In his thesis Van Koningsveld (2003) describes the Frame of Reference method aimed at structuring the end user-specialist interaction in application oriented knowledge development settings. Effective interaction is needed to prevent or postpone the seemingly inevitable divergence of end user's as well as specialist's perceptions on what is relevant knowledge (Van Koningsveld et al., 2003). Applying the method increases the chances that specialist research produces results that are applicable in policy development. Although the method was developed in the context of policy development, its applicability is much more generic.
A key element in the Frame of Reference method is to use the end user's information need as an explicit starting point for knowledge development and to continually match ongoing specialist research with the information need of end users. As a guideline it is suggested to make the essential components of coastal decision making explicit (Van Koningsveld and Mulder, 2004). A template combining these explicit elements -in the thesis defined as the Frame of Reference-, may then be used to guide the communication process. Analysis of practical cases indicates that successful policy development is related to a 'basic' Frame of Reference comprising explicit definitions of:
- a strategic objective;
- an operational objective; and
- a decision recipe containing a foursome of elements, viz.:
- a quantitative state concept;
- a benchmarking procedure;
- an intervention procedure; and
- an evaluation procedure confronting the operational as well as the strategic objective.
The communication process may be guided by assuming that 'ideally' all elements of the 'basic' frame of reference need to be made explicit. An assessment of the elements that have 'actually' been made explicit reveals so-called 'white spots'. These 'white spots' represent the remaining information that is needed to develop a successful and coherent approach. Filling in the 'white spots' is an interactive process where, by means of in-depth discussion, the elements of the 'basic' Frame of Reference are gradually filled in and sharpened until a satisfactory end result is reached.
Strategic management objective
Strategic objectives provide the long term context for coastal policy and management. They express the vision on the interdependencies of the natural and the socio-economic system and on the role of the human species therein. Strategic objectives tend to vary slowly. Nonetheless they do have a profound impact on the kind of policy and management that is required and acceptable. The historic development of water management in the Netherlands may serve as an example (cf. Van de Ven, 1993; Dubbelman, 1999; Van Koningsveld et al., 2008).
Operational management objective
The operational objective expresses our vision on how to handle the interactions between the natural and the socio-economic system. As such it is a concrete implementation of the strategic objective. Operational coastal management objectives are in this approach assumed to be related to the status of values and interests in the coastal zone. As such the operational objective should include an explicit indication regarding the temporal and spatial scales involved. It may take many operational objectives to cover all scales intended in the strategic objective. Simultaneous management of different operational objectives can easily lead to conflicts. What is good for one objective might harm another. What works on the short term could adversely affect the long term. As a result, evaluation of management activities should not be restricted to the operational objective but include a critical review with respect to the strategic objective. Evaluating the interaction between different operational objectives and minimising the amount of conflicts are crucial elements of an integrated approach to coastal management.
Decision recipe
From the strategic and operational objective follows our vision on potential and acceptable human interventions. A fully developed decision recipe for intervention, coherently addresses the following elements:
- 1. Quantitative state concept
To enable objective and reproducible decision making, a quantitative concept needs to be developed that describes the state of the system or certain aspects thereof in an appropriate form. The appropriate form with respect to usefulness in decision processes is determined by the strategic and operational objective as well as by the next steps in the decision recipe. With respect to practical effectiveness there is a strong link with knowledge of the system's behaviour. A wealth of literature available regarding indicators, indexes, etc.
- 2. Benchmarking procedure
A benchmarking procedure is necessary, so that we can systematically and objectively determine when to intervene in the system. Intervention is required when a discrepancy between the current system state and a desired or reference system state surpasses some predefined threshold. Implicit differences in the desired system state often trigger passionate discussions on what is in the interest of the management objectives and what is not. To facilitate useful discussions, the current as well as the (implicitly) desired state should be made explicit, preferably expressed in terms of the chosen quantitative state concept. This element of the decision recipe often relies on measured or predicted trends in state descriptions, costs and benefits.
- 3. Intervention procedure
An intervention procedure specifies how we should manipulate (part of) the system in order to bring it to a desired state. It specifies not only the type of intervention but also the method to determine its design. Knowledge of the system, in particular regarding physical processes, plays a crucial role in this element. The design procedure should use the quantitative state concept as one of its primary building blocks. It should at least facilitate significant manipulation of the system's 'current' state, towards its desired state identified in the previous step.
- 4. Evaluation
The decision recipe and the effects of its application should be evaluated. This evaluation should take place in the development stage of a measure (expected effects), as well as after some period of application (actual effects). First of all, one needs to assess whether or not the operational objective is being sufficiently achieved. If this is not the case, the decision recipe may have to be changed. If the operational objective is satisfactorily achieved, it is still necessary to evaluate the management efforts, but now against the wider perspective offered in the strategic objective. This may trigger modifications in the decision recipe, but it may also result in an adaptation of the current operational objective, or the formulation of a new one.
