Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Evaluating the best available social science fo...

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Evaluating the best available social science for natural resource management decision-making

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Evaluating the best available social science for natural resource management decision-making. / Charmley, Susan; Carothers, Courtney; Satterfield, Terre et al.

In: Environmental Science and Policy, Vol. 73, 26.04.2017, p. 80-88.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Charmley, S, Carothers, C, Satterfield, T, Levine, A, Poe, M, Norman, K, Donatuto, J, Breslow, S, Mascia, M, Levin, P, Basurto, X, Hicks, C, Garcia-Quijano, C & St.Martin, K 2017, 'Evaluating the best available social science for natural resource management decision-making', Environmental Science and Policy, vol. 73, pp. 80-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.002

APA

Charmley, S., Carothers, C., Satterfield, T., Levine, A., Poe, M., Norman, K., Donatuto, J., Breslow, S., Mascia, M., Levin, P., Basurto, X., Hicks, C., Garcia-Quijano, C., & St.Martin, K. (2017). Evaluating the best available social science for natural resource management decision-making. Environmental Science and Policy, 73, 80-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.002

Vancouver

Charmley S, Carothers C, Satterfield T, Levine A, Poe M, Norman K et al. Evaluating the best available social science for natural resource management decision-making. Environmental Science and Policy. 2017 Apr 26;73:80-88. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.002

Author

Charmley, Susan ; Carothers, Courtney ; Satterfield, Terre et al. / Evaluating the best available social science for natural resource management decision-making. In: Environmental Science and Policy. 2017 ; Vol. 73. pp. 80-88.

Bibtex

@article{5e866a69fb85458098b30473491e5e31,
title = "Evaluating the best available social science for natural resource management decision-making",
abstract = "Increasing recognition of the human dimensions of natural resource management issues, and of social and ecological sustainability and resilience as being inter-related, highlights the importance of applying social science to natural resource management decision-making. Moreover, a number of laws and regulations require natural resource management agencies to consider the “best available science” (BAS) when making decisions, including social science. Yet rarely do these laws and regulations define or identify standards for BAS, and those who have tried to fill the gap have done so from the standpoint of best available natural science. This paper proposes evaluative criteria for best available social science (BASS), explaining why a broader set of criteria than those used for natural science is needed. Although the natural and social sciences share many of the same evaluative criteria for BAS, they also exhibit some differences, especially where qualitative social science is concerned. Thus we argue that the evaluative criteria for BAS should expand to include those associated with diverse social science disciplines, particularly the qualitative social sciences. We provide one example from the USA of how a federal agency − the U.S. Forest Service − has attempted to incorporate BASS in responding to its BAS mandate associated with the national forest planning process, drawing on different types of scientific information and in light of these criteria. Greater attention to including BASS in natural resource management decision-making can contribute to better, more equitable, and more defensible management decisions and policies.",
author = "Susan Charmley and Courtney Carothers and Terre Satterfield and Arielle Levine and Melissa Poe and Karma Norman and Jamie Donatuto and Sara Breslow and Michael Mascia and Phillip Levin and Xavier Basurto and Christina Hicks and Carlos Garcia-Quijano and Kevin St.Martin",
year = "2017",
month = apr,
day = "26",
doi = "10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.002",
language = "English",
volume = "73",
pages = "80--88",
journal = "Environmental Science and Policy",
issn = "1462-9011",
publisher = "ELSEVIER SCI LTD",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluating the best available social science for natural resource management decision-making

AU - Charmley, Susan

AU - Carothers, Courtney

AU - Satterfield, Terre

AU - Levine, Arielle

AU - Poe, Melissa

AU - Norman, Karma

AU - Donatuto, Jamie

AU - Breslow, Sara

AU - Mascia, Michael

AU - Levin, Phillip

AU - Basurto, Xavier

AU - Hicks, Christina

AU - Garcia-Quijano, Carlos

AU - St.Martin, Kevin

PY - 2017/4/26

Y1 - 2017/4/26

N2 - Increasing recognition of the human dimensions of natural resource management issues, and of social and ecological sustainability and resilience as being inter-related, highlights the importance of applying social science to natural resource management decision-making. Moreover, a number of laws and regulations require natural resource management agencies to consider the “best available science” (BAS) when making decisions, including social science. Yet rarely do these laws and regulations define or identify standards for BAS, and those who have tried to fill the gap have done so from the standpoint of best available natural science. This paper proposes evaluative criteria for best available social science (BASS), explaining why a broader set of criteria than those used for natural science is needed. Although the natural and social sciences share many of the same evaluative criteria for BAS, they also exhibit some differences, especially where qualitative social science is concerned. Thus we argue that the evaluative criteria for BAS should expand to include those associated with diverse social science disciplines, particularly the qualitative social sciences. We provide one example from the USA of how a federal agency − the U.S. Forest Service − has attempted to incorporate BASS in responding to its BAS mandate associated with the national forest planning process, drawing on different types of scientific information and in light of these criteria. Greater attention to including BASS in natural resource management decision-making can contribute to better, more equitable, and more defensible management decisions and policies.

AB - Increasing recognition of the human dimensions of natural resource management issues, and of social and ecological sustainability and resilience as being inter-related, highlights the importance of applying social science to natural resource management decision-making. Moreover, a number of laws and regulations require natural resource management agencies to consider the “best available science” (BAS) when making decisions, including social science. Yet rarely do these laws and regulations define or identify standards for BAS, and those who have tried to fill the gap have done so from the standpoint of best available natural science. This paper proposes evaluative criteria for best available social science (BASS), explaining why a broader set of criteria than those used for natural science is needed. Although the natural and social sciences share many of the same evaluative criteria for BAS, they also exhibit some differences, especially where qualitative social science is concerned. Thus we argue that the evaluative criteria for BAS should expand to include those associated with diverse social science disciplines, particularly the qualitative social sciences. We provide one example from the USA of how a federal agency − the U.S. Forest Service − has attempted to incorporate BASS in responding to its BAS mandate associated with the national forest planning process, drawing on different types of scientific information and in light of these criteria. Greater attention to including BASS in natural resource management decision-making can contribute to better, more equitable, and more defensible management decisions and policies.

U2 - 10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.002

DO - 10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.002

M3 - Journal article

VL - 73

SP - 80

EP - 88

JO - Environmental Science and Policy

JF - Environmental Science and Policy

SN - 1462-9011

ER -