1 / 11

By group 1

A Comparison of a Collaborative and Top-Down Approach to the Use of Science in Policy: Establishing Marine Protected Areas in California. By group 1. Abstract. NRC two approaches MPA two attempts Three tired model from ACF

rafael-houston
Télécharger la présentation

By group 1

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Comparison of a Collaborative and Top-DownApproach to the Use of Science in Policy:Establishing Marine Protected Areas in California By group 1

  2. Abstract • NRC two approaches • MPA two attempts • Three tired model from ACF • Data acquisition and analysis • Conclusion

  3. the National Research Council(A) • The NRC put forth a linear scientific approach in a 1983 report on risk entitled Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process—also known as the Red Book. • Under the NRC’s 1983 approach, scientific experts first developed a proposal with limited contributions from affected stakeholders; afterward, this science-based proposal was presented to interested and affected stakeholders for comment. • The NRC’s 1983 linear scientific approach symbolized a top-down strategy for combining science and policy and has been used by multiple government agencies

  4. (B) • The NRC responded by advocating a collaborative process called the analytic and deliberative approach in Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society • The NRC provided five objectives • for the analytic and deliberative approach: (1) Get the science right by using high scientific standards; (2) Get the right science by ensuring scientists address stakeholder concerns; (3) Get the right participation by choosing a representative set of affected stakeholders to participate in the process; (4) Get the participation right by giving stakeholders a fair opportunity to contribute; and (5) Develop accurate, balanced, and informative synthesis by addressing the full range of and acknowledge the limits of available knowledge (NRC, 1996).

  5. Marine Protected Areas the Department of Fish and Game the Master Plan Team Stakeholder Working Groups

  6. Three Hypothesis • Robust NRC 1996 Hypothesis: All stakeholders will prefer the Stakeholder Working Group process compared with the Master Plan Team process independent of their deep core beliefs. • 1983 NRC Belief Constraint Hypothesis: The greater the degree of stakeholder concurrence with pro-scientific management beliefs, which embodies the rationale of the 1983 NRC report, the greater the degree of stakeholder preference for the Master Plan Team process compared to the Stakeholder Working Group process.

  7. Data

  8. Analysis

  9. Conclusion • Stakeholders with strong preferences for scientific management support empirical claims for the benefits of MPAs and are more optimistic about the linear scientific approach compared to the analytic and deliberative approach for protecting major habitats, avoiding adverse fishing effects, and avoiding unfair agency domination. In contrast, stakeholders with pro-collaborative beliefs respect local knowledge and are more optimistic about the analytic and deliberative approach compared to the linear scientific approach for avoiding adverse fishing effects and unfair agency domination.

  10. Thanks • Group members: Niu Liu 0322008 Xinping Liu 0417132 Lianghui Li 0412153 Xiaotong Shan 0419025 Zhongwei Hu 0227138

More Related