Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making (2008) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
6 Practice: Integrating Science
6 Practice: Integrating Science
Pages 137-156
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 137... ...
The evidence reviewed in this chapter shows that integrating science and public participation through processes that iterate between analysis and broadly based deliberation -- as recommended in Understanding Risk (National Research Council, 1996) and subsequent National Research Council (e.g., 1999a, 2005a)
|
From page 138... ...
INTEGRATION In Chapter 2, we define quality in environmental assessments and decisions in terms of five elements: 1. identification of the values, interests, and concerns of the agencies, scientists, and other parties that are interested in, or might be affected by, the environmental process or decision; 2.
|
From page 139... ...
Of course, the interested and affected parties to a decision are generally the best judges of what they want and of their values -- but without scientific analysis, they may not know when or how environmental decisions affect those values. For example, as science showed that climate change will affect not only average temperature, but also the frequency and intensity of coastal storms, floods, droughts, wildfires, and so forth, some people who had considered themselves at little risk reconsidered their positions.
|
From page 140... ...
Challenges Related to Science One set of scientific challenges arises from lack of data, the complexity of environmental processes, and the uncertainty of scientific knowledge about environmental processes. In the absence of precise knowledge, a traditional decision rule is to be conservative: either choose options that include a margin of safety that is adequate to avoid bad effects or outcomes, or choose analytic procedures to avoid underestimating the probability of the bad effects or outcomes.
|
From page 141... ...
Such an estimate, however, does not necessarily give a realistic prediction of the risk. The true value of the risk is unknown, and may be as low as zero." Following the 1983 NRC report, federal and EPA cancer risk guidelines were established so that agency procedures for calculating risk from human exposure to potentially carcinogenic chemicals became more predictable for all of the interested and af fected parties.
|
From page 142... ...
But as noted in Chapter 5, given the time, resources, and motivation, nonscientists can become quite adept at critically understanding complex scientific analyses. At the same time, scientists are also imperfect analysts, also subject to heuristic processing as well as disciplinary blinders, and subject to other factors that predispose them to deviations from normative ideals, although scientific communities have developed various norms and procedures that provide some safeguards against individual biases and overconfidence (see below)
|
From page 143... ...
People can be expected to attend to different aspects of an environmental issue, to draw different conclusions from the same information, and otherwise to engage in modes of thinking and analysis that may be mutually unintelligible or even mutually provocative. There are analytic techniques, such as benefit-cost analysis and risk analysis, that can help organize information and thinking about choice options and values.
|
From page 144... ...
all have made special efforts to include locally grounded knowledge in environmental assessments, but effective processes for doing so are only beginning to be explored and represent a special challenge for the future. MEETING THE CHALLENGES This section reviews and draws conclusions from four sources of knowledge and insight about how to effectively integrate science and public input: decision analysis, research on environmental assessments and decisions, the practice of science at the frontiers of knowledge, and experience dealing with uncertain and disputed knowledge in various social arenas.
|
From page 145... ...
The key aspect of decision analysis is the use of logic, especially mathematics and probability theory, to represent relationships between environmental management actions and subsequent effects. Such use of logic is basic practice in most fields of science and engineering, as well as in such common activities as making a household budget or preparing a tax return.
|
From page 146... ...
These relationships are often too complex to describe and comprehend in nonscientific language, so scientists often describe them quantitatively in the form of mathematical models that are implemented as computer programs. Modern computers enable very large numbers of relationships to be specified, so that effects following environmental management decisions can be calculated through a large number of steps from assumptions and data input to the model.
|
From page 147... ...
Scientific peer review and comparison with results calculated by other models that describe the same environmental system are very important for interpreting results from a model. Some models in science can provide the basis for very accurate predictions, but in the area of environmental assessment and decision making, the accuracy of model predictions may not be high.
|
From page 148... ...
Thus, getting high-quality information may require multiple rounds of interaction, in which the parties learn from each other. Research on Environmental Assessment and Decision Processes Strong traditions of research on integrating science and public participation have emerged in the overlapping literatures on risk (National Research Council, 1996; Jaeger et al., 2001; Rosa, Renn, and McCright, 2007)
|
From page 149... ...
Because public concerns in large part determine which scientific questions are decision relevant and because public knowledge of local contexts and practices must inform scientific analysis, successful linking of analysis and deliberation is also considered critical to the legitimacy of the analysis and of decisions that use it. In addition, this literature gives strong reason to believe, though still very little hard evidence, that by participating in iterated processes of analysis and deliberation, public participants will become more sophisticated about the scientific analysis over time and scientists and agency officials more sophisticated about the public's needs for understanding.
|
From page 150... ...
Scientific Practice at the Frontiers of Knowledge Uncertainty and disagreement are always present at the frontiers of science, so scientific communities have developed methods, norms, and procedures that help them test knowledge claims so that shared knowledge can advance despite the limitations of individuals. Some of these methods (e.g., nonhuman instrumentation, the use of mathematics and logic)
|
From page 151... ...
They create a climate of scientific openness that contributes to the legitimacy of deliberations; that moves the deliberation toward clarity on matters of fact; and that tends to clarify the ways in which disputes turn on matters of evidence, judgment, and values. Experience with Uncertain and Disputed Knowledge Practitioners of environmental dispute resolution are among the most knowledgeable about procedures for integrating science and public input in ways that advance understanding.
|
From page 152... ...
It is also important to agree on processes for joint fact-finding or other strategies for shared learning that respect that any participant may have special expertise, that acknowledge the different scopes and domains of such expertise, and that provide ways of checking knowledge claims that are credible to participants who lack expertise in the specific area. CONCLUSION Integrating science and public participation through processes that iterate between analysis and broadly based deliberation promotes the quality, accountability, and legitimacy of environmental assessments and decisions.
|
From page 153... ...
There is little careful empirical research on how to do this, but the studies that do exist converge with insights from decision analysis and long-standing practices in science, public policy, and nonspecialist use of expert knowledge on the principles identified here -- transparency of decision-relevant information and analysis, explicit attention to both facts and values, explicitness about assumptions and uncertainties, independent review, and iteration -- as a shorthand description of a set of norms and practices for integrating science that are conducive to good results. We note that many federal agencies that invest considerable effort in doing environmental and risk analysis have not institutionalized these norms and practices in their assessment and decision processes.
|
From page 154... ...
and produced a set of recommendations very similar to those made in Understanding Risk: SUMMARY: THE PRACTICE OF PARTICIPATION Based on an assessment of multiple sources of evidence, Chapters 4, 5, and 6 identify sets of empirically supported principles of good public participation practice -- for project management, for organizing the participation, and for integrating the science. We summarize them in Box 6-3.
|
From page 155... ...
In contrast, the Commission's Risk Management Framework is intended to: • Provide an integrated, holistic approach to solving public health and environ mental problems in context • Ensure that decisions about the use of risk assessment and economic analy sis rely on the best scientific evidence and are made in the context of risk manage ment alternatives • Emphasize the importance of collaboration, communication, and negotiation among stakeholders so that public values can influence risk management strategies • Produce risk management decisions that are more likely to be successful than decisions made without adequate and early stakeholder involvement • Accommodate critical new information that may emerge at any stage of the process The commission's final report is a strong call for a shift to an altered approach. However, it does not prescribe detailed methods for accomplishing such goals as "adequate and early stakeholder involvement." Also, despite the fact that most commission members are scientists, the report did not provide much detail on how scientific information should be assembled or evaluated for the iterative analytic deliberative approach it proposed.
|
From page 156... ...
Inclusiveness of participation Collaborative problem formulation and process design Transparency of process Good-faith communication INTEGRATING SCIENCE (Chapter 6) Iteration between analysis and broadly based deliberation with: • availability of decision-relevant information • explicit attention to both facts and values • explicitness about analytic assumptions and uncertainties • independent review • reconsideration of past conclusions participants select from among the great variety of available formats and practices those that may help address the particular difficulties they can expect to encounter.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.