Enhancing the use of science in environmental policy-making and regulation

Holmes, John; Clark, Rebecca

doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2008.08.004

Cited by 196 publications

(146 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

140

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In spite of a wide recognition of the importance for conservation policy to be based on scientific evidence (Gjerde and Rulska-Domino, 2012;Adams and Sandbrook, 2013;Rose, 2015;Walsh et al, 2015), it has been suggested that the use of science in conservation and policy decision-making has declined (Parsons et al, 2015;Borja et al, 2016;McConney et al, 2016). This paradox may result, in part, from a lack of effective communication between scientists and policy/decision makers (Holmes and Clark, 2008;Grorud-Colvert et al, 2010;Duarte, 2014;Broderick, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 84%

On the Use of Maps and Models in Conservation and Resource Management (Warning: Results May Vary)

Lecours

2017

Front. Mar. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation planning and management typically require accurate and spatially explicit data at scales that are relevant for conservation objectives. In marine conservation, these data are often combined with spatial analytical techniques to produce marine habitat maps. While marine habitat mapping is increasingly used to inform conservation efforts, this field is still relatively young and its methods are rapidly evolving. Because conservation efforts do not always specify standards or guidelines for the production of habitat maps, results can vary dramatically. As representations of real environmental characteristics, habitat maps are highly sensitive to how they are produced. In this review paper, I present four concepts that are known to cause variation in spatial representation and prediction of habitats: the methodology used, the quality and scale of the data, and the choice of variables in regards to fitness for use. I then discuss the potential antinomy associated with the use of habitat maps in conservation: while habitat maps have become an invaluable tool to inform and assist decision-making, maps of the same area built using different methods and data may provide dissimilar representations, thus providing different information and possibly leading to different decisions. Exploring the theories and methods that have proved effective in terrestrial conservation and the spatial sciences, and how they can be integrated in marine habitat mapping practices, could help improve maps used to support marine conservation efforts and result in more reliable products to inform conservation decisions. Having a strong, consistent, transparent, repeatable, and science-based protocol for data collection and mapping is essential for effectively supporting decision-makers in developing conservation and management plans. The development of user-friendly tools to assist in the application of such protocol is crucial to a widespread improvement in practices. I discuss the potential to use interactive and collaborative Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to encourage the conservation and management community, from data collectors and mapmakers to decision-makers, to move toward a digital resilience and to develop such science-based protocol. Until standards and protocols are developed, habitat maps should always be interpreted with care, and the methods and metadata associated with their production should always be explicitly stated.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 84%

On the Use of Maps and Models in Conservation and Resource Management (Warning: Results May Vary)

Lecours

2017

Front. Mar. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the field of sustainable development, the use of scientific knowledge is considered essential for understanding complex environmental problems such as climate change and biodiversity loss, identifying effective measures to address these problems, and informing environmental policy-making [1][2][3][4][5]. However, as Van Kerkhoff and Lebel [6] argue, the use of scientific knowledge is neither sufficient nor self-evident.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…These difficulties have been well recognised in the scientific literature on (among others) environmental governance. Science-policy interfaces (SPIs) are often discussed in relation to these interaction problems as being possible 'solutions' [4,12]. In this context, SPIs are to be understood as processes, organisations, or individuals that "encompass relations between scientists and other actors in the policy process, and which allow for exchanges, co-evolution, and [the] joint construction of knowledge with the aim of enriching decision-making" [12] (p. 807).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Working at the Boundary: An Empirical Study into the Goals and Strategies of Knowledge Brokers in the Field of Environmental Governance in the Netherlands

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:There is a broad range of literature on individuals who mediate at the boundaries between science and policy. However, there seems to be little empirical evidence on the goals and strategies of knowledge brokers, even though they appear to be becoming increasingly important in the field of environmental science and policy. This paper aims to improve the understanding of why and how knowledge brokers operate through an analysis of 27 in-depth interviews. It demonstrates that they see themselves as (strategically) sensitive to all stakes and stakeholders involved, possess a large network, and act without interests. They appear to act strategically in two different settings: on stage, where the collaboration of all stakeholders is needed, and backstage, where the knowledge broker steers the process on his/her own. Furthermore, our research suggests that the (perceived) credibility and legitimacy of the knowledge broker is more important to the process than the degree of credibility and legitimacy of the knowledge used in the decision-making process, and that it would be advisable to deploy knowledge brokers proactively, instead of reactively, which could lead to 'incident politics'.

show abstract

“…Terms relating to uncertainty, such as error or risk can also convey negative connotations to the public (Mowrer 2000). Still, policy-makers have as a general concern how to assess the reliability of scientific information, including in peer reviewed literature (Holmes and Clark 2008). This concern is justified, especially when models are used for open systems and/or for longterm predictions.…”

Section: Models In Public Policy Making and Lake Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Causal analysis of phytoplankton development in a small humic lake using structural equation modelling

Pätynen

Kotamäki

Арвола

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Enhancing the use of science in environmental policy-making and regulation

Cited by 196 publications

References 20 publications

On the Use of Maps and Models in Conservation and Resource Management (Warning: Results May Vary)

On the Use of Maps and Models in Conservation and Resource Management (Warning: Results May Vary)

Working at the Boundary: An Empirical Study into the Goals and Strategies of Knowledge Brokers in the Field of Environmental Governance in the Netherlands

Causal analysis of phytoplankton development in a small humic lake using structural equation modelling

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About