Raising the voice of science in complex socio-political contexts: an assessment of contested water decisions

IF 2.9 3区 社会学 Q1 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
S. Greenhalgh, K. Müller, Steve Thomas, Marsha L. Campbell, T. Harter
{"title":"Raising the voice of science in complex socio-political contexts: an assessment of contested water decisions","authors":"S. Greenhalgh, K. Müller, Steve Thomas, Marsha L. Campbell, T. Harter","doi":"10.1080/1523908X.2021.2007762","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Agencies are increasingly developing evidence-based policies to manage natural resources. However, the influence of science in policy is not straightforward nor guaranteed. Critiques based on literature meta-analyses or policy-maker interviews suggest deficiencies in science production and delivery with some studies highlighting the importance of human dimensions. In interviews with decision-makers in freshwater policy in New Zealand and California, we investigated barriers to using science in complex and contested policy contexts. Findings highlighted the importance of the science, scientist, decision-maker, and the decision maker’s relationship with the scientist, for improving the influence of science on policy decisions. The influence depended more on the scientist delivering the information and the audience receiving it, than on the nature of the science itself. Frameworks like CRELE (credibility, relevance, legitimacy) and ACTA (applicability, comprehensiveness, timing, accessibility) are essential but outweighed by the human dimensions of policy development. With greater public, industry and NGO oversight of policy debates related to highly contested resources like water, the volume and quality of science for policy has greatly improved, meaning CRELE and ACTA factors have less prevalence. We give three categories of recommendations for improving the use of science in decision-making – science communication, science production and policy processes.","PeriodicalId":15699,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning","volume":"61 1","pages":"242 - 260"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2021.2007762","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT Agencies are increasingly developing evidence-based policies to manage natural resources. However, the influence of science in policy is not straightforward nor guaranteed. Critiques based on literature meta-analyses or policy-maker interviews suggest deficiencies in science production and delivery with some studies highlighting the importance of human dimensions. In interviews with decision-makers in freshwater policy in New Zealand and California, we investigated barriers to using science in complex and contested policy contexts. Findings highlighted the importance of the science, scientist, decision-maker, and the decision maker’s relationship with the scientist, for improving the influence of science on policy decisions. The influence depended more on the scientist delivering the information and the audience receiving it, than on the nature of the science itself. Frameworks like CRELE (credibility, relevance, legitimacy) and ACTA (applicability, comprehensiveness, timing, accessibility) are essential but outweighed by the human dimensions of policy development. With greater public, industry and NGO oversight of policy debates related to highly contested resources like water, the volume and quality of science for policy has greatly improved, meaning CRELE and ACTA factors have less prevalence. We give three categories of recommendations for improving the use of science in decision-making – science communication, science production and policy processes.
在复杂的社会政治背景下提高科学的声音:对有争议的水决策的评估
各机构越来越多地制定以证据为基础的政策来管理自然资源。然而,科学对政策的影响既不是直截了当的,也不是有保证的。基于文献荟萃分析或政策制定者访谈的批评表明,在科学生产和交付方面存在缺陷,一些研究强调了人的维度的重要性。在对新西兰和加利福尼亚淡水政策决策者的采访中,我们调查了在复杂和有争议的政策背景下使用科学的障碍。研究结果强调了科学、科学家、决策者以及决策者与科学家的关系对于提高科学对政策决定的影响的重要性。这种影响更多地取决于传递信息的科学家和接受信息的听众,而不是科学本身的本质。像CRELE(可信度、相关性、合法性)和ACTA(适用性、全面性、时效性、可及性)这样的框架是必不可少的,但被政策制定的人文因素所取代。随着公众、行业和非政府组织对与水资源等高度争议资源相关的政策辩论的更多监督,政策科学的数量和质量大大提高,这意味着CRELE和ACTA因素的流行程度有所降低。我们提出了改善科学在决策中的应用的三类建议——科学传播、科学生产和政策过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
6.20%
发文量
46
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信