Matching Items (2)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Climate Change
Description
Investments in climate science come with an expectation of social benefit. Science policy--decision processes through which individuals and organizations support, manage, and evaluate research--plays an important role in determining those outcomes. Yet the details of how climate science policy actually works have received very little attention amid academic and policy-focused discussions of climate science. This dissertation examines climate science policy with particular attention to how it supports "public values" that justify research investments. It is widely recognized funding for climate science in the US has advanced knowledge considerably in recent decades but failed to produce useful information for decision makers. In Chapter 2, I use a methodological approach known as Public Value Mapping (PVM) to investigate this failure of the science policy system. My results show that science funding institutions have been ineffective at guiding climate science toward desired outcomes because of problematic, but common assumptions about the links between science and societal benefit. The remaining chapters look more closely at the implications of these tacit assumptions, which are held by individuals, and embedded in the organizations that implement climate science policy. Chapter 3 examines the notion that prediction is essential to climate science. Wide acceptance of the "prediction imperative" limits the scope of climate science policy. Chapter 4 examines the interplay of values and assumptions in two recently established organizations in Australia, each supporting research on climate change adaptation. In Chapter 5 I document a widespread assumption in the climate science literature that agreement among multiple models should bolster confidence in their results. This can only be correct if the models are independent of one another. Climate scientists have not demonstrated this to be true, nor have they offered a plausible framework for doing so. This dissertation adds an important dimension to our understanding of how climate science knowledge is produced, while offering constructive and practical recommendations to science policy decision makers working in government programs that fund climate science. Insight from these chapters suggests that an explicit and reflexive focus on values in science policy can be helpful to organizations pursuing science policy innovation.
ContributorsMeyer, Ryan McLaren (Author) / Sarewitz, Daniel (Thesis advisor) / David, Guston (Committee member) / Andrew, Hamilton (Committee member) / Clark, Miller (Committee member) / Roger, Pielke Jr (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2010
Description
For more than 100 years, the Unite States National Park Service (NPS) has been guided by a mandate to preserve parks and their resources for the enjoyment of present and future generations. But all parks are subject to conditions that may frustrate preservation efforts. Climate change is melting the glaciers. Rising seas are sweeping away protected shorelines. Development projects, accompanied by air, water, light, and noise pollution, edge closer to parks and fragment habitats. The number of visitors and vested interests are swelling and diversifying. Resources for preservation, such as funds and staff, seem to be continuously shrinking, at least relative to demand.
Still, the NPS remains committed to the preservation of our natural and cultural heritage. Yet the practice of that promise is evolving, slowly and iteratively, but detectably. Through explorations of legal and scholarly literature, as well as interviews across the government, non-profit, and academic sectors, I’ve tracked the evolution of preservation in parks. How is preservation shifting to address socio-ecological change? How has preservation evolved before? How should the NPS preserve parks moving forward?
The practice of preservation has come to rely on science, including partnerships with academic researchers, as well as inventory and monitoring programs. That shift has in part been guided by goals that have also become more informed by science, like ecological integrity. While some interviewees see science as a solution to the NPS’s challenges, others wonder how applying science can get “gnarly,” due to uncertainty, lack of clear policies, and the diversity of parks and resources. “Gnarly” questions stem in part from the complexity of the NPS as a socio-ecological system, as well as from disputed, normative concepts that underpin the broader philosophy of preservation, including naturalness. What’s natural in the context of pervasive anthropogenic change? Further, I describe how parks hold deep, sometimes conflicting, cultural and symbolic significance for their local and historical communities and for our nation. Understanding and considering those values is part of the gnarly task park managers face in their mission to preserve parks. I explain why this type of conceptual and values-based uncertainty cannot be reduced through science.
Still, the NPS remains committed to the preservation of our natural and cultural heritage. Yet the practice of that promise is evolving, slowly and iteratively, but detectably. Through explorations of legal and scholarly literature, as well as interviews across the government, non-profit, and academic sectors, I’ve tracked the evolution of preservation in parks. How is preservation shifting to address socio-ecological change? How has preservation evolved before? How should the NPS preserve parks moving forward?
The practice of preservation has come to rely on science, including partnerships with academic researchers, as well as inventory and monitoring programs. That shift has in part been guided by goals that have also become more informed by science, like ecological integrity. While some interviewees see science as a solution to the NPS’s challenges, others wonder how applying science can get “gnarly,” due to uncertainty, lack of clear policies, and the diversity of parks and resources. “Gnarly” questions stem in part from the complexity of the NPS as a socio-ecological system, as well as from disputed, normative concepts that underpin the broader philosophy of preservation, including naturalness. What’s natural in the context of pervasive anthropogenic change? Further, I describe how parks hold deep, sometimes conflicting, cultural and symbolic significance for their local and historical communities and for our nation. Understanding and considering those values is part of the gnarly task park managers face in their mission to preserve parks. I explain why this type of conceptual and values-based uncertainty cannot be reduced through science.
ContributorsSullivan Govani, Michelle (Author) / Minteer, Ben A (Thesis advisor) / Budruk, Megha (Committee member) / Sarewitz, Daniel (Committee member) / Theuer, Jason (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019