Public policy's bibliography: The use of research in <scp>US</scp> regulatory impact analyses

Desmarais, Bruce A.; Hird, John

doi:10.1111/rego.12041

Cited by 39 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We calculated the mean age of the 52 citations included in the 7 conservation practice standards to be 18 years, and only 10% of these were peer reviewed journal articles, with the majority evenly distributed between government reports and books. This is consistent with the findings of Desmarais and Hird (2014) indicating that the mean age of citations in USDA regulatory impact analyses was 17.3 years, the oldest of 13 federal agencies evaluated. This supports the contention that agency conservation practice standards are based on broad and often outdated ecological principles, rather than on contemporary scientific evidence.…”

Section: Assessment Of Rangeland Conservation In the Ussupporting

confidence: 82%

“…The conditions that give rise to PEK are likely to vary among agencies, or within divisions of the same agency, such Legal proceedings, public critique † We recognize that local, traditional, and indigenous knowledge have each been given distinct meanings in the literature, however we group them together because they are similar when compared to PEK. that some will rely primarily on PEK, but others may effectively incorporate scientific or local knowledge into their decision making (Desmarais and Hird 2014). These conditions may provide useful entry points to further investigate the development and implications of PEK.…”

Section: Professional Ecological Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hannam (2000) found that Indian forestry training programs have exactly this effect. Even when managers have an interest in pursuing scientific information, they may lack access to peer-reviewed scientific literature (Pullin et al 2004), and this results in frequent citation of government reports, popular sources, and outdated scientific information (Pullin et al 2004, Desmarais andHird 2014). Internal promotion procedures that reward loyalty or focus on achieving administratively defined targets, rather than creating successful natural resource outcomes, may also incentivize individuals not to recognize or question PEK (Weiss 1988, Teodoro 2011.…”

Section: Opportunities and Barriers For Knowledge Exchangementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Professional ecological knowledge: an unrecognized knowledge domain within natural resource management

Fleischman¹,

Briske²

2016

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Successful natural resource management is dependent on effective knowledge exchange and utilization. Local/traditional/ indigenous knowledge derived from place-based experience and scientific knowledge generated by systematic inquiry are the most commonly recognized knowledge domains. However, we propose that many natural resource decisions are not based on local or scientific knowledge, but rather on a little recognized domain that we term professional ecological knowledge (PEK). Professional ecological knowledge is founded upon codification of broad ecological principles, but not necessarily scientific evidence, to legitimize agency programs, support operational efficiency, and encourage user compliance. However, in spite of these benefits, PEK may reduce program effectiveness by inhibiting the exchange of local and scientific knowledge and minimizing the development of evidence-based conservation. We describe what we consider to be common facets of PEK through case studies examining the sources of knowledge utilized by forestry agencies in India and by rangeland conservation programs of the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service. Three propositions are presented regarding the origins and continued existence of PEK: (1) minimal information feedbacks regarding the efficacy of agency programs contributes to development of PEK; (2) a narrow scientific agenda and a perception that most scientific knowledge is not relevant to management decisions encourages a divide between scientists and managers; and (3) political interests often benefit from existing applications of PEK. By calling attention to the existence of PEK as a distinctive knowledge domain, we aim to encourage more explicit and critical consideration of the origins of knowledge used in environmental decision making. Explicit recognition of PEK may provide greater understanding of the dynamics of knowledge exchange and decision making in natural resource management.

show abstract

Section: Assessment Of Rangeland Conservation In the Ussupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Professional Ecological Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Opportunities and Barriers For Knowledge Exchangementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Professional ecological knowledge: an unrecognized knowledge domain within natural resource management

Fleischman¹,

Briske²

2016

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A few points, however, should be made concerning this measure. First, we use the data from Desmarais and Hird (), where they find that articles cited in RIAs come from journals with higher impact factors than articles in the same scientific domain not cited in RIAs. While we cannot assume this translates to the quality of the regulation, the agencies in our dataset do invoke higher quality science, so there is at least some level of observable, purposeful use.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Science Use in Regulatory Impact Analysis: The Effects of Political Attention and Controversy

Costa

Desmarais

Hird

2016

Review of Policy Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholars, policymakers, and research sponsors have long sought to understand the conditions under which scientific research is used in the policymaking process. Recent research has identified a resource that can be used to trace the use of science across time and many policy domains. US federal agencies are mandated by executive order to justify all economically significant regulations by regulatory impact analyses (RIAs), in which they present evidence of the scientific underpinnings and consequences of the proposed rule. To gain new insight into when and how regulators invoke science in their policy justifications, we ask: does the political attention and controversy surrounding a regulation affect the extent to which science is utilized in RIAs? We examine scientific citation activity in all 101 economically significant RIAs from 2008-2012 and evaluate the effects of attention -from the public, policy elites and the mediaon the degree of science use in RIAs. Our main finding is that regulators draw more heavily on scientific research when justifying rules subject to a high degree of attention from outside actors. These findings suggest that scientific research plays an important role in the justification of regulations, especially those that are highly salient to the public and other policy actors.

show abstract

“…For instance, to what degree are Regulatory Impact Analysis statements (RIAs) founded on scientific evidence? One study of the US RIAs (Desmarais and Hird ) looked at the pattern of scientific citations in RIAs published over a four‐year period. They found evidence that, while some agencies make extensive use of science in RIAs, most are drawn from highly cited scholarly journals.…”

Section: Literature On Regulation In the Digital Eramentioning

confidence: 99%

Regulation governance in the digital era: A new research agenda

Dutil¹,

Williams²

2017

Can Public Adm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The digital era presents governments with a triple regulatory challenge: monitoring new activities arising out of the digital revolution; adopting digital technologies to proactively detect and address risky behaviours; and responding to calls for a more agile regulation that abandons ineffective practices and standards and adopts new ones as circumstances change. Focusing on how the state governed regulation, either alone, through agencies or through networks or partnerships, this article sets out a research agenda that may lead to a greater understanding of how government can respond to and leverage the digital era in the area of regulation.Sommaire : L'ère num erique confronte les gouvernements a un triple d efi r eglementaire : Faire le suivi des nouvelles activit es provenant de la r evolution num erique; adopter des technologies num eriques afin de d etecter les comportements a risque et d'y r epondre de manière proactive; et r epondre aux appels pour une r eglementation plus souple qui abandonne les pratiques et normes inefficaces afin d'en adopter de nouvelles, compte tenu du changement de circonstances. Cet article, qui se concentre sur la manière dont l'Etat a gouvern e la r eglementation, que ce soit seul, par le biais d'organismes, de r eseaux ou de partenariats, etablit un programme de recherche qui peut aider a mieux comprendre comment le gouvernement peut r epondre a l'ère num erique et en tirer parti dans le domaine de la r eglementation.

show abstract

Public policy's bibliography: The use of research in US regulatory impact analyses

Cited by 39 publications

References 35 publications

Professional ecological knowledge: an unrecognized knowledge domain within natural resource management

Professional ecological knowledge: an unrecognized knowledge domain within natural resource management

Science Use in Regulatory Impact Analysis: The Effects of Political Attention and Controversy

Regulation governance in the digital era: A new research agenda

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About