IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enscpo/v73y2017icp80-88.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Charnley, Susan
  • Carothers, Courtney
  • Satterfield, Terre
  • Levine, Arielle
  • Poe, Melissa R.
  • Norman, Karma
  • Donatuto, Jamie
  • Breslow, Sara Jo
  • Mascia, Michael B.
  • Levin, Phillip S.
  • Basurto, Xavier
  • Hicks, Christina C.
  • García-Quijano, Carlos
  • St. Martin, Kevin

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Charnley, Susan & Carothers, Courtney & Satterfield, Terre & Levine, Arielle & Poe, Melissa R. & Norman, Karma & Donatuto, Jamie & Breslow, Sara Jo & Mascia, Michael B. & Levin, Phillip S. & Basurto, , 2017. "Evaluating the best available social science for natural resource management decision-making," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 80-88.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enscpo:v:73:y:2017:i:c:p:80-88
    DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901117303520
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rachelle K. Gould & Austin Himes & Lea May Anderson & Paola Arias Arévalo & Mollie Chapman & Dominic Lenzi & Barbara Muraca & Marc Tadaki, 2024. "Building on Spash's critiques of monetary valuation to suggest ways forward for relational values research," Environmental Values, , vol. 33(2), pages 139-162, April.
    2. Dahui Zhou & Svetlana Danshina & Anastasia Kurilova & Marcin Lis, 2021. "The Impact of an Enterprise’s Intellectualization on Its Leadership Potential," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-19, August.
    3. Loring, Philip A. & Hinzman, Megan S., 2018. "“They're All Really Important, But…”: Unpacking How People Prioritize Values for the Marine Environment in Haida Gwaii, British Columbia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 367-377.
    4. Salo, Matti & Hiedanpää, Juha & Orihuela, José Carlos & Llerena Pinto, Carlos Alberto & Leigh Vetter, John, 2023. "Governmentality in evidence? Evolving rationalities of forest governance in Peru," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    5. Wang, Lu & Luo, Gong-li & Sharif, Arshian & Dinca, Gheorghita, 2021. "Asymmetric dynamics and quantile dependency of the resource curse in the USA," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    6. Ladan Ghahramani & Katelin McArdle & Sandra Fatorić, 2020. "Minority Community Resilience and Cultural Heritage Preservation: A Case Study of the Gullah Geechee Community," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-16, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enscpo:v:73:y:2017:i:c:p:80-88. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/environmental-science-and-policy/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.