out of danger 

zones and extreme land values.

Resilience and vulnerability are properties of 

coupled social-ecological systems. “Importantly, 

the social and biophysical responses or coping 

mechanisms influence and feed back to affect 

each other, so that a response in the human 

subsystem could make the biophysical subsystem more or less able to cope, and vise versa” 

(Turner et al., 2003, p. 8077). For example, “environmental degradation such as land clearing, 

coastal erosion, over fishing, and coral mining 

has reduced the potential for economic recovery 

from the [2004] Asian tsunami because of the loss 

of traditional income sources related to coastal 

ecosystems rich in biodiversity and ecosystem 

functions” (Adger et al., 2005, p. 1038). 

Risk and Vulnerability Assessment

Objective 3.1: Assess the risk and vulnerability of coastal communities to ecosystem stress, 

responding to the needs of decisionmakers and 

stakeholders to support mitigation planning.

Rationale

Risk and vulnerability assessments are critical to 

inform hazard mitigation planning.

Discussion

Risk and vulnerability assessments provide a basis for collaboration across sectors, agencies, and 

communities-at-risk to evaluate existing responses to ecosystem stress, and focus on critical needs 

and opportunities for enhancing resilience. The 

NRC (2006, p. 2) expresses this research imperative in the context of disaster preparedness and 

response, stating that “disaster research, which 
Human Dimensions Research Goals and Objectives 23

has focused historically on emergency response 

and recovery, is incomplete without the simultaneous study of the societal hazards and risks 

of disasters, which includes data on the vulnerability of people living in hazard-prone areas.” 

“The starting point for reducing disaster risk and 

for promoting a culture of disaster resilience lies 

in the knowledge of the hazards and the physical, social, economic, and environmental vulnerabilities to disasters that most societies face, and 

of the ways in which hazards and vulnerabilities 

are changing in the short and long term” (ISDR, 

2005, p. 7). Coastal managers have also expressed 

a need for risk and vulnerability assessments. In 

a 2006 survey of coastal managers sponsored by 

NOAA’s Coastal Services Center, 70 percent of 

respondents agreed with the statement that “I 

need to know about risk and vulnerability assessment for my job” (NOAA Coastal Services Center, 2006). 

Risk and vulnerability assessments are a “systematic approach to organizing and analyzing 

scientific information” about risk and vulnerability to inform hazard planning, response, and 

recovery (NRC, 1996, p. 4). NCCOS vulnerability 

assessments will determine the likelihood of adverse impacts of key hazards to the natural, built, 

business, and social environments of coastal 

communities (see Heinz Center, 2000). Risk and 

vulnerability assessments include the following 

components:

1. Hazard Identification: Identification of one or 

more hazards to which ecosystems - both social and ecological systems - may be exposed;

2. Risk Assessment: Estimation of the likelihood 

that potential hazards will occur;

3. Vulnerability Assessment: Assessment of the 

susceptibility of coastal systems, coastal communities, and specific human populations to 

potential impacts of hazards; and

4. Characterization of Risks and Vulnerabilities: 

A synthesis of results that responds to the 

needs and concerns of decisionmakers and 

stakeholders, and addresses uncertainties (see

Heinz Center, 2000; NRC, 1996).

Risk Communication 

Objective 3.2: Reduce the vulnerability of coastal 

systems and human communities to ecosystem 

stress by applying research-based strategies to 

communicate scientific information in ways that 

foster public understanding, trust, and risk-reducing behavior.

Rationale

Reducing vulnerability to hazards requires communication of scientific information that fosters 

public understanding of risks, trust in the communicating agency, and risk-reducing behavior. 

The multi-disciplinary field of risk communication can help NCCOS develop and test products, 

and facilitate their use in decisionmaking, to 

achieve these outcomes.

Discussion

Translating scientific information and products 

into desirable societal outcomes is in large part a 

challenge of communication. In a report entitled 

Grand Challenges for Disaster Reduction, the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) 

explains that, to be effective, communication of 

hazard information must foster public understanding and trust. At-risk populations must then 

respond appropriately to mitigate and adapt to 

undesirable environmental, sociocultural, and 

economic consequences. The NSTC concludes 

that this communication challenge “can only be 

met by effectively leveraging the findings from 

social science research” (NSTC, 2005, p. 11). 

Many NCCOS products communicate hazard 

information. These include ecological forecasts 

of sea level rise, HABs, and hypoxia; monitoring 

of chemical contaminants; and assessments of 

invasive species abundance and distribution. The 

purpose of such products is to help decisionmakers and at-risk populations understand the nature 

of coastal hazards and their potential impacts on 

the environment and society. Ultimately, such 

understanding is essential to reduce vulnerability 

to impacts; it enables decisionmakers to develop 

effective mitigation strategies and at-risk populations to choose risk-reducing behaviors. As suggested by the NSTC, achieving these outcomes 

requires social science input into the production 

and delivery of scientific understanding and 
24 Human Dimensions Research Goals and Objectives

tools. Among other disciplines, the multi-disciplinary field of risk communication can help 

NCCOS scientists work with coastal managers 

and other customers to develop and test products, and facilitate their use in decisionmaking, to 

address the following needs:

1. Identify Audiences: NCCOS’ scientific products 

should reach beyond traditional audiences 

such as resource managers to other groups 

integral to mitigating ecosystem stress. Depending on the stressor, these may include 

at-risk populations, emergency responders, 

land use planners, public health professionals, and sectors such as agriculture and tourism.

2. Understand Audiences: Characteristics of audiences can influence product effectiveness by 

influencing access, interpretation, and response to hazard information. These include 

audience concerns, perceptions of risks, attitudes, knowledge, level of credence and trust 

in authorities, cultural attributes, and primary information sources. A “mental models” 

approach to designing hazard communications compares an “expert” to a “layperson” 

understanding of risks, impacts, and mitigation strategies. Comparison reveals audience 

misconceptions and gaps in knowledge that 

must be addressed in product development 

to promote understanding of hazard information and ultimately risk-reducing behaviors 

(Atman et al., 1994).

3. Build Organizational Trust: The extent to 

which an audience believes risk information 

is closely related to its degree of trust and 

confidence in the communicating agency 

(Kasperson, 1986). Trust and credibility are 

influenced by factors such as perceptions of 

communicators’ knowledge, openness, honesty, and concern (Peters et al., 1997). 

4. Develop Effective Messages and Strategies: The 

content and delivery of hazard information 

influences an audience’s interpretation and 

behavioral response. For example, the way in 

which hazard information is presented can 

significantly influence an audience’s understanding, perception of the sending agency, 

and decision to seek additional supporting 

or contradicting information (Scherer et al., 

1999). Communication messages and strategies must be based on audience analysis to 

be effective. They must also take into consideration changes to the risk communication 

process as result of modern technology such 

as cell phones and the internet. NCCOS will 

enlist the help of risk communication specialists to develop, test, and deliver scientific 

products incorporating messages effective for 

promoting risk-reducing behaviors.

Goal 4

Provide Critical Support for 

NCCOS Human Dimensions Research

Organizational Capabilities 

Objective 4.1: Build organizational capabilities 

needed to foster improved support for coastal 

decisionmaking by expanding NCCOS’ science 

program to include an integral focus on human 

dimensions.

Rationale

Significant development of NCCOS organizational capabilities is required to provide human 

dimensions understanding critical to support 

coastal decisionmaking. 

Discussion

As stated in the Introduction, providing human 

dimensions understanding critical to support 

coastal decisionmaking will require retooling 

of many activities across NCCOS’ component 

research centers, laboratories, and partnerships 

with cooperating institutions such as NCCOS’ 

coral reef research institutes. The NCCOS research agenda must be established through 

customer- and stakeholder-informed strategies 

targeted to identify complementary human 

dimensions and environmental research priorities. Innovative approaches are needed to link the 

concepts, methods, and results of environmental 

and human dimensions research. Organizationally, critical needs include greater capacity in hu-
Human Dimensions Research Goals and Objectives 25

man dimensions disciplines; workforce training 

in mission critical human dimensions research; 

environmental science training for human dimensions staff; leadership with interdisciplinary team-building skills; practices that identify, 

encourage, and reward mission-critical human 

dimensions research; integrated environmental 

and human dimensions research planning; and 

adequate funding for human dimensions research. 

As part of a follow-up implementation plan, 

NCCOS will develop a strategy to build critical 

organizational capabilities, including: 

1. Human Resources: Develop an exceptional, 

competitively hired human dimensions 

team with an organizational structure 

that fosters cooperation in identifying and 

implementing human dimensions research 

objectives across NCCOS centers, laboratories, and cooperating institutions;

2. Human Dimensions Literate Workforce: Foster 

a workforce that understands, appreciates, 

and furthers mission critical human dimensions research;

3. Financial Resources: Obtain adequate funding to develop and execute a follow-up NCCOS Human Dimensions Research Implementation Plan;

4. Integrated Research Prioritization and Planning: Conduct integrated environmental 

and human dimensions research prioritization and planning in NCCOS; NOAA’s 

Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and 

Execution System (PPBES); and other planning processes; and

5. Partnerships: Identify and collaborate with 

NOAA and external partners to implement 

human dimensions research objectives.

Communications, Outreach, and Education

Objective 4.2: Identify and implement communications, outreach, and education strategies 

needed to foster improved support for coastal 

decisionmaking by expanding NCCOS’ science 

program to include an integral focus on human 

dimensions.

Rationale

Providing human dimensions understanding 

critical to support coastal decisionmaking requires communications, outreach, and education 

strategies. Critical outcomes include promoting 

ecosystem literacy, promoting human dimensions research objectives, providing visibility to 

NCCOS human dimensions research, and developing a human dimensions workforce.

Discussion

The purpose of this objective is to ensure that 

NCCOS communications, outreach, and education efforts assist the development and execution 

of a follow-up implementation plan using this 

document as a basis. Critical outcomes include 

reaching out to diverse audiences (e.g., NCCOS 

employees, partners, Congress, the public, students, coastal managers, and other decisionmakers) to:

1. Promote Ecosystem Literacy: NOAA has adopted a strategic objective to promote environmental literacy defined as “understanding of our planet’s dynamic air and water 

systems and the effect those systems have on 

all aspects of people’s lives” (NOAA, 2005, 

p. 16; see also NOAA Office of Education and 

Sustainable Development, 2004). NCCOS 

recognizes that environmental literacy is necessary, but not sufficient to support NOAA’s 

vision of “a better world through environmental and ecological knowledge and stewardship” (NOAA, 2005). Ecosystem literacy 

– defined as integrated understanding of 

interactions across all ecosystem components 

(including human causes, consequences, and 

responses to ecosystem stress) – is critical 

to inform decisionmaking by individuals, 

businesses, government agencies, the NOAA 

workforce, and others. NCCOS will promote ecosystem literacy within and beyond 
26 Human Dimensions Research Goals and Objectives

NOAA by integrating human dimensions 

information to reflect a comprehensive ecosystem approach in all internal and external 

communications, outreach, and educational 

activities. 

2. Promote Human Dimensions Research Objectives: NCCOS will promote human dimensions research objectives through leadership 

in NOAA’s Ecosystem Research Program, 

Ecosystem Goal Team, PPBES, strategic and 

research planning, outreach exhibits and 

communications, and other venues.

3. Provide Visibility to NCCOS Human Dimensions Research: Communications, outreach, 

and education venues provide opportunities 

to promote the visibility of NCCOS human 

dimensions research activities and products, 

which can serve to enhance national recognition, foster partnerships, and increase the 

trust and assistance of constituents.

4. Develop a Diverse Human Dimensions Workforce: A strategic goal of An Education Plan for 

NOAA is to increase the number of people, 

particularly in underrepresented groups, 

who choose education and careers supporting NOAA’s mission (NOAA Office of Education and Sustainable Development, 2004). 

NOAA’s Educational Partnership Program 

accomplishes this by providing financial 

assistance through competitive processes to 

minority serving institutions. Consistent with 

the findings of the Social Science Review 

Panel to NOAA’s Science Advisory Board 

(2003), NCCOS recognizes the need to develop and attract employees with critical human 

dimensions expertise and the requisite skills 

and dispositions for interdisciplinary collaboration. 
Appendix 1 27

Appendix 1. 

Human Dimensions Research 

Drivers

The following is a non-exhaustive list of mandatory authorities, authorizations, statutes of 

general applicability, and significant reports that 

require or substantially inform NCCOS human 

dimensions research. Drivers are categorized as 

cross-cutting or applicable to specific stressors, 

regions, or managed areas. 

Cross Cutting

International

Agenda 21 – Chapter 17: Oceans and Coasts

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 

1992

Provides the international basis for the protection and sustainable use of coastal and marine 

resources, including human dimensions research 

needs such as: (1) identifying existing and projected uses of coastal areas and their interactions; 

(2) developing and applying methods, such as 

national resource and environmental accounting, that reflect changes in value resulting from 

uses of coastal and marine areas; (3) developing 

socioeconomic and environmental indicators; (4) 

developing economic incentives to avoid degradation of the marine environment; and (5) considering traditional knowledge and interests of 

local communities, small-scale artisanal fisheries, 

and indigenous people in development and management programs. (http://www.un.org/esa/

sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/agenda21toc.htm)

Convention on Biological Diversity UNEP, 1992

Provides the international basis for the conservation, sustainable use, and equitable sharing of 

benefits arising from biodiversity. Commitments 

include: (1) respecting, preserving and maintaining traditional knowledge of the sustainable use 

of biological diversity with the involvement of 

indigenous peoples and local communities; (2) 

adopting social and economic incentives for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use; and 

(3) ensuring fair and equitable access to results 

and benefits of biotechnologies. (http://www.

biodiv.org/doc/legal/cbd-un-en.pdf)

Convention on Biological Diversity Strategic 

Plan UNEP, 2002

Guides implementation of the Convention of 

Biological Diversity at the national, regional, and 

global levels. Discusses socioeconomic obstacles 

to implementation such as poverty, population 

pressure, unsustainable consumption and production patterns, and lack of local capacities. 

(http://www.biodiv.org/sp/default.shtml)

Global Program of Action for the Protection 

of the Marine Environment from Land-Based 

Activities UNEP, 1995

Provides guidance in preventing, reducing, 

controlling, and/or eliminating marine degradation from land-based activities. Affirms that 

action priorities should, among other human 

dimensions considerations: (1) reflect the relative 

importance of impacts upon food security, public 

health, coastal and marine resources, ecosystem 

health, and socioeconomic benefits, including 

cultural values; (2) reflect the costs, benefits, 

and feasibility of options for action, including 

the long-term cost of no action; and (3) involve 

stakeholders. (http://www.gpa.unep.org/documents/full_text_of_the_english.pdf)

IHDP Science Plans IHDP, 2006

Promotes, catalyzes, and coordinates research on 

the human dimensions of global environmental 

change. IHDP currently has seven core projects 

with science plans and implementation strategies: Global Environmental Change and Human 

Security, Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental Change, Industrial Transformation, 

Land-Use and Land-Cover Change, Land-Ocean 

Interactions in the Coastal Zone, Urbanization 

and Global Environmental Change, and Global 

Land Project. (http://www.ihdp.uni-bonn.de/)
28 Appendix 1

Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis 

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005

“Focuses on ecosystem services (the benefits 

people obtain from ecosystems), how changes in 

ecosystem services have affected human well-being, how ecosystem changes may affect people in 

future decades, and response options that might 

be adopted at local, national, or global scales to 

improve ecosystem management and thereby 

contribute to human well-being and poverty 

alleviation. Synthesizes information from the scientific literature, datasets, and scientific models, 

and includes knowledge held by the private sector, practitioners, local communities and indigenous peoples” (from About the Millennium Assessment, http://ma.caudillweb.com/en/about.

overview.aspx). (http://www.maweb.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf)

Rio Declaration on Environment and 

Development UNEP, 1992

Establishes principles guiding national conduct 

for sustainable development, including the need 

to reduce and eliminate unsustainable patterns 

of production and consumption and promote 

appropriate demographic policies (Principle 8), 

the importance of public participation (Principle 

10), the use of the precautionary approach in 

the face of scientific uncertainty (Principle 15), 

the need for economic instruments to internalize environmental costs (Principle 16), and the 

vital role of indigenous and local communities 

in environmental decisionmaking (Principle 22). 

(http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/

aconf15126-1annex1.htm)

National

America’s Living Oceans: Charting a Course for 

Sea Change Pew Oceans Commission, 2003

Recommends reform in national policies and 

practices to combat major threats to oceans. Calls 

for increased national social science research 

capacity, including “monitoring of both human 

and natural systems” (p. 90) and documentation of traditional ecological knowledge. Affirms 

that “we need to know as much about people 

and economics as we do about the biology and 

ecology of living marine resources and ecosystems. Complex interactions between human and 

environmental systems must be better understood. Cooperative research involving the fishing industry and native communities, that offer 

valuable experiential and traditional knowledge, 

should be a central element of a number of these 

new scientific programs” (p. 89). (http://www.

pewtrusts.org/pdf/env_pew_oceans_final_report.pdf)

Charting a Course for Ocean Science in the 

United States: Research Priorities for the Next 

Decade JSOST, 2007

Outlines national ocean research priorities for 

the next 10 years. Identifies human dimensions 

research priorities such as understanding human 

use patterns that influence resource stability and 

sustainability, understanding and predicting the 

impact of anthropogenic processes on ecosystems, developing socioeconomic assessments and 

models to evaluate the impact of multiple human 

uses on ecosystems, understanding human health 

risks associated with the ocean and the potential 

benefits of ocean resources to human health, and 

understanding how human use and valuation of 

ocean resources can be affected by ocean-borne 

human health threats and how human activities 

can influence these threats. (http://ocean.ceq.

gov/about/docs/orppfinal.pdf)

Coastal Zone Management Act

and Amendments 16 U.S.C. §§ 1451 et seq.

Provides Federal grants to states for the development and implementation of coastal zone 

management programs to “achieve wise use of 

the land and water resources of the coastal zone, 

giving full consideration to ecological, cultural, 

historic, and esthetic values as well as the needs 

for compatible economic development” (§ 303 

(2)). 

Coral Reef Conservation Act and Amendments

16 U.S.C. §§ 6401 et seq.

Authorizes NOAA to issue matching grants for 

coral reef conservation activities. The 2006 reau-
Appendix 1 29

thorization specifies criteria for project approval, 

including “promoting and assisting entities to 

work with local communities, and all appropriate 

governmental and nongovernmental organizations, to support community-based planning and 

management initiatives for the protection of coral 

reef systems” (§ 2(b)(11)).

Executive Order 12866 – Regulatory Planning 

and Review

Requires regulatory agencies to assess all costs 

and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, 

including the alternative of not regulating. Costs 

and benefits include both quantifiable measures 

and qualitative measures that are difficult to 

quantify, but nevertheless essential to consider. 

Implementing the Work Priorities of 

the SIMOR SIMOR, 2006

Identifies priority areas and related action items 

to improve coastal and ocean resource use and 

conservation. Proposes initiatives addressing 

human dimensions, including: (1) conducting 

community workshops to “demonstrate new 

and innovative ways to integrate coastal and 

watershed management programs, funding 

sources, policies, and other tools” (p. 7); and (2) 

expanding Ocean and Coastal Economics Data 

and Analysis to “support the needs of federal 

agencies and state and local governments for 

comprehensive economic data to address specific 

management problems such as ocean and coastal 

transportation and infrastructure issues, minerals management, and understanding of tourism 

and recreation at the state and local level” (p. 8). 

(http://ocean.ceq.gov/about/docs/SIMOR_

WorkPlan_Final.pdf)

Interorganizational Committee on Principles 

and Guidelines for Social Impact Assessment

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 2003 21(3): 

231-250

Provides guidance for the conduct of SIA in the 

context of the National Environmental Policy 

Act. Six principles focus on understanding of 

local and regional settings, dealing with the key 

elements of the human environment, using appropriate methods and assumptions, providing 

quality information for decisionmaking, addressing environmental justice issues, and establishing 

mechanisms for monitoring and mitigation.

(http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/reg_svcs/

social%20guidandpri.pdf)

National Action Plan to Conserve Coral Reefs

United States Coral Reef Task Force, 2000

Provides a detailed, long-term strategy for implementing Executive Order 13089, Coral Reef Protection, which charges the United States Coral Reef 

Task Force, along with the scientific community, 

with developing and implementing research 

aimed at identifying the major causes and consequences of coral reef degradation. Adopts a core 

principle to ”incorporate the human dimension 

into coral reef conservation strategies by ensuring that management measures reflect, and are 

sensitive to the local socioeconomic, political 

and cultural environment, and that they build an 

informed public engaged in choosing alternatives 

to activities that harm coral reefs” (p. vi). Specifies four components of understanding coral reef 

ecosystems and their long-term conservation, 

including “socioeconomic studies of the human 

dimension of successful coral reef conservation” 

(p. 10). (http://www.coralreef.gov/taskforce/

pdf/CRTFAxnPlan9.pdf)

NEPA 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq.

Requires Federal agencies to: (1) utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach integrating 

the natural and social sciences, and the environmental design arts, in planning and in decisionmaking which may have an impact on the 

environment; (2) consider presently unquantified 

environmental amenities and values in decisionmaking; and (3) prepare an Environmental 

Impact Statement prior to approval of any major 

Federal action significantly affecting the quality 

of the human environment.

NEPA Regulations for Implementing Procedural Provisions 40 C.F.R. 1508.14

Requires Federal agencies to interpret “human 

environment” comprehensively to “include the 

natural and physical environment and the re-
30 Appendix 1

lationship of people with that environment. ... 

When an environmental impact statement is 

prepared and economic or social and natural or 

physical environmental effects are interrelated, 

then the environmental impact statement will 

discuss all of these effects on the human environment” (§ 1508.14).

Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century 

USCOP, 2004

Develops recommendations for a coordinated 

and comprehensive national ocean policy, as 

mandated by the Oceans Act of 2000, including 

consideration of human dimensions. For example, Recommendation 25-3 urges that a new “National Ocean Council research strategy should 

include a national program for social science and 

economic research” that includes an operational 

socioeconomic research and assessment function within NOAA; and an interagency steering 

group, chaired by NOAA ... to coordinate oceanrelated socioeconomic research” (p. 384). (http://

www.oceancommission.gov/documents/full_

color_rpt/000_ocean_full_report.pdf) 

Oceans and Human Health Act

33 U.S.C. §§ 3101-3104

Establishes a national research program to improve understanding of the role of the oceans in 

human health.

NOAA

Evolving an Ecosystem Approach to Science 

and Management Throughout NOAA and its 

Partners External Ecosystem Task Team Report to 

NOAA Science Advisory Board, 2006

Identifies three guiding considerations that cut 

across recommendations for improving NOAA’s 

ecosystem science enterprise over the next decades. Two of these address human dimensions: 

(1) “NOAA science and management need to 

take account of how human activities affect the 

ecosystem properties for which NOAA is steward – and how those ecosystem properties affect 

the wellbeing of citizens socially, economically, 

and culturally; and (2) NOAA science support for 

decision-making must be integrated across ecosystem components and across its management 

of different human activities” (p. 27). Recognizes 

social science as integral to core capabilities in 

monitoring, analysis, and integration needed in 

each region to develop Integrated Ecosystem Assessments as key components of NOAA’s ecosystem science enterprise. Affirms that “both natural 

and social sciences, including communication of 

science, are critical elements at whatever scale 

and for whatever purpose ecosystem approaches 

are being developed” (p. 26). (http://www.sab.

noaa.gov/Reports/eETT_Final_1006.pdf)

NOAA NOS Social Science Plan NOAA, 2003

Summarizes social science capacity in NOAA’s 

NOS and establishes goals for social science as 

a basis for coordination to further NOAA’s mission. (http://marineeconomics.noaa.gov/SSP/

Plan_pub.html)

NCCOS Strategic Plan FY 2005 – FY 2009

NOAA, 2004

NCCOS’ second strategic goal regarding societal 

stressors “focuses on the human activities that 

affect coastal ecosystems. Successfully managing 

those activities to reduce the stress they impose 

on ecosystems requires a sound scientific basis. It 

also requires a good understanding of what society desires of the services provided by the management of coastal ecosystems. By combining the 

social expectations, economic costs and benefits, 

and the natural sciences, NCCOS will be able to 

make predictions (with specified certainty) of the 

social and economic costs and benefits of alternative management actions that could be taken to 

achieve ecosystem conservation goals” (p. 16). 

(http://www.nccos.noaa.gov/documents/strategicplan.pdf)

New Priorities for the 21st Century – NOAA’s 

Strategic Plan: Updated for FY 2006-FY 2011

NOAA, 2005

Recognizes that “humans are an integral part of 

an ecosystem” (p. 3). Adopts an ecosystem approach to managing coastal and ocean resources 

that strives to balance diverse societal objectives. 
Appendix 1 31

Aims to improve resource management by “advancing our understanding of ecosystems by 

gathering information consistent with established 

social and economic indicators to support monitoring, assessing, and predicting national and regional ecosystem health” (p. 5). Affirms the need 

for “a strong economic and social science capability” to ensure state of the art research by analyzing and understanding “evolving user requirements, priorities, and benefits of our information, 

services, and products” (p. 16). (http://www.

ppi.noaa.gov/pdfs/STRATEGIC%20PLAN/Strategic_Plan_2006_FINAL_04282005.pdf)

NOAA Sea Grant Strategic Plan for FY2003-2008 

and Beyond NOAA, 2004

Establishes goals and strategies addressing 10 

national priority research themes, including a focus 

on coastal communities aiming “to design and 

implement comprehensive research and outreach 

programs promoting sustainable communities that 

achieve a complementary integration of economic, 

environmental, and social values” (p. 9). (http://

www.masgc.org/gmrp/plans/NSG.pdf)

Social Science Research Within NOAA: Review 

and Recommendations Final Report to the NOAA 

Science Advisory Board by the Social Science Review 

Panel, 2003

Finds that “the capacity of NOAA to meet its 

mandates and mission is diminished by the under-representation and under-utilization of social 

science” (p. 1), yet developing adequate capacity 

is challenged by “a lack of formal understanding 

of what social science is and what its contributions can be, leading to an organizational culture 

that is not conducive to social science research” 

(p. 2). Among other recommendations, the Panel 

advises integrating social science goals, plans, 

and outcomes into strategic plans; new initiatives in mission-critical social science; development of social science capacity, including seniorlevel social science representation; and specific 

strategies for increasing social science literacy 

throughout NOAA. Also identifies social science 

research needs for each of NOAA’s line offices. 

(http://www.sab.noaa.gov/Reports/NOAA_SocialSciencePanelFinalReport.pdf)

Stressors

Climate Change

Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some 

Key Questions NRC, 2001

Concludes that “in order to address the consequences of climate change and better serve the 

Nation’s decisionmakers, the research enterprise 

dealing with environmental change and environment-society interactions must be enhanced” 

(p. 24). Specific needs include “(a) support of 

interdisciplinary research that couples physical, 

chemical, biological, and human systems, (b) 

an improved capability of integrating scientific 

knowledge, including its uncertainty, into effective decision support systems, and (c) an ability 

to conduct research at the regional or sectoral 

level that promotes analysis of the response of 

human and natural systems to multiple stresses” 

(p. 5). 

Global Environmental Change: Research 

Pathways for the Next Decade NRC, 1999

Outlines a research framework across multiple 

areas related to global environmental change, 

including human dimensions. Defines human dimensions research as addressing “human activities that alter the Earth’s environment, the driving forces of those activities, the consequences of 

environmental change for societies and economies, and human responses to the experience or 

expectation of global change. Such research is 

essential both to understand global change and to 

inform public policy” (p. 293). 

Making Climate Forecasts Matter NRC, 1999

Proposes a program of research to understand 

and increase the value of seasonal-to-interannual climate forecasts. Programmatic questions 

“fall into three broad categories: research on the 

potential benefits of climate forecast information, 

improved dissemination of forecast information, and estimating the consequences of climatic 

variations and of climate forecasts” (p. 129). 
32 Appendix 1

United States Climate Change Science Program 

Strategic Plan United States Climate Change Science Program, 2003

Describes critical research on human contributions and responses to climate variability and 

change, including “the potential effects of climate 

variability and change on human health and 

welfare; human influences on the climate system, 

land use, and other global environmental changes; analysis of societal vulnerability and resilience 

to global environmental change; decisionmaking 

under conditions of significant complexity and 

uncertainty; and integrated assessment methods” 

(p. 6). (http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/

stratplan2003/vision/ccsp-vision.pdf)

Harmful Algal Blooms

HABHRCA 16 U.S.C. §§ 1451 note

Requires local and regional assessments, a report 

on prediction and response capacity, and plans 

for a ”comprehensive and coordinated national 

research program to develop and demonstrate 

prevention, control, and mitigation methods to 

reduce the impacts of HABs on coastal ecosystems (including the Great Lakes), public health, 

and the economy (§ 104(i)).

Harmful Algal Research and Response: A 

Human Dimensions Strategy United States HAB 

Office, 2006

Provides a detailed implementation plan for human dimensions research critical to reduce public 

health, sociocultural, and economic impacts of 

HABs. Research needs fall into six areas: socioeconomic impacts, public health impacts, recreational and drinking water impacts, risk communication, coordination in research and response, 

and education and outreach. The research strategy informs implementation of HARRNESS and 

HABHRCA. (http://www.nccos.noaa.gov/

stressors/extremeevents/hab/HDstrategy.pdf)

HARRNESS Ramsdell, J.S., et al. (Eds.), 2005

Reflects the views of the United States research 

and management community about “the current 

state of the HAB problem, needs and priorities, 

and approaches available to address these problems” (p. 1). Priorities and needs fall into four 

foci: bloom ecology and dynamics, toxins and 

their effects, food webs and fisheries, and public 

health and socioeconomic impacts. (http://esa.

org/HARRNESS/harrnessReport10032005.pdf)

Coastal Hazards

Facing Hazards and Disasters: Understanding 

Human Dimensions NRC, 2006

Assesses the current state of social science research related to hazards and disasters, and 

recommends social science research and interdisciplinary collaboration to improve disaster preparedness and response. 

Grand Challenges for Disaster Reduction

NSTC, 2005

Establishes a framework for sustained Federal 

investment in science and technology, including 

social science research, to enhance the disaster resilience of communities. (http://www.sdr.gov/

SDRGrandChallengesforDisasterReduction.pdf)

Hidden Costs of Coastal Hazards: Implications 

for Risk Assessment and Mitigation

Heinz Center, 2000

Develops a risk and cost assessment framework 

for hazard preparedness and mitigation planning 

that takes into account a broad range of economic, business, social, and environmental costs 

associated with hazards.

Human Links to Coastal Disasters

Heinz Center, 2002

Examines human factors influencing vulnerability to coastal hazards, including policies and practices that drive coastal development. Explores 

human impacts of hazards, including changes 

related to physical health, mental well-being, and 

social institutions. (http://www.heinzctr.org/

NEW_WEB/PDF/Full_report_human_links.pdf)
Appendix 1 33

Oil Pollution Act 33 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq.

Authorizes NOAA, as the primary Federal 

trustee for coastal resources, to recover natural 

resource damages resulting from oil spills and 

defines natural resource damages to include the 

cost of restoring, rehabilitating, replacing, or 

acquiring the equivalent of the damaged resources; the reasonable cost of assessing those 

damages; and the diminution in values of those 

natural resources pending restoration. Damages 

encompass injury to and economic losses from 

destruction of real or personal property, loss of 

subsistence use, loss of profits and earning capacity, and costs associated with increased public 

services. 

Invasive Species

Executive Order 13112 - Invasive Species

Aims to “minimize the economic, ecological, 

and human health impacts that invasive species 

cause.” Defines “invasive species” as a species 

that causes economic harm or harm to human 

health.

Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention 

and Control Act 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq.

Aims to “understand and minimize economic 

impacts of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species.” Establishes an Aquatic Nuisance Species 

Task Force required to “develop and implement 

a program for waters of the United States to prevent introduction and dispersal of aquatic nuisance species; to monitor, control and study such 

species; and to disseminate related information” 

(§ 1002(b)(4)). The program is to include research 

on the “economic risks and impacts associated 

with the introduction of aquatic nuisance species into the waters of the United States; possible 

methods for the prevention, monitoring and control of aquatic nuisance species; and the assessment of the effectiveness of prevention, monitoring and control methods” (§ 1202(f)(1)(a)).

Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century – Chapter 

17: Preventing the Spread of Invasive Species

USCOP, 2004

Recommends research focusing on “understanding the human dimensions behind species introductions, including human behavior, decision 

making, and economics” (p. 262). (http://www.

oceancommission.gov/documents/full_color_

rpt/000_ocean_full_report.pdf)

Pollution

Chesapeake 2000

Chesapeake Bay Program, 2000

Aims to “identify specific actions to address the 

challenges of communities where historically 

poor water quality and environmental conditions 

have contributed to disproportional health, economic or social impacts” by 2005. (http://www.

chesapeakebay.net/agreement.htm)

HABHRCA 16 U.S.C. §§ 1451 note

See entry under “Harmful Algal Blooms.”

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries 

Act 16 U.S.C. §§ 1431 et seq.

Creates a comprehensive and continuing program of research with respect to the possible 

long-range effects of pollution, overfishing, and 

human-induced changes of ocean ecosystems. 

Such research shall address “economic considerations involved in both the protection and the 

use of the oceans, possible alternatives to existing 

programs, and ways in which the health of the 

oceans may best be preserved for the benefit of 

succeeding generations of mankind” (§ 202(a)(1)). 

Also requires Federal agencies to “assess the feasibility in coastal areas of regional management 

plans for the disposal of waste materials” addressing, among other things, “the environmental, economic, social, and human health factors 

(and the methods used to assess these factors) 

associated with disposal alternatives” (§ 203(c)).
34 Appendix 1

Resource Use

Coastal Sprawl: The Effects of Urban Design on 

Aquatic Ecosystems in the United States

Pew Oceans Commission, 2002

Reviews trends in coastal population growth and 

urban expansion in the United States, describes 

the state of science related to effects of impervious surfaces on aquatic ecosystems, and discusses strategies and implementation measures 

for watershed planning. (http://www.pewtrusts.

com/pdf/env_pew_oceans_sprawl.pdf)

Social and Cultural Impact Assessment of the 

Highly Migratory Species Management Plan 

Prepared for the Highly Migratory Species Office, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, 1998

Assesses the social and cultural impacts of the 

Fisheries Management Plan for Highly Migratory 

Species and the amendment to the plan for Atlantic billfish. Explains what is meant by social and 

cultural impacts, reviews the methods used, and 

discusses major impacts and possible mitigating 

measures across affected communities. (http://

www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/econ/cia/hms.pdf)

Socioeconomic Perspectives on Marine Fisheries in the United States

Pew Oceans Commission, 2003

Describes the social and economic status and 

health of United States marine fisheries. (http://

www.pewtrusts.org/pdf/environment_pew_

oceans_socioeconomic_perspectives.pdf)

Sustainable Fisheries Act

16 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et seq.

Includes National Standard 8, which requires that 

conservation and management measures “take 

into account the importance of fishery resources 

to fishing communities in order to (A) provide 

for the sustained participation of such communities, and (B) to the extent practicable, minimize 

adverse economic impacts on such communities” 

(§ 106(b)(8)(A)).

Regions

Alaskan Ecosystem Complex

North Pacific Research Board Science Plan

North Pacific Research Board, 2005

Recognizes the importance of understanding 

“how societies adapt to changing environments, 

ecosystems and management systems” (p. 114). 

Expresses intent to fund human dimensions research needs related to fishery management and 

policy, baseline assessment, human health, human values and resource protection, and climate 

variability. (http://doc.nprb.org/sci_plan/science_plan_nov05_low.pdf)

People and the Arctic: A Prospectus for 

Research on the Human Dimensions of the 

Arctic System National Science Foundation, Arctic 

System Science Program, Human Dimensions of the 

Arctic System, 1997

Provides research principles, objectives, questions, and methods for the Human Dimensions 

of the Arctic System program of the National 

Science Foundation’s Arctic System Science Program. In general, the program “considers human 

activity, both within and outside the Arctic, as a 

link and vital driver among the terrestrial, marine, and climatic subsystems. Accordingly, the 

initiative provides a significant opportunity to 

integrate ecosystem and climate studies with a 

broad range of the social sciences” (p.3). (http://

www.arcus.org/harc/HARC_Prospectus.pdf)

California Current

California Marine Life Protection Act

California Fish and Game Code, Chapter 10.5, 

§§2850-2863 

Requires that the California Department of Fish 

and Game develop a master plan to improve 

the design and management of the state’s MPA 

system. The master plan must take into account 

socioeconomic and environmental impacts of 

alternatives.
Appendix 1 35

California’s Ocean Economy 

National Ocean Economics Program, 2005

Measures the coastal and ocean economy of 

California, including sectors related to living 

resources, ocean minerals, marine transportation, 

marine construction, ship and boat building, 

and tourism and recreation. (http://resources.

ca.gov/press_documents/CA_Ocean_Econ_Report.pdf)

Regional Priorities for Social Science Research 

on MPAs: Pacific Coast

NOAA National MPA Center, 2005

Identifies regional social science research needs 

in six priority areas for planning, management, 

and evaluation of MPAs: governance and institutions; use patterns; attitudes, perceptions, and 

beliefs; economics; communities; and cultural 

heritage and resources. (http://www.mpa.gov/

pdf/helpful-resources/pacificcoast-ssrs-final.pdf)

Caribbean

Managing Beach Resources in the Smaller 

Caribbean Islands University of Puerto Rico 

Sea Grant College Program and United Nations 

Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization 

(UNESCO), 1997

Contains papers presented at a workshop entitled “Integrated Framework for the Management 

of Beach Resources within the Smaller Caribbean 

Islands” held at the University of Puerto Rico, 

Mayaguez Campus, 1996. Papers discuss human 

dimensions topics such as anthropogenic causes 

of beachfront erosion, traditional and sociocultural beach management issues, community-based 

approaches to beach management, social issues 

affecting beaches, and the management of beaches as a tourism resource. (http://www.unesco.

org/csi/pub/papers/papers1.htm)

Regional Priorities for Social Science Research 

on MPAs: Caribbean and South Florida

NOAA MPA Center (MPAC), 2003

Identifies region-specific social science research 

needs in six priority areas for planning, management, and evaluation of MPAs: governance and 

institutions; use patterns; attitudes, perceptions, 

and beliefs; economics; communities; and cultural heritage and resources. (http://www.mpa.

gov/pdf/helpful-resources/caribbean.pdf)

Small Islands Voice: Voices in a Changing 

World UNESCO, 2004

Describes the United Nations Educational, Cultural, and Scientific Organization’s (UNESCO) 

Small Islands Voice, an interregional (Caribbean, 

Indian Ocean, and Pacific) and island-based 

initiative for visioning and capacity building to 

promote sustainable development. Based on a 

representative interview survey, describes and 

discusses issues that concern residents of small 

islands: economy, employment, health care, 

education, infrastructure, environment, tourism, 

decline in traditional values, increased crime, and 

governance. Discusses the importance of island 

heritage. (http://www.unesco.org/csi/pub/papers3/world.pdf)

Great Lakes

Human Dimensions of Great Lakes Fishery 

Management Great Lakes Fishery Commission, 

Fishery Research Program, 2003

Provides background information, a statement 

of research focus, and a list of key research questions to define and implement the human dimensions theme of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission’s Fishery Research Program. The research 

focus is organized around “three main lines of 

inquiry: (1) decisionmaking and the role of human dimensions information, (2) research into 

organizational structure and behavior (formal 

and informal), and (3) research into stakeholder 

participation in management, including communications, collaborative decisionmaking, and 

processes that foster interaction among fishery 

managers” (p. 3). (http://www.glfc.org/research/humandimensions.pdf)
36 Appendix 1

Revealing the Economic Value of Protecting 

the Great Lakes Northeast-Midwest Institute and 

NOAA, 2001

Familiarizes “resource managers and decisionmakers for the Great Lakes with the techniques 

currently available for economic analysis of 

environmental benefits, including the strengths 

and limitations of these techniques. Rather than 

advocate the use of these economic techniques, 

the guidebook takes an objective look, pointing 

out caveats and advantages associated with the 

techniques currently available. This fundamental 

information is extremely important in the process 

of building consensus around the use of information these techniques can supply” (p. 5). (http://

www.nemw.org/GLEconVal.pdf)

Gulf of Mexico

Assessment of the United States Outer 

Continental Shelf Environmental Studies 

Program: III. Social and Economic Studies NRC, 

1992

Recognizes that the Minerals Management Service and other Federal agencies charged with 

natural resource management “are increasingly 

being required by their enabling legislation and 

by other laws to assess the social, economic, and 

cultural effects of development and regulation” 

(p. 2). Evaluates the Minerals Management Service socioeconomic research program.

Deepwater Gulf of Mexico Environmental 

and Socioeconomic Data Search and Literature 

Synthesis, United States Department of Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, 2000

Provides “a comprehensive search and integration of environmental and socioeconomic data 

for the deepwater Gulf of Mexico.” Summarizes 

available information by topic including socioeconomic activities in the area. Incorporates 

“existing literature, relevant data, and ongoing research pertaining to geological, physical, 

chemical, and biological processes of the study 

area, social and economic data and literature, 

and deepwater technology.” (http://www.gomr.

mms.gov/homepg/whatsnew/techann/000049.

html)

Florida Coastal Environmental Resources: 

A Guide to Economic Valuation and Impact 

Analysis Florida Sea Grant, 2002

Discusses concepts and methodologies of environmental economics (e.g., tradeoffs, willingness 

to pay, cost-benefit analysis, and environmental valuation) important for natural resources 

management. Presents case studies of regional 

projects that demonstrate the nature and importance of coastal resource valuation and economic 

impact analysis. (http://nsgl.gso.uri.edu/flsgp/

flsgph02002.pdf)

Northeast

New England’s Fishing Communities

MIT Sea Grant College Program, 2001

Identifies fishing communities in the New England region and assesses their fishing dependency to lay the groundwork for measuring the social impacts of specific management regulations, 

as required by the Sustainable Fisheries Act.

(http://web.mit.edu/seagrant/aqua/cmss/marfin/MarfinFinal.pdf)

Overview of the Social and Economic Survey 

Administered during Round II of the Northeast 

Multispecies Fishery Disaster Assistance 

Program NOAA Technical Memorandum, NMFSNE-164, 2001

Characterizes and summarizes responses to 

selected questions from the Social and Economic 

Survey administered in spring and summer 2000 

to recipients of the second round (Round II) of 

financial assistance in the Northeast (Gulf of 

Maine) Multispecies Fishery Disaster Assistance 

Program” (p. 5). Describes “how these fishermen conduct their livelihood, the beliefs they 

have about fishing, and the social communities 

in which they live, and points to further research 

needs generated by the initial survey results” (p. 

5). (http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/tm/tm164/)
Appendix 1 37

Pacific Island Ecosystem Complex

Hawaii Revised Statutes – Designation of 

Community-Based Subsistence Fishing Area 

HRS § 188-22.6

Authorizes the Hawaii Department of Land and 

Natural Resources to “designate community 

based subsistence fishing areas and carry out 

fishery management strategies for such areas ... 

for the purpose of reaffirming and protecting 

fishing practices customarily and traditionally 

exercised for purposes of native Hawaiian subsistence, culture, and religion” (§ 188-22.6(a)).

Regional Priorities for Social Science Research 

on MPAs: Pacific Islands MPAC, 2005

Identifies region-specific social science research 

needs in six priority areas for planning, management, and evaluation of MPAs: governance and 

institutions; use patterns; attitudes, perceptions, 

and beliefs; economics; communities; and cultural heritage and resources. (http://www.mpa.

gov/pdf/helpful-resources/pacific_islands.pdf)

Small Islands Voice: Voices in a Changing 

World UNESCO, 2004

See entry under “Caribbean”

Southeast

Florida Statutes – Environmental Regulation 

Commission 2006 Florida Statutes, Title XXIX, 

Chapter 403.804

Requires the Florida Environmental Regulation 

Commission to “consider scientific and technical validity, economic impacts, and relative risks 

and benefits to the public and the environment” 

(§ 403.804(1)(e)). Requires that the Commission 

study “the economic and environmental impact 

which sets forth the benefits and costs to the 

public” of any proposed standard (§ 403.804(2)). 

(http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?

StatuteYear=2006&Tab=statutes&Submenu=1)

Florida Statutes – Saltwater Fisheries 2006 

Florida Statutes, Title XXVIII, Chapter 370.025

Specifies that “conservation and management 

measures shall be based upon the best information available, including biological, sociological, 

economic, and other information deemed relevant” (§ 370.025(3)(b)). (http://www.leg.state.

fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?StatuteYear=2006&Tab

=statutes&Submenu=1)

Regional Priorities for Social Science Research 

on MPAs: South Atlantic MPAC, 2003

Identifies region-specific social science research 

needs in six priority areas for planning, management, and evaluation of MPAs: governance and 

institutions; use patterns; attitudes, perceptions, 

and beliefs; economics; communities; and cultural heritage and resources. (http://www.mpa.

gov/pdf/helpful-resources/south_atlantic.pdf)

Managed Areas

Estuaries

Estuary Habitat Restoration Strategy Estuary 

Habitat Restoration Council, 2002 (Federal Register, 

Vol. 67, No. 232)

Specifies that “successful restoration of estuarine habitat will protect native flora and fauna in 

estuaries and their watersheds, while providing 

multiple additional benefits such as improved 

surface and ground water quality and quantity, 

nutrient cycling, flood control, outdoor recreation, and other services valued by local stakeholders” (p. 71944). This specification, combined 

with NOAA’s responsibility under the Estuary 

Restoration Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. §§ 2901 et 

seq.) to develop monitoring guidance for coastal 

restoration practitioners, creates the need for 

selecting human dimensions goals for restoration 

projects and developing measurable parameters 

that can be monitored to assess effectiveness in 

achieving them (see Salz et al., 2005). The Strategy 

was developed by the Estuary Habitat Restoration Council in accordance with the requirements 
38 Appendix 1

of the Estuary Restoration Act. (http://era.noaa.

gov/pdfs/120302_finalstrat.pdf)

National Estuarine Research Reserve System 

Research and Monitoring Plan, 2006-2011

NOAA’s National Ocean Service, Office of Ocean and 

Coastal Resource Management, Estuarine Reserves 

Division, 2006

Includes “Social Science and Economics” as a 

research priority aiming to address the following questions: “(1) How are coastal populations’ 

demographics changing and how does this/will 

this impact natural resource protection and management? (2) What are the economic tradeoffs/

effects of increasing development and urbanization in the coastal zone on traditional commercial enterprises such as seafood harvesting, etc.? 

(3) How do human perceptions of health risks 

influence coastal decision making and natural 

resource protection? (4) What are the cumulative 

impacts of mul¬tiple human recreational and 

economic activities on the coastal environment?” 

(p. 21). (http://nerrs.noaa.gov/pdf/Research_

Monitoring.pdf)

National Strategy to Restore Coastal and 

Estuarine Habitat

Restore America’s Estuaries, 2002

Provides a framework for estuarine restoration 

that recommends broad public involvement and 

consideration of social and economic benefits 

in establishing priority regions, selecting goals, 

developing projects, and monitoring success. 

(http://www.estuaries.org/assets/documents/

NationalStrategyFull.pdf)

Marine Protected Areas

How is Your MPA Doing? A Guidebook of 

Natural and Social Indicators

World Conservation Union, 2004

Provides socioeconomic and governance indicators for successful development, management, 

and performance of MPAs. (http://effectivempa.

noaa.gov/guidebook/guidebook.html)

Mapping Human Activity in the Marine 

Environment: GIS Tools and Participatory 

Methods MPAC, 2005

Develops design criteria for GIS-based participatory methods for collecting spatial data on human resource use patterns to inform local and 

regional MPA planning. (http://www.mpa.

gov/pdf/helpful-resources/hupi-workshopreport-fdraft.pdf)

MPAs Needs Assessment NOAA Coastal Services 

Center with the MPAC, 2002

Emphasizes that social science regarding MPAs is 

“desperately needed” as a cross-cutting priority 

and that “there is universal agreement across the 

MPA community that stakeholder/community 

involvement is critical to success” (p. 4). Specific 

needs include incorporating traditional knowledge into marine management, stakeholder 

assessment, monitoring resources with historical 

and cultural significance, and evaluating socioeconomic impacts. (http://www.mpa.gov/pdf/

helpful-resources/mpanafinal.pdf)

Marine Reserves: A Tool for Ecosystem 

Management and Conservation Pew Oceans 

Commission, 2002

Argues that marine reserves are a fundamental 

tool in ecosystem-based management. Emphasizes the need for research to understand the social 

impacts of reserves. (http://www.pewtrusts.

org/pdf/pew_oceans_marine_reserves.pdf)

Social Science Research Strategy for MPAs

MPAC, 2003

Provides “a practical and compelling framework 

for incorporating social science into the planning, management, and evaluation of the nation’s 

MPAs” (p. 5). Identifies priority social science 

research areas (governance; use patterns; attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs; economics; communities; and cultural heritage and resources) 

and specific topics. (http://www.mpa.gov/pdf/

publications/ssr_strategy.pdf)
Appendix 1 39

National Marine Sanctuaries

National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

16 U.S.C. §§ 1431-1445c-1

Authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to designate and manage marine areas of special national 

significance as the National Marine Sanctuary 

System. Requires that proposals for designating 

a national marine sanctuary include resource 

assessment documenting “present and potential 

uses of the area, including commercial and recreational fishing, research and education, minerals 

and energy development, subsistence uses, and 

other commercial, governmental, or recreational 

uses”(§ 303(b)(1)(C)).

Socioeconomic Overviews of National Marine 

Sanctuaries NOAA, Coastal and Ocean Resource 

Economics, Spatial Trends in Coastal Socioeconomics, 

2000-2003

Includes overviews for Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary, Northern and Central California Sanctuaries, and Gray’s Reef National Marine 

Sanctuary that provide socioeconomic information needed for sanctuary management. (http://

marineeconomics.noaa.gov/socioeconomics/assessment/cinms.html)
40 Appendix 2

Appendix 2. 

Excerpts from NCCOS and 

NOAA Strategic Plans

The research priorities put forth in this plan build 

upon and promote the following NCCOS, NOS, 

and NOAA strategic elements.

NOAA’s Mission

To understand and predict changes in Earth’s environment and conserve and manage coastal and 

marine resources to meet our Nation’s economic, 

social, and environmental needs (NOAA, 2005, 

p. 1).

NOAA’s Definition of an Ecosystem

An ecosystem is a geographically specified system of organisms, the environment, and the processes that control its dynamics. Humans are an 

integral part of an ecosystem (NOAA, 2005, p. 3).

NOAA’s Definition of the Environment

The environment is the biological, chemical, 

physical, and social conditions that surround 

organisms (NOAA, 2005, p. 3).

NOAA’s Ecosystem Mission Goal

To protect, restore, and manage the use of coastal 

and ocean resources through an ecosystem approach to management (NOAA, 2005, p. 2).

NOAA’s Definition of an Ecosystem Approach 

to Management

An ecosystem approach to management is adaptive, specified geographically, takes into account 

ecosystem knowledge and uncertainties, considers multiple external influences, and strives to 

balance diverse societal objectives (NOAA, 2005, 

p. 3).

National Ocean Service Mission

To provide products, services, and information 

that promote safe navigation, support coastal 

communities, sustain marine ecosystems, and 

mitigate coastal hazards (NOAA, 2005b, p. iv).

NCCOS’ Mission

To provide coastal managers with scientific information and tools needed to balance society’s environmental, social, and economic goals (NOAA 

NCCOS, 2004, p. 5).
Appendix 3 41

Appendix 3.

References

Adger, W. N., T. P. Hughes, C. Folke, S. R. Carpenter, and J. Rockström. 2005. Social-ecological 

Resilience to Coastal Disasters. Science 309, 1036-

1039.

Anderson, D. M., P. M. Glibert, and J. M. Burkholder. 2002. Harmful Algal Blooms and Eutrophication: Nutrient Sources, Composition, and 

Consequences. Estuaries 25(4b), 704-726.

Atman, C. J., A. Bostrom, B. Fischhoff, and M. G. 

Morgan. 1994. Designing Risk Communications: 

Completing and Correcting Mental Models of 

Hazardous Processes. Part 1. Risk Analysis 14(5), 

779-788.

Bauer, M. (Ed.). 2006. Harmful Algal Research and 

Response: A Human Dimensions Strategy. Woods 

Hole, MA: National Office for Marine Biotoxins 

and Harmful Algal Blooms, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. http://coastalscience.noaa.

gov/stressors/extremeevents/hab/HDstrategy.

pdf

Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke. 2000. Rediscovery of Traditional Ecological Knowledge as 

Adaptive Management. Ecological Applications

10(5), 1251-1262.

Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke. (Eds.). 1998. 

Navigating Social-ecological Systems: Building 

Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press.

Bliven, S., and R. Kelty. 2005. Visual Impact Assessment of Small Docks and Piers: Theory and 

Practice. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision 

Analysis Series No. 25. Silver Spring, MD: National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science. http://

coastalscience.noaa.gov/publications/das25.pdf

Bostrom, A., C. J. Atman, B. Fischhoff, and M. G. 

Morgan. 1994. Evaluating Risk Communications: 

Completing and Correcting Mental Models of 

Hazardous Processes, Part I. Risk Analysis 14(5), 

789-98.

Bricker, S., B. Longstaff, W. Dennison, A. Jones, J. 

Woerner, C. Wicks, and K. Boicourt. 2007. Effects 

of Nutrient Enrichment in the Nation’s Estuaries: A 

Decade of Change. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program 

Decision Analysis Series No. 26. Silver Spring, 

MD: National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science. 

http://ccmaserver.nos.noaa.gov/publications/

eutroupdate/

Bricker, S., D. Lipton, A. Mason, M. Dionne, D. 

Keeley, C. Krahforst, J. Latimer, and J. Pennock. 

2006. Improving Methods and Indicators for Evaluating Coastal Water Eutrophication: A Pilot Study in 

the Gulf of Maine. NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NOS NCCOS 20. Silver Spring, MD: National 

Centers for Coastal Ocean Science. http://ccma.

nos.noaa.gov/publications/TMNCCOS20.pdf

Brown, K., W. N. Adger, E. Tompkins, P. Bacon, 

D. Shim, and K. Young. 2001. Trade-off Analysis 

for Marine Protected Area Management. Ecological Economics 37, 417-434.

Colding, J., F. Berkes, and C. Folke. 2000. Linking 

Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices 

and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. New 

York: Cambridge University Press. 

Collins, S. L., S. M. Swinton, C. W. Anderson, T. 

Gragson, N. B. Grimm, M. Grove, A. K. Knapp, 

G. Kofinas, J. Magnuson, B. McDowell, J. Melack, 

L. Ogden, O. J. Reichman, G. P. Robertson, M. D. 

Smith, and A. Whitmer. 2007. Integrative Science 

for Society and Environment: A Strategic Research 

Plan. Developed by the Research Initiatives Subcommittee of the Long Term Ecological Research 

Planning Process Conference Committee and the 

Cyberinfrastructure Core Team. http://intranet.

lternet.edu/modules.php?name=UpDownload&

req=getit&lid=536 

Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. 2000. Integrated Assessment of Hypoxia 

in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Washington, 

D.C.: National Science and Technology Council. 

http://www.nos.noaa.gov/products/pubs_hypox.html
42 Appendix 3

Cinner, J. E., M. J. Marnane, T. R. McClanahan, 

T. H. Clark, and J. Ben. 2005. Trade, Tenure, and 

Tradition: Influence of Sociocultural Factors on 

Resource Use in Melanesia. Conservation Biology 

19(5): 1469-1477.

Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. 42 U.S.C. §§ 5121 

et seq.

Dietz, T., E. Ostrom, and P. C. Stern. 2003. The 

Struggle to Govern the Commons. Science 302, 

1907-1912.

Dietz, T., A. Fitzgerald, and R. Shwom. 2005. 

Environmental Values. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30, 335-372.

Doering, O.C., F. Diaz-Hermelo, C. Howard, R. 

Heimlich, F. Hitzhusen, R. Kazmierczak, J. Lee, 

L. Libby, W. Milon, T. Prato, and M. Ribaudo. 

1999. Evaluation of the Economic Costs and Benefits 

of Methods for Reducing Nutrient Loads to the Gulf of 

Mexico: Topic 6 Report for the Integrated Assessment 

on Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. NOAA Coastal 

Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 20. 

Silver Spring, MD: NOAA Coastal Ocean Program. http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/products/

hypox_t6final.pdf

Drew, J. 2005. Use of Traditional Ecological 

Knowledge in Marine Conservation. Conservation 

Biology 19(4), 1286-1293.

Endter-Wada, J., D. Blahna, R. Krannich, and M. 

Brunson. 1998. A Framework for Understanding 

Social Science Contributions to Ecosystem Management. Ecological Applications 8(3), 891-904.

Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Health 

of Galveston Bay for Human Use. In Environmental Protection Agency, National Coastal Condition Report II. EPA-620/R-03/002. Washington, 

D.C. http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/

nccr2/

European Centre for Health Policy. 1999. Gothenburg Consensus Paper on Health Impact Assessment: 

Main Concepts and Suggested Approach. World 

Health Organization Regional Office for Europe: 

Brussels. http://www.euro.who.int/document/

PAE/Gothenburgpaper.pdf

Executive Office of the President, Council on 

Environmental Quality. 2004. United States Ocean 

Action Plan: The Bush Administration’s Response 

to the United States Commission on Ocean Policy. 

http://ocean.ceq.gov/actionplan.pdf

Executive Order 12862. Setting Customer Service 

Standards.

Executive Order 12898. Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations.

Folke, C., F. Berkes, and J. Colding. 1998. Ecological Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building 

Resilience and Sustainability. In F. Berkes and 

C. Folke (Eds.), Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms 

for Building Resilience (pp. 414-436). Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press.

Fonseca, M., B. Julius, and W. J. Kenworthy. 2000. 

Integrating Biology and Economics in Seagrass 

Restoration: How Much is Enough and Why? 

Ecological Engineering 15, 227-237.

Government Performance and Results Act. 31 

U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq. 

Gregory, R., T. McDaniels, and D. Fields. 2001. 

Decision Aiding, not Dispute Resolution: Creating Insights through Structured Environmental 

Decisions. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 20(3), 45-432. 

Gregory, R., and K. Wellman. 2001. Bringing 

Stakeholder Values into Environmental Policy 

Choices: A Community-based Estuary Study. 

Ecological Economics 39, 37-52.

H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, 

and the Environment (Heinz Center). 2000. The 

Hidden Costs of Coastal Hazards: Implications for 

Risk Assessment and Mitigation. Washington, D.C.: 

Island Press.
Appendix 3 43

Hanna, S. 1998. Institutions for Marine Ecosystems: Economic Incentives and Fishery Management. Ecological Applications, suppl, 8(1), S170-

S174.

HARRNESS. 2005. Harmful Algal Research and 

Response: A National Environmental Science Strategy 2005–2015. Ramsdell, J.S., D.M. Anderson and 

P.M. Glibert (Eds.). Washington, D.C.: Ecological 

Society of America. http://www.esa.org/HARRNESS/harrnessReport10032005.pdf

Huntington, H. 2000. Using Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Science: Methods and Applications. Ecological Applications 10(5), 1270-1274.

Huppert, D., R. L. Johnson, J. Leahy, and K. Bell. 

2003. Interactions between Human Communities 

and Estuaries in the Pacific Northwest: Trends 

and Implications for Management. Estuaries

26(4B), 994-1009.

Huppert, D., A. Olson, M. Hershman, K. Wing, 

and C. Sweeney. 1998. Socioeconomic Causes and 

Consequences of Coastal Ecosystem Change. In

G. McMurray, R. Gregory, and R. Bailey (Eds.), 

Change in Pacific Northwest Coastal Ecosystems: 

Proceedings of the Pacific Northwest Coastal Ecosystems Regional Study Workshop, August 13-14, 1996, 

Troutdale, Oregon. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program 

Decision Analysis Series No. 11 (pp. 39-90). Silver 

Spring, MD: NOAA Coastal Ocean Office.

Imperial, M. T. 1999a. Analyzing Institutional Arrangements for Ecosystem-based Management: 

Lessons from the Rhode Island Salt Ponds SAM 

Plan. Coastal Management 27, 31-56.

Imperial, M. T. 1999b. Institutional Analysis and 

Ecosystem-based Management: The Institutional 

Analysis and Development Framework. Environmental Management 24(4), 449-465.

International Human Dimensions Programme 

on Global Environmental Change (IHDP). 2005. 

Science Plan: Institutional Dimensions of Global 

Environmental Change. (IHDP Report No. 16). 

http://www.ihdp.uni-bonn.de/html/publications/reports/IHDP-IDGECreport16.pdf

Interorganizational Committee on Principles 

and Guidelines for Social Impact Assessment. 

2003. Principles and Guidelines for Social Impact 

Assessment in the USA. Impact Assessment and 

Project Appraisal 21(3), 231-250.

International Risk Governance Council. 2006. 

White paper on Nanotechnology Risk Governance.

Geneva: International Risk Governance Council. 

http://www.irgc.org/irgc/_b/contentFiles/

IRGC_white_paper_2_PDF_final_version.pdf

Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (JSOST). 2007. Charting the Course for 

Ocean Science for the United States for the Next Decade: An Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy. http://ocean.ceq.gov/about/

docs/orppfinal.pdf

Juda, L. 1999. Considerations in Developing a 

Functional Approach to the Governance of Large 

Marine Ecosystems. Ocean Development and International Law 30, 89-125.

Kasperson, R. E. 1986. Six Propositions on Public 

Participation and their Relevance for Risk Communication. Risk Analysis 6(3), 275-281.

Kite-Powell, H. L., C. S. Colgan, K. F. Wellman, T. 

Pelsoci., K. Wieand, L. Pendleton, M. J. Kaiser, A. 

G. Pulsipher, and M. Luger. 2004. Estimating the 

Economic Benefits of Regional Ocean Observing Systems. A report prepared for the National Oceanographic Partnership Program, Marine Policy 

Center, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. 

http://www.economics.noaa.gov/library/documents/benefits_of_observing_systems/regionalobs-system-benefits-whoi-nov04.pdf

Leschine, T., and M. Chadsey. (In prep.). Science 

and Management for Harmful Algal Blooms.

Lipton, D.W., K. Wellman, I. C. Sheifer, and R. 

F. Weiher. 1995. Economic Valuation of Natural 

Resources: A Handbook for Coastal Resource Policymakers. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision 

Analysis Series No. 5. Silver Spring, MD: NOAA 

Coastal Ocean Office. http://www.mdsg.umd.

edu/Extension/valuation/PDF/00-Intro.pdf
44 Appendix 3

Lubchenco, J. 1998. Entering the Century of the 

Environment: A New Social Contract for Science. 

Science 279, 491-497.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act. 16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.

Mascia, M. B. 2003. The Human Dimension of 

Coral Reef Marine Protected Areas: Recent Social 

Science Research and its Policy Implications. Conservation Biology 17(2), 630-632.

Mauro, F., and P. D. Hardison. 2000. Traditional 

Knowledge of Indigenous and Local Communities: International Debate and Policy Initiatives. 

Ecological Applications 10(5), 1263-1269.

Michigan Sea Grant. 2005. Causes and Consequences of Environmental Change: Integrated Assessments.

http://www.miseagrant.umich.edu/downloads/about/IA-factsheet-2005.pdf

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. http://

ma.caudillweb.com/proxy/Document.356.aspx

Minteer, B.A., and J. P. Collins. 2005. Ecological 

Ethics: Building a New Tool Kit for Ecologists 

and Biodiversity Managers. Conservation Biology

19(6), 1803-1812.

National Environmental Policy Act. 42 U.S.C. §§ 

4331 et seq.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2005. New Priorities for the 21st 

Century: NOAA’s Strategic Plan – Updated for FY 

2006-FY 2011. http://www.ppi.noaa.gov/pdfs/

STRATEGIC%20PLAN/Strategic_Plan_2006_FINAL_04282005.pdf

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Services Center. 2006. 2006 

Coastal Resource Management Customer Survey. 

Conducted by Responsive Management. http://

www.csc.noaa.gov/survey/06survey.pdf

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Damage Assessment and Restoration Program. 1997. Scaling Compensatory Restoration Actions: Guidance Document for Natural 

Resource Damage Assessment Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/library/pdf/scaling.pdf

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) External Ecosystem Task Team. 

2006. Evolving an Ecosystem Approach to Science 

and Management throughout NOAA and its Partners. http://www.sab.noaa.gov/Reports/eETT_

Final_1006.pdf

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Centers for Coastal Ocean 

Science (NCCOS). 2004. NCCOS Strategic Plan FY 

2005- FY 2009. http://coastalscience.noaa.gov/

documents/strategicplan.pdf

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service. 

1997. Operational Guidelines: Fishery Management 

Plan Process. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/

domes_fish/OperationalGuidelines/OGcontents.

htm

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Ocean Service (NOS). 

2005. National Ocean Service Social Science Plan.

http://marineeconomics.noaa.gov/SSP/Plan.

html

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Office of Education and Sustainable 

Development. 2004. An Education Plan for NOAA.

http://www.oesd.noaa.gov/NOAA_Ed_Plan.

pdf

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Social Science Review Panel. 2003. 

Social Science Research within NOAA: Review and 

Recommendations. http://www.sab.noaa.gov/Reports/NOAA_SocialSciencePanelFinalReport.pdf

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Coastal States Organization. 

2006. Discussion paper: Current and Future Challenges for Coastal Management. http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/czm/discussion_paper.pdf
Appendix 3 45

National Research Council (NRC). 1992. Global 

Environmental Change: Understanding the Human 

Dimensions. Washington, D.C.: The National 

Academy Press. 

National Research Council (NRC). 1996. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic 

Society. Washington, D.C.: The National Academy Press.

National Research Council (NRC). 2005. Decision 

Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral 

Science Research Priorities. Washington, D.C.: The 

National Academy Press.

National Research Council (NRC). 2006. Facing 

Hazards and Disasters: Understanding Human Dimensions. Washington, D.C.: The National Academy Press.

National Science and Technology Council 

(NSTC). 2005. Grand Challenges for Disaster Reduction: A Report of the Subcommittee on Disaster 

Reduction. http://www.sdr.gov/SDRGrandChallengesforDisasterReduction.pdf

Nelson, G.C., E. Bennett, A. A. Berhe, K. Cassman, R. DeFries, T. Dietz, A. Dobermann, A. 

Dobson, A. Janetos, M. Levy, D. Marco, N. Nakicenovic, B. O’Neill, R. Norgaard, G. PetschelHeld, D. Ojima, P. Pingali, R. Watson, and M. 

Zurek. 2006. Anthropogenic Drivers of Ecosystem Change: An Overview. Ecology and Society

11(2): Art. 29. http://www.ecologyandsociety.

org/vol11/iss2/art29/

Oil Pollution Act of 1990. 33 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq.

Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The 

Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Peters, R. G., V. T. Covello, and D. B. McCallum. 

1997. The Determinants of Trust and Credibility 

in Environmental Risk Communication: An Empirical Study. Risk Analysis 17(1), 43-96.

Pew Oceans Commission. 2003. America’s Living 

Oceans: Charting a Course for Sea Change. http://

www.pewtrusts.org/pdf/env_pew_oceans_final_report.pdf

Regulations for Implementing the Procedural 

Provisions of the National Environmental Policy 

Act. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1500-1508. 

Reiter, M. A. 2004. A Simple Fuzzy Logic Approach to Analyze Integrated Interdisciplinary 

“Four-component” Conceptual Resource Management Models. Interdisciplinary Environmental 

Review 6(2), 1-13.

Reiter, M. A., G. R. Parsons, R. W. Scarborough, 

C. Fan, and S. M. Thur. 2006. An Interdisciplinary Conceptual Metamodel for the St. Jones River 

Watershed, Delaware: Development, Results, and 

Implications. Journal of Environmental Monitoring 

and Restoration 2, 38-50.

Rodríguez, J. P., T. D. Bear, E. M. Bennett, G. S. 

Cumming, S. Cork, J. Agard, A. Dobson, and G. 

D. Peterson. 2006. Trade-offs across Space, Time, 

and Ecosystem Services. Ecology and Society 11(1): 

art. 28. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/

vol11/iss1/art28/

Salz, R.J., and D. K. Loomis. 2005. Human dimensions of coastal restoration. In G. Thayer, T. A. 

McTigue, R. J. Salz, D. H. Merkey, F. M. Burrows, 

and P. F. Gayaldo (Eds.), Science-based Restoration 

Monitoring of Coastal Habitats. Volume 2: Tools for 

Monitoring Coastal Habitats (pp. 14.1-14.91). Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series 23(1). 

Silver Spring, MD: National Centers for Coastal 

Ocean Science. http://coastalscience.noaa.gov/

documents/rmv2/Ch14Bundle.pdf

Scherer, C., K. McComas, N. Juanillo, and L. 

Pelstring. 1999. Promoting Information Decisionmaking: The Role of Message Structure. Risk: 

Health, Safety, and Environment 10, 209-221.

Segerson, K., and D. Walker. 2002. Nutrient Pollution: An Economic Perspective. Estuaries 25(4b), 

797-808.

Sengco, M.R., and D. M. Anderson. 2004. Controlling Harmful Algal Blooms through Clay 
46 Appendix 3

Flocculation. Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology

51(2), 169-172.

Stevenson, M. G. 1996. Indigenous Knowledge in 

Environmental Assessments. Arctic 49(3), 278-

291.

Subcommittee on Integrated Management of 

Ocean Resources (SIMOR). 2006. Priorities for the 

Subcommittee on Integrated Management of Ocean 

Resources. http://ocean.ceq.gov/about/docs/SIMOR_Priorities_050505.pdf

Sutinen, J. G., P. Clay, C. L. Dyer, S. F. Edwards, 

J. Gates, T. A. Grigalunas, T. Hennessey, L. Juda, 

A. W. Kitts, P. N. Logan, J. J. Poggie, Jr., B. P. 

Rountree, S. R. Steinback, E. M. Thunberg, H. F. 

Upton, and J. B. Walden. 2005. A Framework for 

Monitoring and Assessing Socioeconomics and 

Governance of Large Marine Ecosystems. In T. 

Hennessey and J. Sutinen (Eds.), Sustaining Large 

Marine Ecosystems: The Human Dimension (pp. 27-

82). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Tansley, A. G. 1935. The Use and Abuse of Vegetational Concepts and Terms. Ecology 16(3), 

284-307.

Turner, B. L., R. E. Kasperson, P. A. Matson, J. J. 

McCarthy, R. W. Corell, L. Christensen, N. Eckley, J. X. Kasperson, A. Luers, M. L. Martello, 

C. Polsky, A. Pulsipher, and A. Schiller. 2003. A 

Framework for Vulnerability Analysis in Sustainability Science. Proceedings of the National Academy 

of Sciences 100(14), 8074-8079.

United Nations Environment Programme Convention on Biological Diversity. 31 ILM 818. 

http://www.biodiv.org/doc/legal/cbd-unen.pdf. Accessed June 15, 2007.

United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR). 2005. Hyogo Framework for 

Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations 

and Communities to Disasters. (Extract from the 

final report of the World Conference on Disaster Reduction, A/CONF.206/6). http://www.

unisdr.org/eng/hfa/docs/Hyogo-frameworkfor-action-english.pdf

United Nations Joint Group of Experts on the 

Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental 

Protection. 2001. Protecting the Oceans from Landbased Activities. GESAMP Reports and Studies 

No. 71. http://gesamp.imo.org/no71/index.

htm

United States Commission on Ocean Policy. 

2004. An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century. 

http://www.oceancommission.gov/documents/full_color_rpt/000_ocean_full_report.

pdf 

Urban, M.A. 2005. Values and Ethical Beliefs 

regarding Agricultural Drainage in Central 

Illinois, USA. Society and Natural Resources 18, 

173-189.

Vanclay, F. 2003. International Principles for 

Social Impact Assessment. Impact Assessment and 

Project Appraisal 21(1), 5-11.

Vernberg, W., G. Scott, S. Strozier, J. Bemiss, 

and J. Daugomah. 1996. The Effects of Urbanization on Human and Ecosystem Health. In F. 

Vernberg, W. Vernberg, and T. Siewicki (Eds.), 

Sustainable Development in the Southeastern Coastal Zone. The Belle W. Baruch Library in Marine 

Science Number 20. Columbia, SC: University of 

South Carolina Press.

Whittingham, E., J. Campbell, and P. Townsley. 2003. Poverty and Reefs: A Global Overview.

(DFID-IMM-IOC/UNESCO). http://ioc.unesco.

org/gcrmn/Poverty%20and%20Reefs/VOL_1_

LOWRES_POVREEF.PDF