Improving Citizen Participation in Deliberative Decisions: Understanding and Evaluating Different Sources of Knowledge

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

This research seeks to develop a more rigorous basis for understanding, evaluating, and making use of different sources of knowledge as part of consultations that contribute to decisions about environmental management policies. Along with sound science, appropriate attention also must be given to the knowledge held by community and aboriginal participants, whose insights often represent a useful, and in some cases essential, complement to science-based knowledge. To establish the integrity of the deliberative process, however, there is a need to ensure the quality and relevance of all knowledge claims. This research therefore will address three practical questions: what new methods can help to evaluate and communicate inferences based on different types of data or observations; how can decision-aiding techniques help to consistently incorporate the insights of both scientists and local knowledge holders; and how can the better integration of science and local knowledge help participants in deliberative processes (and, in turn, decision makers) to address uncertainty and learn over time? The research will take place at four sites. It will involve tests of promising techniques, critical analyses focusing on how (and how well) science and local knowledge are used as part of environmental consultations, and workshops, interview-based surveys, and detailed probability elicitations with agency-based scientists, local and traditional knowledge holders, and decision makers. The key intellectual merit of the research is its contribution to the understanding and use of alternative knowledge sources as part of consultations involving multiple stakeholders, with an emphasis on providing insights to participants and decision makers about preferred environmental management options. The broader impacts of the research include improving deliberative decisions by enhancing the quality of available information and by improving methods used by regional, state, and federal agencies for explicitly and consistently incorporating the uncertainty associated with different knowledge claims. This, in turn, should reduce societal conflicts as exposed through failed consultations, assist in communication between scientists and other participants in risk-management debates, and aid the democratization of these processes by encouraging the participation of often-frustrated community and traditional knowledge holders.