Considering science needs to deliver actionable science |
| |
Authors: | Gustavo A. Bisbal Mitchell J. Eaton |
| |
Affiliation: | 1. United States Geological Survey, National Climate Adaptation Science Center, Reston, Virginia, USA;2. United States Geological Survey, Southeast Climate Adaptation Science Center, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA |
| |
Abstract: | Conservation practitioners, natural resource managers, and environmental stewards often seek out scientific contributions to inform decision-making. This body of science only becomes actionable when motivated by decision makers considering alternative courses of action. Many in the science community equate addressing stakeholder science needs with delivering actionable science. However, not all efforts to address science needs deliver actionable science, suggesting that the synonymous use of these two constructs (delivering actionable science and addressing science needs) is not trivial. This can be the case when such needs are conveyed by people who neglect decision makers responsible for articulating a priority management concern and for specifying how the anticipated scientific information will aid the decision-making process. We argue that the actors responsible for articulating these science needs and the process used to identify them are decisive factors in the ability to deliver actionable science, stressing the importance of examining the provenance and the determination of science needs. Guided by a desire to enhance communication and cross-literacy between scientists and decision makers, we identified categories of actors who may inappropriately declare science needs (e.g., applied scientists with and without regulatory affiliation, external influencers, reluctant decision makers, agents in place of decision makers, and boundary organization representatives). We also emphasize the importance of, and general approach to, undertaking needs assessments or gap analyses as a means to identify priority science needs. We conclude that basic stipulations to legitimize actionable science, such as the declaration of decisions of interest that motivate science needs and using a robust process to identify priority information gaps, are not always satisfied and require verification. To alleviate these shortcomings, we formulated practical suggestions for consideration by applied scientists, decision makers, research funding entities, and boundary organizations to help foster conditions that lead to science output being truly actionable. |
| |
Keywords: | decision analysis decision maker gap analysis needs assessment problem framing análisis de brecha análisis de decisiones definición del problema evaluación de las necesidades órgano decisorio 决策者, 需求评估, 空缺分析, 决策分析, 问题框架 |
|
|