Application of the Technology Readiness Levels Framework to Natural Resource Management Tools

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Technology development is a unique aspect within fisheries science that can provide resource managers with the tools necessary to preserve fishery and water resources in the United States. Development of new technologies is often motivated by resource management needs to address important conservation issues. Introduction of an invasive species, for example, is one widespread management problem faced throughout many aquatic systems where technologies that control the invasive pest may be needed to conserve native ecosystems (Vander Zanden and Olden 2008; Hubert et al. 2021). These could include technologies, such as movement barriers, enhanced removal techniques, or pesticide delivery systems (Cupp et al. 2021a). Demand for technologies that can address invasive species, along with technologies that resolve other present day conservation issues, is expected to continue as resource managers seek to protect vital ecosystem services in an ever‐changing world (Lovell et al. 2006; Rahel and Olden 2008; Havel et al. 2015). However, resource managers must also have confidence that a given technology can support various management goals and objectives.

Deciding how to best implement new technologies can be challenging for resource managers, particularly for new technologies or novel applications (Failing et al. 2013). In fishery and water resources, technology development can arise from a variety of sources, such as academic institutions, governmental agencies, and private industry. Demonstration of new technologies from these sources may occur across a variety of scales and environmental conditions, including laboratory experiments, mesocosm studies, model simulations, and field observations. Resource managers may compile the available information and data for relevant technologies to make informed decisions with implementation. This process can be complicated, as information is reported in various forms and locations that may have limited applicability to management needs (Newcomb et al. 2021). The lack of a standardized technology development framework, along with the inability to directly compare or assess technologies, can further hinder the decision‐making process (Johnson et al. 2017). Future technology development could benefit from a standardized scale that assigns an appropriate technology development stage and defines the readiness for implementation.

Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) are one established framework applied throughout engineering and related fields that may have application for technology development within fishery and water resources. The TRL assess the maturity of a technology from nascent idea through a fully developed technology that is ready for implementation. Steps within this scale could provide a general framework for researchers to follow when planning and conducting studies, while similarly providing a standard scale for resource managers to assess readiness for implementation. The purpose of this paper is to describe TRL in the context of fishery and water resources and offer this existing framework as one option to facilitate communication between researchers and managers.

TECHNOLOGY READINESS LEVELS (TRL)

Technology Readiness Levels are widely applied by certain disciplines to facilitate technology development and implementation. Governmental entities, such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Department of Defense, routinely reference TRL for decision making with technology applications (Persons and Mackin 2020; Barber et al. 2021). These agencies often refer to the TRL when gauging the feasibility of new technologies to ensure that investments and acquisitions are adequate solutions to an existing problem (Straub 2015). However, the TRL scale has not yet been widely implemented or utilized by biologists and ecologists, possibly due to lack of familiarity with this existing framework. Ecologists often focus on general biological research with sometimes less background or emphasis placed on technology development. Natural resource agencies may also need to make a concerted effort to educate personnel on the applicability of such a scale (e.g., Weinstein et al. 2020). Fortunately, the general concept with technology development is ubiquitous across disciplines, where technologies must be sufficiently tested and demonstrated before they are ready for implementation. Researchers and resource managers could consider using the existing TRL scale to aid with technology development for natural resource management tools.

The TRL scale evaluates the maturity of a technology using nine categorical rankings (Table 1). Technologies are assigned an appropriate ranking based on current development status. Rankings can increase or decrease over time as new information is learned and the technology progresses. Researchers can follow the TRL scale when proposing and designing studies to advance the TRL status for a certain technology. Similarly, resource managers can then evaluate TRL status for various technologies to prioritize and decide what could best meet management needs. Each TRL can serve as a decision point for researchers and managers to engage and track progress or determine next steps.

New ideas or concepts are typically assigned a TRL 1 or 2. This could originate from literature reviews that have identified promising areas for research or result from the proposal of a new application of an existing technology. Assignment of a TRL 1 or 2 means a technology is currently unproven and lacks supporting evidence. Research may then transition to proof‐of‐concept testing in controlled settings to determine viability. Favorable results from proof‐of‐concept studies may advance a technology to a TRL 3 or 4. Continued research at larger mesocosm or limited field scales may further advance a technology to a TRL 5 or 6 as the understanding and application of the technology progresses. Models that simulate management scenarios may supplement physical testing at TRL 5 or 6 to inform technology development.

Considerable research and data supported evidence is necessary to advance technologies above a TRL 6. Research at this stage requires prototype development with demonstrable application at a management relevant scale. In fisheries, examples at this stage could range from the multiyear operation of a new fish passage technology at a high‐head dam or a novel invasive species control technique within an infested waterbody. Testing at these higher TRL is often at the intersection of research and management, where coordinated efforts are needed to advance technologies and demonstrate application under management conditions (Table 1). At the TRL rankings 7 and higher, a given technology has been fully demonstrated, the prototype is well understood, and the technology can be transferred to management application (Persons and Mackin 2020; Barber et al. 2021).

TECHNOLOGY READINESS LEVEL EXAMPLES

The TRL concept may be best understood when compared and applied to existing natural resource management tools and scenarios. For the purposes of this paper, one example is included where we assessed an invasive species control tool that is currently undergoing research and development using the TRL framework. We then describe how TRL may inform structured decision‐making efforts within resource management plans. The overall goal is to identify the possible applicability of TRL to technology development and decisions with any natural resource management tool.

TRL in Research and Development

Carbon dioxide (CO₂) was recently registered as an aquatic pesticide in the United States after undergoing an extensive research and development process (Suski 2020). Briefly, the concept is to mix CO₂ into water at prescribed concentrations to deter or repel invasive carps (e.g., Hypophthalmichthys spp.) with the intent of reducing upstream movements and range expansion through navigation lock structures on major rivers. Suski (2020) synthesized many of the published studies from CO₂ development for invasive carp control over the prior 10 years. We categorized studies described in that review and throughout the literature into an appropriate TRL as an example of how the research and development advanced over time (Table 2).

The initial concept and idea for CO₂ as a fish deterrent originated from literature reviews that identified the potential for inert gases, such as CO₂, to alter the behavior and movements of aquatic organisms (Table 2). These reports assembled the available literature and speculated on ways CO₂ gas could be used for invasive species control. Formulation of the concept placed this technology at TRL 1 and 2 and established a reasonable starting point for subsequent research to investigate how invasive carps may respond to a CO₂ deterrent.

Proof‐of‐concept studies then occurred across a range of environmental conditions, including laboratory tanks, outdoor ponds, field and simulated management conditions, with the TRL assigned primarily based on spatial scale where the study was conducted. The majority of CO₂ research that we found was conducted within TRL 3 and 4 at relatively small scales. Testing at this TRL range is often a cost‐efficient approach to refine the understanding of a technology at experimental scales under highly controlled environments. Objectives from these TRL 3 and 4 studies were mostly focused on evaluating various aspects of invasive carp behavior to the CO₂ deterrent, such as general deterrent efficiency, the influence of water temperature, the potential for acclimation to the stimulus, identification of optimal deterrent concentrations, and characterizing behavioral variability (Table 2). However, other studies were also included in our TRL 3–5 rankings that addressed considerations with CO₂ development that were outside of conventional fish behavior studies. Considerations with possible effects on nontarget species (e.g., native mussels and fishes), pesticide registration with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to allow regulatory compliance, and engineered designs and prototype testing for gas‐injection systems to efficiently mix CO₂ into water were completed (Table 2). Although these studies did not specifically evaluate the effectiveness of this technology as a fish deterrent, they were necessary logistical or regulatory milestones to advance technology development into a higher TRL ranking.

Current TRL for CO₂ depends on the specific application. Based on the studies that we categorized, CO₂ is likely to be assigned a TRL 7 when applied as an invasive carp deterrent due to its demonstrated application in a navigation lock under simulated management conditions. However, the TRL could change if the proposed application differs from previous applications. For example, many of these studies were conducted with invasive carps. If future CO₂ applications were proposed for other fishes that have considerably different life histories and behavioral characteristics, it is possible that a lower TRL would be assigned until CO₂ has been demonstrated to be effective for that species. For those scenarios, the TRL framework could be utilized to outline the sequence of studies that would be needed to reach a TRL sufficient for the proposed new application.

Carbon dioxide has been developed to a point suitable for technology transfer but has not yet reached TRL 8–9, as these levels require implementation within management plans (Table 2). At the time of this publication, CO₂ has not yet been widely implemented as an invasive carp deterrent for management purposes. Researchers and managers are currently working together on strategies to incorporate CO₂ as a deterrent for invasive carps on large rivers in the United States (Post van der Burg et al. 2021). Eventual management applications with CO₂ deterrents could meet the criteria for a TRL 8–9, where the technology is utilized as a control tool by resource managers. Overall, this technology example provides a conceptual overview of how TRL can be applied to research and development. Many other emerging technologies found throughout the literature also exist where TRL could be used to categorize and plan the workflow process to develop technologies to a suitable level where they can be considered for implementation.

TRL in Decision Making

Structured decision making (SDM) workshops and decision analysis exercises are routinely used in resource management to prioritize actions that can meet management goals and objectives. Stakeholder groups assemble in SDM workshops to frame an existing problem and identify collaborative objectives, alternatives, consequences, tradeoffs, and ultimately decide on a set of actions that will best meet objectives (Runge et al. 2020). Although this structured process can result in a consensus decision on priorities, arriving at that decision is contingent on assessments of available data and information. The TRL has the potential to help inform those assessments, particularly when identifying and contemplating all potential alternative actions.

Alternative actions are synonymous with management tools in the context of fishery and water resource decisions. These could include technologies such as invasive species removal techniques, native fish passageway designs, habitat modifications, or species monitoring strategies depending on the goals and objectives of the SDM process (Robinson et al. 2021). Management tools are identified by the stakeholder group and then evaluated with qualitative or quantitative assessments to determine the consequences and tradeoffs of those actions (Robinson and Fuller 2017). The ability to identify alternatives depends on the availability of information and data, which can differ greatly across technologies (Post van der Burg et al. 2021). New technologies are sometimes overlooked simply due to lack of awareness, or due to insufficient data or evidence regarding efficacy, feasibility, or cost. The TRL framework could assist the stakeholder group by placing all technologies on a standardized metric for consideration.

General placement of a technology on the TRL scale by the stakeholder group is a simple way to quickly determine whether a technology is ready for implementation. The stakeholder group can review any available information and objectively place the technology at a corresponding TRL. Technical experts may need to provide additional background or context on a technology to thoroughly assess readiness. In most cases, a given technology at TRL 7 or higher could be considered within management plans (Persons and Mackin 2020). However, the TRL 7 and 8 can also serve as a transition between research and development, where new technologies could continue to undergo research and development while simultaneously being applied by managers (Table 1). This is particularly relevant for new technologies, where less data are available relative to well established technologies. Note that although the TRL can be useful to identify management ready technologies, it does not directly compare or assess competing technologies that also solve the problem. For example, we placed CO₂ at a TRL 7 when used as an invasive carp deterrent, but other TRL 7+ deterrents also exist that should also be considered based on other technology attributes (Cupp et al. 2021a). Consequences and trade off assessments used in SDM protocols may be necessary to identify the optimal management tools when several management‐ready technology options exist.

Outcomes from SDM exercises using the TRL may also identify needs or priorities for future research investments. This could be consequential for researchers and funding entities that are considering next steps. For example, lower TRL rankings by the stakeholder groups may eliminate some technologies as possible options for immediate management plans. This could be an opportune time for researchers to identify studies that would elevate a given technology to a higher TRL that would be suitable for consideration in future management plans. Placement of technologies on the TRL could set realistic research and development pathways, timelines, and expectations between researchers and managers to ensure that investments continue to work towards solving important management problems.

FUTURE APPLICATIONS

Application of TRL to natural resource management tools may be a reasonable approach to identify necessary research plans that advance technologies and facilitate the assessment of new technologies by resource managers. Perhaps most importantly, the TRL framework standardizes terminology between researchers and resource managers to better communicate technology development and implementation (Newcomb et al. 2021). The TRL definitions can be dynamic as ecologists adapt and tailor the TRL descriptions to meet their specific needs. Several versions of the TRL currently exist that were developed for other purposes (DoD 2010). We offer one version of the TRL in Table 1 for technology development for natural resource management tools that can be modified as needed to fit a given technology or application.

Steps within the TRL can be considered as general guidelines and not a prescriptive research and development path. Some technologies, particularly new applications with existing technologies, may mature faster on the TRL due to knowledge gained from previous applications. In certain cases, context‐based adoption of less advanced technologies may be necessary within an adaptive management framework to address immediate management needs (Hemming et al. 2022). However, other technologies may require a more thorough vetting within the TRL due to ecological, social, or economic uncertainties or risk (e.g., genetic manipulation technologies). Note that the intent is not to slow down technology development with a graduated TRL process. Rather, the TRL provide a general direction for research with technologies and a metric for resource managers to assess readiness for implementation within management plans. Communication and engagement between researchers and managers, particularly early in the technology development process, could help identify which TRL steps are necessary relative to management timelines and needs.

The TRL could also be applied in natural resources to concepts outside of the conventional definition of a “technology.” For example, development of new sampling methodologies or novel harvest gear types could follow a modified version of the TRL to demonstrate application before they are incorporated into management plans. Likewise, more complex concepts, such as machine learning or artificial intelligence, could also be developed using the small‐to‐large scale testing approach and evaluated for readiness using the TRL. The standardized TRL could potentially facilitate implementation of these more complex technologies where the underlying technical intricacies are less important, but the ability for a given technology to fit within an adaptive management framework can be defined using a TRL ranking (Barber et al. 2021).

In summary, the TRL can be applied with natural resource management tools to standardize terminology between researchers and managers, define a research and development path for a given technology, and assess the maturity of a technology for implementation within management plans. More information on TRL is available from the Department of Defense (Persons and Mackin 2020) that can provide additional details and considerations with this scale for technology development.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Any use of trade, firm, or product name is for descriptive purposes and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. There is no conflict of interest declared in this article.

REFERENCES