The evaluation of coastal zone management and its ramifications for international transfer : United States - Australia

Abstract

As suggested by the title, this project had two distinct thrusts; namely, an evaluation of coastal zone management (CZM) in the United States, and also, after establishing the status of CZM in Australia, a determination of the suitability of the U.S. CZM techniques and methodology in Australia. Data sources for this multi-faceted project included an extensive literature review of CZM and evaluation research in the U.S.; both draft and final evaluation findings (and a host of accompanying documents) under section 312 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) as issued by the Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM); a case analysis of the Rhode Island CZM program evaluation; an application of the evaluability assessment (EA) technique to the federal CZM program; and, the data gained from a questionnaire sent to both an elite (n = 100) and sub-elite (n = 300) sample in Australia. The entire research effort was aided considerably by the author's fellowship at OCZM, under the auspices of the National Sea Grant Program. The study was indeed timely as the CZMA. was scheduled for reauthorization in September of 1980. and, importantly, the Australian federal government was considering a national initiative regarding CZM in that country. The results of the study indicated the following: CZM in the U.S. has not lived up to the rhetorical promises that gave rise to the Act (although there was reasonable evidence of some excellent state CZM accomplishments); the evaluation process adopted by OCZM under section 312 of the Act was not sufficiently objective or critical to fully evaluate the impact/outcome of the state efforts at CZM; a basic inconsistency existed between the approval of state CZM plans (with state objectives) and the subsequent superimposition of national priorities; the evaluability assessment technique was eminently suitable for improving OCZM and the individual states' evaluations; and, there were certain features, like the national interest in the sea/land interface, federal consistency, and citizen involvement that would be suitable for transfer to Australia. Although these features were attractive to the respondents, they would, as in the United States, be unprecedented experiments in government...