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

这项研究旨在为理解、评估和利用不同的知识来源建立更严格的基础，作为有助于环境管理政策决策的咨询的一部分。沿着健全的科学，还必须适当注意社区和土著参与者掌握的知识，他们的见解往往是对科学知识的有益补充，在某些情况下是必不可少的补充。然而，为了建立审议过程的完整性，需要确保所有知识主张的质量和相关性。因此，这项研究将解决三个实际问题：什么样的新方法可以帮助评估和交流基于不同类型的数据或观察的推论;决策辅助技术如何有助于始终如一地纳入科学家和当地知识持有者的见解;如何更好地将科学和地方知识结合起来，（以及决策者）解决不确定性并随着时间的推移学习？ 研究将在四个地点进行。它将涉及对有前途的技术进行测试，重点分析如何（以及如何）将科学和当地知识作为环境磋商的一部分，以及与机构科学家、当地和传统知识持有者和决策者举行讲习班、基于访谈的调查和详细的概率推断。这项研究的主要知识价值是，作为涉及多个利益攸关方的协商的一部分，它有助于理解和使用替代知识来源，重点是向参与者和决策者提供关于首选环境管理方案的见解。研究的更广泛的影响包括通过提高可用信息的质量和改进地区，州和联邦机构使用的方法来改善审议决策，以明确和一致地纳入与不同知识主张相关的不确定性。这反过来又会减少因协商失败而暴露出来的社会冲突，有助于科学家与风险管理辩论的其他参与者之间的沟通，并通过鼓励经常受挫的社区和传统知识持有者的参与，帮助这些进程的民主化。

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.