Earth’s Future REVIEW From data to decisions: Processing information, biases, 10.1002/2016EF000487 and beliefs for improved management of natural resources and environments Pierre D. Glynn1 ,AlexeyA.Voinov2,CarlD.Shapiro1, and Paul A. White3 Key Points: • Biases, beliefs, heuristics, and values 1Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, USA, 2Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth permeate the progression from 3 sensory inputs to data to knowledge Observation, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands, GNS Science (Institute of Geological and Nuclear to decisions Sciences), Wairakei Research Centre, Taupo, New Zealand • An adaptive framework is presented for the science and policy governance of complex systems Our different kinds of minds and types of thinking affect the ways we decide, take action, • The framework is discussed in the Abstract context of different types of systems and cooperate (or not). Derived from these types of minds, innate biases, beliefs, heuristics, and values or issues of interest in the natural (BBHV) influence behaviors, often beneficially, when individuals or small groups face immediate, local, sciences acute situations that they and their ancestors faced repeatedly in the past. BBHV, though, need to be rec- ognized and possibly countered or used when facing new, complex issues or situations especially if they Supporting Information: need to be managed for the benefit of a wider community, for the longer-term and the larger-scale. Tak- • Supporting Information S1 ing BBHV into account, we explain and provide a cyclic science-infused adaptive framework for (1) gaining knowledge of complex systems and (2) improving their management. We explore how this process and Corresponding author: framework could improve the governance of science and policy for different types of systems and issues, P. D. Glynn, [email protected] providing examples in the area of natural resources, hazards, and the environment. Lastly, we suggest that an “Open Traceable Accountable Policy” initiative that followed our suggested adaptive framework could Citation: beneficially complement recent Open Data/Model science initiatives. Glynn, P. D., A. A. Voinov, C. D. Shapiro, and P. A. White (2017), From data to decisions: Processing information, Plain Language Summary Our review paper suggests that society can improve the manage- biases, and beliefs for improved ment of natural resources and environments by (1) recognizing the sources of human decisions and think- management of natural resources and environments, Earth’s Future, 5, ing and understanding their role in the scientific progression to knowledge; (2) considering innate human 356–378, doi:10.1002/2016EF000487. needs and biases, beliefs, heuristics, and values that may need to be countered or embraced; and (3) cre- ating science and policy governance that is inclusive, integrated, considerate of diversity, explicit, and Received 24 OCT 2016 accountable. The paper presents a science-infused adaptive framework for such governance, and dis- Accepted 16 FEB 2017 cusses the types of issues and systems that it would be best suited to address. Accepted article online 21 MAR 2017 Published online 24 APR 2017 1. Introduction Human society faces issues that it has never previously addressed over its evolutionary past. Different perspectives and great uncertainties exist on how to confront these issues. Science can potentially help. Scientists, however, are not independent observers. Like the rest of society, scientists are affected, often unconsciously, by various behavioral influences that affect choices and decisions. We believe that recog- nizing such influences is essential, because they affect the funding and conduct of science and both the production and the use of scientific information and models. Figure 1 gives examples of what we consider sometimes conscious, but often innate, natural priorities affecting people’s choices and decisions. Many of the issues faced by society, given a current (2017) global population exceeding 7.4 billion, increas- ingly require the explicit realization of previously hidden costs or externalities resulting from management actions or decisions. Those costs often include long-term, sometimes irreversible, impacts on our environ- © 2017 The Authors. ments, on future generations, or on other species. The issues faced often involve trade-offs: for example, the This is an open access article under need to decide where, when, and how to extract different resources, given impacts on other resources and the terms of the Creative Commons environments. Other examples include where to build human infrastructure, how to mitigate disruptions Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distri- caused by natural hazards or other catastrophic change, or more generally how to address the realities bution in any medium, provided the of climate change and land-use change. Clearly, management of natural resources and environments is original work is properly cited, the use becoming more complex. This increased complexity and the realities of land-use change are illustrated by is non-commercial and no modifica- tions or adaptations are made. the Lake Taupo (New Zealand) case study (cf. Supporting Information). We suggest here that processes GLYNN ET AL. FROM DATA TO DECISIONS 356 Earth’s Future 10.1002/2016EF000487 can be developed that critically examine, and trace with transparency and accountability, the use of sci- ence and policy to improve decision making. Our human welfare, our environments, our resources, and our societal decisions—or lack thereof—are increasingly connected and impact everything else in the ever-more-human earth system that we live in. But have we humans sufficiently examined, individ- Figure 1. Perceptions (by the authors) of some six general types ually and collectively, the three fundamental ques- of human priorities, in roughly descending importance. Although tions of our existence? Where do we come from? separately illustrated, the types of priorities can influence each other in responses to particular situations. Actualization [Maslow, What are we? Where are we going? Our thesis in this 1943] is the motive and ability to realize one’s full potential. A paper is that such introspection is critically needed if Carrying Landscape [Gumilev, 1990] is the landscape where a we want to improve both science and the manage- person lives most of his/her life, where s/he feels most comfortable and most attached to. Environmental carrying ment of natural resources and environments. capacity is the capability of the environment to provide Our human minds affect our individual and societal resources while absorbing and mitigating pollution. decisions, in our science and in our policies and man- agement actions. Our decisions are often reactive to our most recent experiences, but are actually tied to lessons of the past through our genetic and cultural adaptations. Collectively, we humans do not have a natural, visceral, ability to consider, far into the future, potential new states of the world and the needs of future generations and a global community. This severely limits the abilities of communities to plan ahead and invest wisely, especially when potential long-term, large-scale, diffusely perceived benefits come at the expense of acutely perceived, short-term, local, or individual costs. Here we suggest that society can improve the management of natural resources and environments by (1) recognizing the sources of human decisions and thinking, and understanding their role in the scientific progression to knowledge; (2) considering innate human needs and biases, beliefs, heuristics, and values (BBHV) that may need to be countered or embraced; and (3) creating science and policy governance that is inclusive, integrated, considerate of diversity, explicit, and accountable. The systems discussed in this paper are generally complex and encompass humans and their behaviors. They require “complexity thinking” and understanding and managing the duality of “knowing” and “being” [Rogers et al., 2013]. This duality is addressed in Sections 2 and 3 of the paper. Section 4 presents a science-infused adaptive framework that solicits recognition of our BBHV. Potential application of the framework is addressed in Section 5 by bringing in some realities of science and policy governance in the context of different types of systems and issues. As authors and scientists, we bring our own biases and values. We recognize many limits to our synthesis but hope to provide some useful considerations to spur future work. Some aspects of the hopes and limits inherent to the governance that we present are eloquently expressed by Dennett and Roy [2015]: There is a self-limiting aspect to this emerging new human order. Just as ant colonies can do things that individual ants cannot, human organizations can also transcend the abilities of individuals, giving rise to superhuman memories, beliefs, plans, actions—perhaps even superhuman values. For better or for worse, however, we are on an evolutionary course to rein in our superhuman organizations by holding them accountable to individual human stan- dards. This self-regulating dynamic, enabled by accelerating human-machine communicative capabilities, is as unique to our species as human language itself. 2. Knowing: Sources and Process Here, we provide context on human sources of knowledge and types of thinking, and how they apply (or not) to science and to the management of natural resources