IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v37y2013icp9-19.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reprint of: When peer-reviewed publications are not enough! Delivering science for natural resource management

Author

Listed:
  • McKinley, Duncan C.
  • Briggs, Russell D.
  • Bartuska, Ann M.

Abstract

Over the last century, natural resource management on forest lands has shifted from a singular focus on resource extraction to many foci, such as recreation, tourism, conservation, view-scapes, cultural and spiritual values, sustainability, and other values. As a result, the information needs of land managers must now include social and cultural values. In addition, the public's interest in having greater participation in land management decisions and in generating scientific knowledge has never been greater. The generation of scientific knowledge which is expressed primarily through conventional means – such as peer-reviewed publications targeting academics and technology transfer (e.g., patents, licenses, agreements) primarily for government and industry – does not always satisfy the needs of resource managers and public. In recent decades, there has been rapid growth of methods to help bridge this gap by better connecting new knowledge and knowledge generation with public needs. The U.S. Forest Service is making science delivery as important goal as science creation, including structural institutional changes at the interface among researchers, resource managers, and the public, allocating an appropriate portion of project funding specifically for delivery. The Forest Service is considering increasing its use of citizen science and participatory research – which brings resource managers, decision makers, and the public into the research process to varying extents – as part of the agency's science delivery efforts. Here we explore citizen science and participatory research as possible vehicles to augment existing science delivery efforts from the perspective of a federal land management agency. We found that these mechanisms facilitate public involvement in fundamentally different ways. Depending on the type of research and desired use of research outcomes, either citizen science or participatory research could enhance the use of science in some natural resource management discussions, possibly leading to supportable solutions.

Suggested Citation

  • McKinley, Duncan C. & Briggs, Russell D. & Bartuska, Ann M., 2013. "Reprint of: When peer-reviewed publications are not enough! Delivering science for natural resource management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 9-19.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:37:y:2013:i:c:p:9-19
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2013.09.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934113001792
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.09.004?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Denis Couvet & Frédéric Jiguet & Romain Julliard & Harold Levrel & A. Teyssèdre, 2008. "Enhancing citizen contributions to biodiversity science and public policy," Post-Print hal-00362940, HAL.
    2. Pretty, Jules & Ward, Hugh, 2001. "Social Capital and the Environment," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 209-227, February.
    3. Sonia Talwar & Arnim Wiek & John Robinson, 2011. "User engagement in sustainability research," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(5), pages 379-390, June.
    4. Peter Deleon & Toddi A. Steelman, 2001. "Making public policy programs effective and relevant: The role of the policy sciences," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(1), pages 163-171.
    5. Cheng, Antony S. & Danks, Cecilia & Allred, Shorna R., 2011. "The role of social and policy learning in changing forest governance: An examination of community-based forestry initiatives in the U.S," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 89-96.
    6. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2003. "Incorporating stakeholder values into regional forest planning: a value function approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 75-90, April.
    7. Jeffrey Parsons & Roman Lukyanenko & Yolanda Wiersma, 2011. "Easier citizen science is better," Nature, Nature, vol. 471(7336), pages 37-37, March.
    8. Chambers, Robert, 1994. "The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 22(7), pages 953-969, July.
    9. Peter Biegelbauer & Janus Hansen, 2011. "Democratic theory and citizen participation: democracy models in the evaluation of public participation in science and technology," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(8), pages 589-597, October.
    10. Frédéric Zahm & Philippe Viaux & Lionel Vilain & Philippe Girardin & Christian Mouchet & Fritz J. Häni & Laszlo Pintér & Hans R. Herren & . International Institute For Sustainable Development, 2006. "Farm Sustainability Assessment using the IDEA Method. From the concept of farm sustainability to case studies on French farms," Post-Print hal-02278989, HAL.
    11. Cornwall, Andrea & Jewkes, Rachel, 1995. "What is participatory research?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 41(12), pages 1667-1676, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. McKinley, Duncan C. & Briggs, Russell D. & Bartuska, Ann M., 2012. "When peer-reviewed publications are not enough! Delivering science for natural resource management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 1-11.
    2. Braden Leap & Diego Thompson, 2018. "Social Solidarity, Collective Identity, Resilient Communities: Two Case Studies from the Rural U.S. and Uruguay," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(12), pages 1-19, November.
    3. Sollis, Kate & Yap, Mandy & Campbell, Paul & Biddle, Nicholas, 2022. "Conceptualisations of wellbeing and quality of life: A systematic review of participatory studies," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    4. Corrine Nöel Knapp & Robin S. Reid & María E. Fernández-Giménez & Julia A. Klein & Kathleen A. Galvin, 2019. "Placing Transdisciplinarity in Context: A Review of Approaches to Connect Scholars, Society and Action," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-25, September.
    5. Philip Antwi-Agyei & Andrew Dougill & Evan Fraser & Lindsay Stringer, 2013. "Characterising the nature of household vulnerability to climate variability: empirical evidence from two regions of Ghana," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 903-926, August.
    6. Ilan Kelman & Myles Harris, 2020. "Linking Disaster Risk Reduction and Healthcare in Locations with Limited Accessibility: Challenges and Opportunities of Participatory Research," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-21, December.
    7. Cathy McIlwaine & Caroline Moser, 2003. "Poverty, violence and livelihood security in urban Colombia and Guatemala," Progress in Development Studies, , vol. 3(2), pages 113-130, April.
    8. Delgado, Alina & Scheers, Joris, 2021. "Participatory process for land readjustment as a strategy to gain the right to territory: The case of San José–Samborondón–Guayaquil," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    9. Fancello, Giovanna & Tsoukiàs, Alexis, 2021. "Learning urban capabilities from behaviours. A focus on visitors values for urban planning," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    10. Parnphumeesup, Piya & Kerr, Sandy A., 2011. "Stakeholder preferences towards the sustainable development of CDM projects: Lessons from biomass (rice husk) CDM project in Thailand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3591-3601, June.
    11. Sergio Currarini & Carmen Marchiori & Alessandro Tavoni, 2016. "Network Economics and the Environment: Insights and Perspectives," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(1), pages 159-189, September.
    12. Crespo, Joan & Réquier-Desjardins, Denis & Vicente, Jérôme, 2014. "Why can collective action fail in Local Agri-food Systems? A social network analysis of cheese producers in Aculco, Mexico," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 165-177.
    13. Caroline Patsias & Anne Latendresse & Laurence Bherer, 2013. "Participatory Democracy, Decentralization and Local Governance: the Montreal Participatory Budget in the light of ‘Empowered Participatory Governance’," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(6), pages 2214-2230, November.
    14. Arsovski Slobodan & Kwiatkowski Michał & Lewandowska Aleksandra & Peshevska Dimitrinka Jordanova & Sofeska Emilija & Dymitrow Mirek, 2018. "Can urban environmental problems be overcome? The case of Skopje–world’s most polluted city," Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series, Sciendo, vol. 40(40), pages 17-39, June.
    15. World Bank Group, 2012. "Understanding Access to Justice and Conflict Resolution at the Local Level in the Central African Republic," World Bank Publications - Reports 16097, The World Bank Group.
    16. Lauren Arundell & Kate Parker & Jo Salmon & Jenny Veitch & Anna Timperio, 2019. "Informing Behaviour Change: What Sedentary Behaviours Do Families Perform at Home and How Can They Be Targeted?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-12, November.
    17. Soltani, Arezoo & Angelsen, Arild & Eid, Tron & Naieni, Mohammad Saeid Noori & Shamekhi, Taghi, 2012. "Poverty, sustainability, and household livelihood strategies in Zagros, Iran," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 60-70.
    18. Tobias Böhmelt & Jürg Vollenweider, 2015. "Information flows and social capital through linkages: the effectiveness of the CLRTAP network," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 105-123, May.
    19. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:3:y:2007:i:68:p:1-7 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Bruno S. Frey & Alois Stutzer, 2006. "Environmental Morale and Motivation," CREMA Working Paper Series 2006-17, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    21. Giovanni Matteo & Pierfrancesco Nardi & Stefano Grego & Caterina Guidi, 2018. "Bibliometric analysis of Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment research," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 508-516, December.

    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:forpol:v:37:y:2013:i:c:p:9-19. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    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.