Using imperfect evidence to make good decisions in uncertain times.

The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the U.S. and its resources are highly contested. The Bay’s fisheries and recreational tourism industries generate billions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs a year. Since the 20th century, overfishing, disease, nutrient pollution, and urban runoff have stressed Bay ecosystems and contributed to severe decline in oyster populations.

Oysters are filter feeders and greatly affect water quality, in addition to regional economics. This decline was devastating for watermen communities, where oyster harvests bring much-needed income outside of crab season.

A Problem.

Restoration efforts to replenish the oyster population began in the 1990s and continue today. As a part of these efforts, in 2005, Maryland officials proposed introducing a non-native oyster into the Bay. The proposal was a lightning rod for conflicting interests from environmentalists, industry, and policymakers in the region.

The Great Lakes region experienced a notoriously problematic introduction and some groups were leery of replicating that, while others were focused on the benefits a booming oyster population could provide. In order to inform the decision, a coalition of federal and state agencies commissioned a multi-year, multi-disciplinary Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to assess the potential costs and benefits of an introduction.

My mentor and I designed and executed research using cultural consensus and cognitive modeling analyses to uncover the implicit drivers among each group’s position. The research provided evidence to policymakers about the likely implications of their actions on each group’s perceptions and behavior. It aimed to help reduce uncertainty when uncertainty could not be eliminated.