Study Design and Logistics - Wetland Techniques - page 7

Typically, development of a study question and associated hypotheses is considered
a basic and simple task that is hurriedly stated prior to designing a study. In practice,
a successful study depends on a thoroughly developed question and sound, concep-
tual hypotheses that can be represented by competing models and tested with data
(e.g., Anderson 2008 ). However, lacking competing quantitative models,
hypotheses can be formulated as existential statements, which include an expres-
sion that existence of a phenomenon has identifiable characteristics and causal
explanations that exist for each occurrence of the phenomenon. All subsequent
steps in a study must refer back to the question and its associated hypotheses, which
require prioritization and agreement by everyone involved in the study (including
funding sources). Questions can be developed from personal experience, expert
opinion, literature, intuition, and guesswork but are usually driven by stated goals.
For complex natural resource issues, Structured Decision Making and Adaptive
Resource Management have recently been adopted by many governmental
agencies; the approach is focused on developing and prioritizing questions related
to a natural resource issue (e.g., Martin et al. 2009 ). Questions or study objectives
under this approach are categorized as fundamental (explicit declarations of core
concerns or questions), means (typically methodological and represent an interme-
diary step in reaching the fundamental objective), process (ground rules for deci-
sion processes related to the study), and strategic (fundamental to a broader set of
decisions than the one in question) objectives and require considerable effort to
distinguish among these (e.g., Keeney 2007 ; Williams 2012 ). For example, there
may be a controversial issue relative to mitigation of a wetland that is slated to be
lost to development. There are likely a number of stakeholders (i.e., developers,
local government, natural resources agencies, non-governmental organizations)
that have competing views on the type, location, and magnitude of mitigation.
Use of the Structured Decision Making Approach facilitates the decision-making
process by involving all stakeholders in (1) identifying the problem to be addressed,
(2) specifying objectives and tradeoffs, (3) identifying the range of potential
decisions, (4) specifying assumptions about resource structures and functions,
(5) projecting the consequences of alternative actions, and (6) identifying key
uncertainties among other steps (Williams and Brown 2012 ). This approach explic-
itly addresses decision uncertainty, which is the typical roadblock preventing sound
decisions based on scientific knowledge. One should recognize that uncertainty
represents incomplete knowledge, not doubt, when addressing specific wetland
issues. It is more desirable to design studies to address fundamental objectives
(questions) rather than the other objective types. No single study can address every
question, and, if attempted, usually results in mediocrity and an inefficient use of
resources.
There are several types of reasoning that can be used to obtain knowledge
through generation of theories and hypotheses (Morrison et al. 2001 ). One can
use induction to create general conclusions based on a collection of individual facts
(i.e., conclusions are drawn based on an association between individual facts);
frequently an extrapolation of results from a study to a general situation. As an
example of inductive reasoning, an investigator has concluded that the development