From Science to Policy: Assessing the Assessment Process

Global environmental change is increasingly understood to have causes, consequences, and responses which span multiple levels, from the local to the global. The multi-level nature of such problems has required a radical shift in the relationship between knowledge and action. This working paper illustrates that in an era of global change which is inexorably linked with local ecosystems and communities, successful efforts of regional assessments which address large-scale environmental change can be characterized as distributed research, assessment, and decision support systems. Such systems share a number of characteristics. They: 1) integrate research, assessment, and decision-making across multiple levels; 2) are structured to assess and address global change in the context of local consequences; 3) identify, assess, and respond to the interactions between society and environment which cross levels; and 4) structure the relationship between decision-makers and researchers as a two-way, dynamic, and iterated process (not a "pipeline" from science to decision-maker).

[1]  R. Kates,et al.  Global Change in Local Places: How Scale Matters , 1999 .

[2]  David H. Guston,et al.  Stabilizing the Boundary between US Politics and Science: , 1999, Social studies of science.

[3]  W. Clark,et al.  Global research systems for sustainable development: agriculture, health, and environment. , 1994 .

[4]  Leen Hordijk,et al.  Using Computer Models in International Negotiations: The Case of Acidification in Europe , 1999 .

[5]  C. Folke,et al.  The problem of fit between ecosystems and institutions , 2007 .

[6]  J. Mcneely,et al.  Strategies for Conserving Biodiversity , 1990 .

[7]  D. Victor,et al.  Biodiversity Since Rio: The Future of the Convention on Biological Diversity , 1996 .

[8]  Michael Gibbons,et al.  Science's new social contract with society , 1999, Nature.

[9]  L. D. Danny Harvey,et al.  Upscaling in Global Change Research , 2000 .

[10]  A. Patt,et al.  Communicating probabilistic forecasts to decision makers: a case study of Zimbabwe , 2000 .

[11]  David W. Cash,et al.  "In Order to Aid in Diffusing Useful and Practical Information…": Cross-scale Boundary Organizations and Agricultural Extension , 2000 .

[12]  William E. Easterling,et al.  Why regional studies are needed in the development of full-scale integrated assessment modelling of global change processes , 1997 .

[13]  W. Blomquist,et al.  Dividing the Waters: Governing Groundwater in Southern California , 1992 .

[14]  Heather Devine Science at the Bar: Law, Science and Technology in America , 1997 .

[15]  David W. Cash,et al.  Distributed Assessment Systems: An Emerging Paradigm of Research, Assessment and Decision-making for Environmental Change , 2000 .

[16]  Kai N. Lee,et al.  Greed, Scale Mismatch, and Learning. , 1993, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[17]  R. Andersen,et al.  The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policymakers , 1991 .

[18]  Stewart J. Cohen Scientist–stakeholder collaboration in integrated assessment of climate change: lessons from a case study of Northwest Canada , 1997 .

[19]  Au Learning to Manage Global Environmental Risks: A Comparative History of Social Responses to Climate Change, Ozone Depletion, and Acid Rain , 2001 .

[20]  D. E. Kromm,et al.  Reliance on sources of information for water-saving practices by irrigators in the High Plains of the U.S.A. , 1991 .

[21]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39 , 1989 .

[22]  C. S. Holling,et al.  Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions , 1997 .

[23]  Peter M. Haas,et al.  Saving the Mediterranean: The Politics of International Environmental Cooperation , 1990 .

[24]  David H. Guston,et al.  Principal-agent theory and the structure of science policy , 1996 .

[25]  David W. Cash,et al.  Linking global and local scales: designing dynamic assessment and management processes , 2000 .

[26]  Harold A. Mooney,et al.  International Ecosystem Assessment , 1999, Science.

[27]  John W. Kingdon Agendas, alternatives, and public policies , 1984 .

[28]  Carl J. Walters,et al.  Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources , 1986 .

[29]  P. Sabatier,et al.  Policy Change And Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach , 1993 .

[30]  C. Lindblom Inquiry and Change: The Troubled Attempt to Understand and Shape Society , 1992 .

[31]  The Development of an International Agenda for Climate Change: Connecting Science to Policy , 1997 .

[32]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  Organizational decision making: The possibility of distributed decision making , 1996 .

[33]  Michael D. McGinnis,et al.  Polycentric governance and development : readings from the workshop in political theory and policy analysis , 1999 .

[34]  Shlomo Zilberstein,et al.  Models of Bounded Rationality , 1995 .

[35]  Giandomenico Majone,et al.  The Critical Appraisal of Scientific Inquiries with Policy Implications , 1985 .

[36]  Scale and Modeling Issues in Water Resources Planning , 1997 .

[37]  S. Jasanoff Contested Boundaries in Policy-Relevant Science , 1987 .

[38]  S. Jasanoff,et al.  The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. , 1991 .

[39]  M. Munasinghe,et al.  Defining and Measuring Sustainability: The Biogeophysical Foundations , 1995 .

[40]  M. Munasinghe,et al.  Protecting the ozone layer. , 1992, Finance & development.

[41]  Garry D. Peterson Scaling Ecological Dynamics: Self-Organization, Hierarchical Structure, and Ecological Resilience , 2000 .