IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/envsyd/v39y2019i3d10.1007_s10669-019-09737-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The provision and utility of earth science to decision-makers: synthesis and key findings

Author

Listed:
  • Mark C. Quigley

    (University of Melbourne
    University of Canterbury)

  • Luke G. Bennetts

    (University of Adelaide)

  • Patricia Durance

    (GNS Science)

  • Petra M. Kuhnert

    (CSIRO Data61)

  • Mark D. Lindsay

    (University of Western Australia)

  • Keith G. Pembleton

    (University of Southern Queensland)

  • Melanie E. Roberts

    (Griffith University
    University of Melbourne)

  • Christopher J. White

    (University of Tasmania
    University of Strathclyde)

Abstract

This paper synthesizes important elements from case studies presented in its companion paper (Quigley et al. in Environ Syst Decis, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-019-09728-0) to define mutual and distinct characteristics, and to develop a more holistic understanding of how earth science was used to support diverse examples of decision-making. We identify a suite of 28 different science actions used within the case studies that are classified as pertaining to (i) evidence acquisition and analysis, (ii) provision of science to target audience, or (iii) enhancing future science provision and utility. Sample action pathways provide empirically evidenced, albeit simplified, examples of how scientists may contribute to the progression of science through complex decision-making frameworks. Decision trees with multiple scientific and non-scientific inputs are presented based on empirical evidence and theory to provide scientists and decision-makers with simplified examples of complex multi-step decision-making processes under conditions of risk and uncertainty. Evidence for nonlinear engagement between decision-makers and science providers is presented, including non-traditional approaches such as provision of unsolicited science through the media and stakeholders. Examples of scientifically informed, precautionary decision-making with adaptive capacity, even where economically favourable decision alternatives exist, are provided. We undertake a self-elicitation exercise of case studies to derive values and uncertainties for % scientific agreement amongst utilized inputs and % uptake of potentially relevant and available science. We observe a tendency towards increased scientific uptake with increasing scientific agreement, but this is not ubiquitous; politically affected decisions and/or complex multi-decision scenarios under time pressure complicate this relationship. An increasing need for decision-making expediency that is not met by increased availability of relevant science evidence may rely on expert judgement, based on incomplete knowledge that is manifested as large uncertainties in defining a singular value for scientific agreement and uptake. We encourage scientists to further document their experiences using the science-action classification scheme provided herein to stimulate further comparative analyses of this nature.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark C. Quigley & Luke G. Bennetts & Patricia Durance & Petra M. Kuhnert & Mark D. Lindsay & Keith G. Pembleton & Melanie E. Roberts & Christopher J. White, 2019. "The provision and utility of earth science to decision-makers: synthesis and key findings," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 349-367, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:envsyd:v:39:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s10669-019-09737-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s10669-019-09737-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10669-019-09737-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10669-019-09737-z?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. Peter Gluckman, 2014. "Policy: The art of science advice to government," Nature, Nature, vol. 507(7491), pages 163-165, March.
    2. Sara Reardon & Jeff Tollefson & Alexandra Witze & Erin Ross, 2017. "US science agencies face deep cuts in Trump budget," Nature, Nature, vol. 543(7646), pages 471-472, March.
    3. Mark C. Quigley & Luke G. Bennetts & Patricia Durance & Petra M. Kuhnert & Mark D. Lindsay & Keith G. Pembleton & Melanie E. Roberts & Christopher J. White, 2019. "The provision and utility of science and uncertainty to decision-makers: earth science case studies," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 307-348, September.
    4. Willy Aspinall, 2010. "A route to more tractable expert advice," Nature, Nature, vol. 463(7279), pages 294-295, January.
    5. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2010. "Risk Management and Governance," Risk, Governance and Society, Springer, number 978-3-642-13926-0, March.
    6. Andrew Speirs‐Bridge & Fiona Fidler & Marissa McBride & Louisa Flander & Geoff Cumming & Mark Burgman, 2010. "Reducing Overconfidence in the Interval Judgments of Experts," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 512-523, March.
    7. Robert Doubleday & James Wilsdon, 2012. "Beyond the great and good," Nature, Nature, vol. 485(7398), pages 301-302, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Milad Zamanifar & Timo Hartmann, 2021. "A prescriptive framework for recommending decision attributes of infrastructure disaster recovery problems," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 633-650, December.

    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. Kathryn Oliver & Annette Boaz, 2019. "Transforming evidence for policy and practice: creating space for new conversations," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-10, December.
    2. Noam Obermeister, 2020. "Tapping into science advisers’ learning," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-9, December.
    3. Sisira S. Withanachchi & Ilia Kunchulia & Giorgi Ghambashidze & Rami Al Sidawi & Teo Urushadze & Angelika Ploeger, 2018. "Farmers’ Perception of Water Quality and Risks in the Mashavera River Basin, Georgia: Analyzing the Vulnerability of the Social-Ecological System through Community Perceptions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-26, August.
    4. Sven Ove Hansson & Terje Aven, 2014. "Is Risk Analysis Scientific?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1173-1183, July.
    5. Yang, Ya Ling, 2020. "Comparison of public perception and risk management decisions of aircraft noise near Taoyuan and Kaohsiung International Airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    6. O’Connor John, 2022. "Strengthening the science–policy interface in Ireland," Administration, Sciendo, vol. 70(4), pages 29-52, December.
    7. Hanea, A.M. & McBride, M.F. & Burgman, M.A. & Wintle, B.C. & Fidler, F. & Flander, L. & Twardy, C.R. & Manning, B. & Mascaro, S., 2017. "I nvestigate D iscuss E stimate A ggregate for structured expert judgement," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 267-279.
    8. Mark A Burgman & Marissa McBride & Raquel Ashton & Andrew Speirs-Bridge & Louisa Flander & Bonnie Wintle & Fiona Fidler & Libby Rumpff & Charles Twardy, 2011. "Expert Status and Performance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-7, July.
    9. Natalia Vladimirovna Gryzunova & Victoria Ivanovna Pyatanova & Viktoriya Valeryevna Manuylenko & Konstantin Vasilievich Ordov, 2019. "Models of credit limit-setting for companies as means of encouraging competitiveness," Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, VsI Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, vol. 7(1), pages 615-625, September.
    10. Grzegorz Drozdowski & Joanna Rogozińska-Mitrut & Jacek Stasiak, 2021. "The Empirical Analysis of the Core Competencies of the Company’s Resource Management Risk. Preliminary Study," Risks, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-12, June.
    11. Colson, Abigail R. & Cooke, Roger M., 2017. "Cross validation for the classical model of structured expert judgment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 109-120.
    12. Kragt, M.E. & Pannell, D.J. & McVittie, A. & Stott, A.W. & Vosough Ahmadi, B. & Wilson, P., 2016. "Improving interdisciplinary collaboration in bio-economic modelling for agricultural systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 217-224.
    13. Aven, Terje, 2013. "Practical implications of the new risk perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 136-145.
    14. Aven, Terje, 2018. "How the integration of System 1-System 2 thinking and recent risk perspectives can improve risk assessment and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 237-244.
    15. Anca M. Hanea & Marissa F. McBride & Mark A. Burgman & Bonnie C. Wintle, 2018. "The Value of Performance Weights and Discussion in Aggregated Expert Judgments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1781-1794, September.
    16. Aven, Terje & Krohn, Bodil S., 2014. "A new perspective on how to understand, assess and manage risk and the unforeseen," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 1-10.
    17. Yizhong Huan & Lingqing Wang & Mark Burgman & Haitao Li & Yurong Yu & Jianpeng Zhang & Tao Liang, 2022. "A multi‐perspective composite assessment framework for prioritizing targets of sustainable development goals," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(5), pages 833-847, October.
    18. Laura M. Keating & Lea Randall & Rebecca Stanton & Casey McCormack & Michael Lucid & Travis Seaborn & Sarah J. Converse & Stefano Canessa & Axel Moehrenschlager, 2023. "Using Decision Analysis to Determine the Feasibility of a Conservation Translocation," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 295-310, December.
    19. Daniel J. Rozell, 2018. "The Ethical Foundations of Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(8), pages 1529-1533, August.
    20. Sander C. S. Clahsen & Irene van Kamp & Betty C. Hakkert & Theo G. Vermeire & Aldert H. Piersma & Erik Lebret, 2019. "Why Do Countries Regulate Environmental Health Risks Differently? A Theoretical Perspective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 439-461, February.

    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:spr:envsyd:v:39:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s10669-019-09737-z. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.