Conflicting policy beliefs and informational complexities in designing a transboundary enforcement monitoring system
Conflicting policy beliefs and informational complexities in designing a transboundary enforcement monitoring system
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.068
复制
发表时间：
2015-10-15
影响因子：
11.1
通讯作者：
Georgiadou, Yola
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Chandran, Remi;Hoppe, Robert;Georgiadou, Yola
认识到需要一个众包的地理空间决策支持系统来监测野生动物犯罪，2005年，联合国大学的一个科学家团队设计了一个基于GIS的跨界监测系统，称为野生动物执法监测系统（WEMS）。该工具旨在支持《濒危野生植物群种国际贸易公约》（《濒危物种贸易公约》）的履约监测任务。CITES秘书处质疑WEMS原型，因为它赋予某些非政府组织在信息收集过程中的重要作用。随后，它导致了WEMS的重新设计，其中政府是执法信息的保管人。在本文中，我们解释了为什么以前的非政府组织为基础的设计WEMS是一个关注CITES秘书处。我们采用Q方法，一种用于研究人的“主观性”的研究方法，以引起印度，日本和泰国，非政府组织为基础的WEMS的国家的野生动物保护行动者的思维方式进行试点。我们的分析揭示了野生动物保护的四个相互竞争的观点，即生态中心主义，新自由主义和非中心主义的混合，权威主义和科学理性主义，每一个通过一个决策支持系统，以监测野生动物犯罪的特定含义。我们的研究结果表明，科学专家不能指望其他群体坚定不移地支持他们的愿望，尽管他们同意某种形式的科学机制是达成政策共识的一种方式。我们的结论是，跨境执法信息共享是一个复杂的问题，信息系统的设计者或决策者不能单独判断其接受的政策范围内。由于很少有研究已经进行了决策支持系统中的行为者信念动态及其在环境政策制定的背景下，多边环境协定的使用，这项研究带来了更多的洞察力，了解内在的政策挑战，在多边环境协定和广泛的信息共享，跨学科的环境治理。(C)2014爱思唯尔有限公司版权所有。
Recognizing the need for a crowd sourced geospatial decision support system to monitor wildlife crime, in 2005, a team of scientists at the United Nations University (UNU) designed a GIS-based transboundary monitoring system, called Wildlife Enforcement Monitoring System (WEMS). The tool was intended to support the compliance monitoring task of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). CITES Secretariat questioned the WEMS prototype due to the significant role it accorded to certain Non-governmental organizations in the information collection process. Subsequently, it led to the redesign of WEMS, where governments were the custodians of enforcement information. In this paper, we explain why the previous NGO based design of WEMS was a concern for CITES secretariat. We applied Q methodology, a research method used to study people's "subjectivity", to elicit the ways of thinking of wildlife conservation actors in India, Japan and Thailand, countries where the NGO based WEMS were intended to be piloted. Our analysis revealed four competing perspectives of wildlife conservation, namely ecocentrism, mix of neoliberalism and anthropocentrism, authoritarianism and scientific rationalism; each with a particular implication on the adoption of a decision support system to monitor wildlife crime. The findings of our study reveal that scientific experts cannot expect unwavering support from the other groups for their aspirations, though they agree that some form of science mechanism is one way forward in bringing a policy consensus. We conclude that transboundary enforcement information sharing is a complex problem where information system designers or policy makers alone cannot judge its acceptance within a policy context. Since very few studies have been carried out on linking the actor-belief dynamics in a decision support system and its use in environmental policy making within the context of a MEA, this study brings more insight in understanding the inherent policy challenges in information sharing within MEAs and broadly, across the disciplines of environmental governance. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.