Spatial and temporal scale framing of a decision on the future of the Mactaquac Dam in New Brunswick, Canada

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Many large dams are coming to the end of their lifespans and decisions must be made about whether to rebuild/refurbish or remove them, which will have different implications across temporal and spatial scales. Such decisions are often controversial, but little is known about what drives differences in stakeholders' perspectives of them. Cognitive scale frames describe how people use scales in interpreting such an issue, including which of its elements they prioritize and which they minimize. Using interviews with 30 stakeholders and analysis of documents, we explored how stakeholders used spatial and temporal scales in their frames of a decision about whether to rebuild/refurbish or remove the Mactaquac Dam in New Brunswick, Canada. We found that stakeholders used multiple levels on spatial, hydrological, administrative, and temporal scales in their frames. Both those who wanted to retain the dam and those who wanted to remove it upscaled problems from local level to higher spatial levels, making problems seem widely shared and therefore legitimate. However, there were mismatches in the scales used: the retainers upscaled to the province on the administrative scale while the removers upscaled to the entire river on the hydrological scale. The results revealed the particular importance of temporal scale frames, particularly of the past, which have been little studied. Both groups framed problems as continuing into the future, but diverged strongly in how they framed various periods of the past as being relevant to understanding problems and their solutions in the present. Decision makers should be aware of differing scale frames when designing decision-making processes and conflict resolution efforts.

A multiscale approach to balance trade-offs among dam infrastructure, river restoration, and cost

“…Costly infrastructure and restoration decisions rarely hinge on just two criteria ( 13 , 15 , 16 ), and dams are no exception ( 7 – 12 , 27 ). For example, the monetary cost of dam removals is an important criteria for decision-makers with limited budgets ( 6 , 7 , 27 ).…”

“…In contrast, there is a growing movement in the United States to restore rivers by the removal of dams that no longer fulfill their original purpose, are too costly to maintain, pose safety risks to surrounding communities, or have negative ecological or indigenous impacts ( 5 , 6 ). But stakeholders who value the services and aesthetics provided by these dams may oppose their removal, underscoring technological, economic, sociocultural, and environmental trade-offs associated with alternative decisions ( 7 – 12 ). Regardless of the specific context, there is an urgent need for interdisciplinary, stakeholder-engaged methods that may inform deliberations about the trade-offs associated with dam decisions, akin to other sustainability challenges faced by humanity ( 13 – 16 ).…”

Using Structured Decision Making to Overcome Scale Mismatch Challenges in Barrier Removal for Watershed Restoration

“…For example, members of local communities are the main stakeholders for removing small dams (Fox et al. ), whereas stakeholders for removing a large power‐generating dam might include residents in both upstream and downstream areas and resource users beyond the local watershed (e.g., water, electricity, recreational activities, and fisheries; Reilly and Adamowski ). Stakeholder analysis matrices and social network analyses can be used to identify key stakeholders according to the scale of the project (Conroy and Peterson ; Guerrero et al.…”

Fisheries Volume 44 Number 11 November 2019

“…44 • No. 11 • November 2019 Canada, used the long-term recovery of natural riverscape to envision the outcome, but those opposing the project tended to focus on the (relatively short-term) transition period right after the removal (Reilly and Adamowski 2017 ). Temporal mismatch could also occur when stakeholder input is limited to only parts of the decision process (Guerrero et al 2013 ).…”

“…Restoration projects could be less effective if the disturbances and dynamics in other parts of the process are neglected. Similarly, functional mismatch can occur when the full value set of stakeholders that support and oppose the project is not considered (Reilly and Adamowski 2017 ).…”