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

dc.contributor.author

Charnley, S

dc.contributor.author

Carothers, C

dc.contributor.author

Satterfield, T

dc.contributor.author

Levine, A

dc.contributor.author

Poe, MR

dc.contributor.author

Norman, K

dc.contributor.author

Donatuto, J

dc.contributor.author

Breslow, SJ

dc.contributor.author

Mascia, MB

dc.contributor.author

Levin, PS

dc.contributor.author

Basurto, X

dc.contributor.author

Hicks, CC

dc.contributor.author

García-Quijano, C

dc.contributor.author

St. Martin, K

dc.date.accessioned

2019-06-01T15:17:59Z

dc.date.available

2019-06-01T15:17:59Z

dc.date.issued

2017-07-01

dc.date.updated

2019-06-01T15:17:59Z

dc.description.abstract

© 2017 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.

dc.identifier.issn

1462-9011

dc.identifier.issn

1873-6416

dc.identifier.uri

https://hdl.handle.net/10161/18608

dc.language

en

dc.publisher

Elsevier BV

dc.relation.ispartof

Environmental Science and Policy

dc.relation.isversionof

10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.002

dc.subject

Science & Technology

dc.subject

Life Sciences & Biomedicine

dc.subject

Environmental Sciences

dc.subject

Environmental Sciences & Ecology

dc.subject

Best available science

dc.subject

Qualitative social science

dc.subject

Environmental management

dc.subject

US Forest Service

dc.subject

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

dc.subject

TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE

dc.subject

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

dc.subject

SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE

dc.subject

CONSERVATION SCIENCE

dc.subject

PACIFIC-NORTHWEST

dc.subject

WASHINGTON-STATE

dc.subject

UNITED-STATES

dc.subject

POLICY

dc.subject

COMMUNITIES

dc.title

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

dc.type

Journal article

duke.contributor.orcid

Basurto, X|0000-0002-5321-3654

pubs.begin-page

80

pubs.end-page

88

pubs.organisational-group

Nicholas School of the Environment

pubs.organisational-group

Duke

pubs.organisational-group

Marine Science and Conservation

pubs.publication-status

Published

pubs.volume

73

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Charnley et al. 2017_BASS Article.pdf
Size:
266.6 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format