Advertisement

Climatic Change

, 95:11 | Cite as

Making a difference on the ground: the challenge of demonstrating the effectiveness of decision support

  • Susanne MoserEmail author
Open Access
Article

Abstract

Decision support has become a popular concept, especially in the context of climate change. Government agencies and researchers increasingly recognize that they should provide it, and resource managers and policy-makers increasingly need and demand it. This demand will only grow as climate change progresses. Those who will attempt to meet this growing demand will need to demonstrate “effectiveness”. This editorial raises a number of critical questions that need to be answered in the course of evaluating whether decision support is effective. The answers, if carefully considered early on, may help to design processes that may in fact produce more useable products, facilitate their use, and ultimately create intended and desirable outcomes.

Keywords

Decision Support Public Participation Provide Decision Support Future Research Agenda Decision Support Process 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Arnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. JAIP 35:216–225Google Scholar
  2. Beierle TC (1998) Public participation in environmental decisions: an evaluation framework using social goals. Resources for the Future. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. Beierle TC (2004) The benefits and costs of disclosing information about risks: what do we know about right-to-know? Risk Anal 24:335–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berkes F (1999) Sacred ecology: traditional ecological knowledge and management systems. Taylor & Francis, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  5. Callon M (1999) The role of lay people in the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge. Sci Technol Soc 4:81–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jäger J, Mitchell RB (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. PNAS 100:8086–8091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark WC, Crutzen PJ, Schellnhuber H-J (2004) Science for global sustainability. In: Schnellnhuber HJ (ed) Earth system analysis for sustainability. MIT, Cambridge, pp 1–28Google Scholar
  8. Clark WC, Mitchell RB, Cash DW (2006) Evaluating the influence of global environmental assessments. In: Mitchell RB, Clark WC, Cash DW, Dickson N (eds) Global environmental assessments: information and influence. MIT, Cambridge, pp 1–28Google Scholar
  9. Climate Change Science Program, Subcommittee on Global Change Research (2003) Strategic plan for the U.S. climate change science program. CCSP, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooke B, Kothari U (eds) (2001) Participation: the new tyranny? Zed Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Creighton JL (2005) The public participation handbook: making better decisions through citizen involvement. Wiley, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  12. Ewing MK (2003) Public participation in environmental decision-making. GDRC, KoytoGoogle Scholar
  13. Farrell A, Jäger J (eds) (2006) Assessments of regional and global environmental risks. Resources for the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  14. Fiorino DJ (1990) Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Sci Technol Human Values 15:226–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Folke C (2004) Traditional knowledge in social-ecological systems. Ecology & Society 9:7. Available at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art7/
  16. Gethmann CF (2005) Participation als Modus sozialer Selbstorganisation? Einige kritische Fragen. [Participation as a form of social self organization? Some critical questions]. Gaia 14:32–33Google Scholar
  17. Gibbons M (1999) Science’s new social contract with society. Nature 402:C81–C84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M (1994) The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Guston DH (2001) Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Sci Technol Human Values 26:87–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heinrichs H (2005) Partizipationsforschung und nachhaltige Entwicklung. [Research on participation and sustainable development]. Gaia 14:30–31Google Scholar
  21. Hickey S, Mohan G (eds) (2005) Participation–from tyranny to transformation? Exploring new approaches to participation in development. Zed Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Jasanoff S (1990) The fifth branch: science advisors as policymakers. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Jasanoff S (ed) (2004) States of knowledge: the co-production of science and social order. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Kasperson RE (2006) Rerouting the stakeholder express. Glob Environ Change 16:320–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krimsky S, Golding D (eds) (1992) Social theories of risk. Praeger, WestportGoogle Scholar
  26. Lee KN (1993) Compass and gyroscope: integrating science and politics for the environment. Island, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  27. Lubchenco J (1998) Entering the century of the environment: a new social contract for science. Science 279:491–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Markus GB, Chess C, Shannon MA (2005) Political perspectives on public participation in environmental assessment and decision making. Discussion paper prepared for the NRC public participation in environmental assessments and decision-making panel meeting, Washington, DC, February 2005. NRC, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  29. Mayoux L (2007) Participatory Development. Available at http://www.lindaswebs.org.uk/Page1_Development/Participation/Participation.htm
  30. McNie EC (2007) Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environ Sci Policy 10:17–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Miles EL, Snover AK, Whitely Binder LC, Sarachik ES, Mote PW, Mantua N (2006) An approach to designing a national climate service. PNAS 103:19616–19623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mitchell RB, Clark WC, Cash DW, Dickson N (eds) (2006) Global environmental assessments: information, and influence. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Moser SC (2005) Stakeholder involvement in the first U.S. national assessment of the potential consequences of climate variability and change: an evaluation, finally. Research report prepared for National Research Council, Committee on Human Dimensions of Global Change. NCAR, Boulder, COGoogle Scholar
  34. Moser SC (2006) Climate change and sea-level rise in Maine and Hawai’i: the changing tides of an issue domain. In: Mitchell RB, Clark WC, Cash DW, Dickson N (eds) Global environmental assessments: information, and influence. MIT, Cambridge, pp 201–239Google Scholar
  35. Moser SC, Dilling L (2004) Making climate hot: communicating the urgency and challenge of global climate change. Environment 46:32–46Google Scholar
  36. Moser SC, Dilling L (eds) (2007) Creating a climate for change: communicating climate change and facilitating social change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  37. National Research Council (NRC) (1996) Understanding risk: informing decisions in a democratic society. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  38. National Research Council (NRC) (2007) Evaluating progress of the U.S. climate change science program: methods and preliminary results. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  39. National Research Council (NRC) (2008) Public participation in environmental assessment and decision making. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  40. Newig J (2007) Does public participation in environmental decisions lead to improved environmental quality?. CCP (Communication, Cooperation, Participation. Research and Practice for a sustainable Future) 1:51–71Google Scholar
  41. Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2001) Rethinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  42. Oliver P (2002) Natural resource and environmental management partnerships: panacea, placebo or palliative? In: National Coastal Management ‘Coast to Coast’ Conference. Tweed Heads, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  43. Pielke RA Jr (2007) The honest broker: making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  44. Pohl C (2005) Transdisciplinary collaboration in environmental research. Futures 37:1159–1178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rayner S, Lach D, Ingram H (2005) Weather forecasts are for wimps: why water resource managers do not use climate forecasts. Clim Change 69:197–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rowe G, Frewer LJ (2000) Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Sci Technol Human Values 25:3–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Slaughter S, Rhoades G (2005) From “endless frontier” to “basic science for use”: social contracts between science and society. Sci Technol Human Values 30:536–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stringer LC et al (2006) Unpacking “participation” in the adaptive management of social–ecological systems: a critical review. Ecology & Society 11:39. Available at: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss32/art39/
  49. van Kerkhoff L (2005) Integrated research: concepts of connection in environmental science and policy. Environ Sci Policy 8:452–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. van Kerkhoff L, Lebel L (2006) Linking knowledge and action for sustainable development. Ann Rev Environ Res 31:12.11–12.33Google Scholar
  51. Visbeck M (2007) From climate assessment to climate services. Nat Geosci 1:2–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2009

Open AccessThis is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Susanne Moser Research and ConsultingSanta CruzUSA
  2. 2.University of California-Santa CruzSanta CruzUSA

Personalised recommendations