A Transparent Process for "Evidence-Informed" Policy Making

A Transparent Process for "Evidence-Informed" Policy Making
复制标题

DOI:
10.1111/conl.12046
复制
发表时间:
2014-03-01
影响因子:
8.5
通讯作者:
Sutherland, William J.
Sutherland, William J.
中科院分区:
环境科学与生态学1区
文献类型:
--
作者:
Dicks, Lynn V.;Hodge, Ian;Sutherland, William J.

文献摘要

被引文献

相似文献

政治机构热衷于在决策中使用最好的科学知识。对于环境政策,相关的科学证据可能是复杂和广泛的,因此经常依赖专家的判断,而与证据本身没有明确的联系。我们提出了一个新的透明的过程,将研究证据纳入政策决策,涉及独立的证据概要与所有可能的政策选择相结合的专家评估的证据意味着什么具体的政策问题。我们说明了目前正在谈判的欧洲联盟的共同农业政策改革的过程。根据改革提案,30%的直接支付给农民的款项将以三项“强制性绿化措施”为条件。“独立地,我们汇编和评估了85项干预措施对保护北方欧洲农田野生动物的影响的实验证据,其中12项与强制性绿化措施的各个方面相对应。我们的评估清楚地表明,一些但不是所有的绿化措施对野生动物都有好处。与现有的将证据纳入决策的努力相比,专家评估的证据概要流程有三个优势:它提供了明确的证据审计线索,允许对新的政策背景做出快速反应,并澄清了不确定性的来源。
Political institutions are keen to use the best available scientific knowledge in decision-making. For environmental policy, relevant scientific evidence can be complex and extensive, so expert judgment is frequently relied upon, without clear links to the evidence itself. We propose a new transparent process for incorporating research evidence into policy decisions, involving independent synopsis of evidence relating to all possible policy options combined with expert evaluation of what the evidence means for specific policy questions. We illustrate the process using reforms of the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy currently being negotiated. Under the reform proposals, 30% of direct payments to farmers will become conditional upon three "compulsory greening measures." Independently, we compiled and evaluated experimental evidence for the effects of 85 interventions to protect wildlife on northern European farmland, 12 of which correspond to aspects of the compulsory greening measures. Our evaluation clearly indicates evidence of consistent wildlife benefits for some, but not all, of the greening measures. The process of evidence synopsis with expert evaluation has three advantages over existing efforts to incorporate evidence into policy decisions: it provides a clear evidence audit trail, allows rapid response to new policy contexts, and clarifies sources of uncertainty.