Instream Flows for Recreation: A Handbook on Concepts and Research Methods

Home Browse Search

Researchers could also develop more quantitative output such as incremental curves, even if they are based on reasoned judgments alone. Advantages and Disadvantages These are potentially quick and easy methods because they typically involve few staff and limited on -site work (reconnaissance conducted with this method would not include large scale or systematic data collection). They are also relatively defensible in legal environments where the testimony of experts is highly regarded (although readers should note that the testimony of one expert is often easily countered by the testimony of another). Ultimately, however, these methods also have limitations because several critical issues are addressed by educated guesswork rather than hard data. Professional judgments involve subjectivity, and they rely on the ability of researchers to make judgments about users' preferences or the impacts of different flows on various conditions. If those judgments turn out to be wrong, subsequent flow recommendations will be poor. Keys to Success The success of studies using professional judgment methods depends on at least three factors. First, the professionals making the judgments need to be of the highest quality. In addition to experience and skill with the issues at hand, high quality researchers are those who study, but studies based on judgments alone have significant limitations. 35 invest themselves in the resource they are studying to become familiar with the needs of the river and its recreation users. Professional judgment methods, more than any other, rely on the intelligence, integrity, and attention of the researchers. Second, the thinking that goes into making judgments needs to be as explicit as possible. Judgments will have a higher degree of replication and defensibility if researchers are clear about the principles and assumptions upon which their judgments are based. Some degree of subjectivity and intuition will always play a part in the process; however, the goal is to make these elements explicit. The formation of interdisciplinary teams and frequent conferencing is one technique that can help in this regard (see sidebar on page 36), forcing researchers to explain their thinking to other thoughtful people who may see things from a different perspective. Employing a process as described in this handbook is another useful technique, helping provide a structure for tracking assumptions, observations, and judgments. Third, because on -site observations are at the heart of many professional judgments, the timing of resource reconnaissance is critical. Fieldwork should ideally occur at a variety of flows (and in the best situations flows will actually be manipulated for the purposes of the study). When it is not possible to see a full range of flows, researchers should plan field work when flows will be near - marginal (when small changes in flows are having relatively large impacts on the resources in question). In either case, observations at the river need to be efficiently conducted and well documented. The sidebar on fieldwork (page 39) examines some simple ideas that can improve those aspects of a study. Summary Some form of professional judgment is a part of any study (and a major component of others), but as a stand -alone approach this method is most appropriate for the indirect impact issues associated with geomorphic and riparian changes. This method is also useful for direct impact issues when there is a limited time schedule or limited budget to conduct the study,