首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     检索      


Ecological knowledge and North Sea environmental policies
Institution:1. Department of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA;2. Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University, Newark, NJ 07102, USA;3. US EPA, National Center for Environmental Research, Washington, DC 20460, USA;4. Department of Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA 02543, USA;5. Department of Ocean Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA;6. Department of Oceanography, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA;7. Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331. USA;8. College of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA;9. Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences, East Boothbay, ME 04544, USA;10. Institute for Geophysics, Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78758, USA
Abstract:In an analysis of North Sea eutrophication science and policies, focusing on the period 1980–2005, it was investigated how scientific information was used in policy-making. The analysis focused on the central assumptions of the rational policy-making model, i.e. that scientific information can be used to formulate decisions, based upon objective scientific information (rational decision-making), and secondly, can support implementing these decisions (rational management). In general terms, the following was concluded:
  • •More knowledge has increased rather than reduced uncertainty;
  • •In order to handle the problem of dealing with complexity and uncertainty at the political level, a simplification of facts has occurred, in this case focusing on nutrients as the main cause of the problem, at the same time excluding other possible causes;
  • •Both the limited scientific view (i.e. the nutrient view) and the exaggeration of the seriousness of the problem (impacts, scope) have been used as an authoritative basis for the justification of political decisions. Both were not supported by the majority of the scientific community;
  • •New scientific knowledge, not in support of existing policies, has been excluded from the policy process;
  • •The science–policy interface, mainly consisting of “civil-servant scientists”, that emerged and increased its influence over the period of investigation, has been the central element in the simplification and exclusion process.
The main lesson learned is that work at the interface of science and policy must be subject to democratic principles, i.e. be transparent and involving all parties with a stake in the issue under consideration.
Keywords:Eutrophication  Science–policy interface  Post-normal science  Rational policy-making  Precautionary principle
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号