Title |
Empirically derived guidance for social scientists to influence environmental policy
|
---|---|
Published in |
PLOS ONE, March 2017
|
DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0171950 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Nadine Marshall, Neil Adger, Simon Attwood, Katrina Brown, Charles Crissman, Christopher Cvitanovic, Cassandra De Young, Margaret Gooch, Craig James, Sabine Jessen, Dave Johnson, Paul Marshall, Sarah Park, Dave Wachenfeld, Damian Wrigley |
Abstract |
Failure to stem trends of ecological disruption and associated loss of ecosystem services worldwide is partly due to the inadequate integration of the human dimension into environmental decision-making. Decision-makers need knowledge of the human dimension of resource systems and of the social consequences of decision-making if environmental management is to be effective and adaptive. Social scientists have a central role to play, but little guidance exists to help them influence decision-making processes. We distil 348 years of cumulative experience shared by 31 environmental experts across three continents into advice for social scientists seeking to increase their influence in the environmental policy arena. Results focus on the importance of process, engagement, empathy and acumen and reveal the importance of understanding and actively participating in policy processes through co-producing knowledge and building trust. The insights gained during this research might empower a science-driven cultural change in science-policy relations for the routine integration of the human dimension in environmental decision making; ultimately for an improved outlook for earth's ecosystems and the billions of people that depend on them. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 41 | 21% |
United States | 29 | 15% |
Canada | 12 | 6% |
Australia | 10 | 5% |
South Africa | 5 | 3% |
Germany | 5 | 3% |
Sweden | 4 | 2% |
Kenya | 2 | 1% |
Italy | 2 | 1% |
Other | 24 | 12% |
Unknown | 63 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 121 | 61% |
Scientists | 69 | 35% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 2% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Australia | 2 | 1% |
Macao | 1 | <1% |
Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
Sweden | 1 | <1% |
Finland | 1 | <1% |
New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
Spain | 1 | <1% |
United States | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 180 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 47 | 25% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 36 | 19% |
Student > Master | 17 | 9% |
Other | 10 | 5% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 5% |
Other | 35 | 19% |
Unknown | 34 | 18% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Social Sciences | 43 | 23% |
Environmental Science | 42 | 22% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 17 | 9% |
Psychology | 10 | 5% |
Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 6 | 3% |
Other | 30 | 16% |
Unknown | 41 | 22% |