Whose priorities? Providing decision-support for Finnish forest conservation decision-making
1. Whose priorities?
Providing decision-support for Finnish forest
conservation decision-making
Joona Lehtomäki
Helsingin yliopisto, Finnish Environment Institute
EEB seminar 2015-01-28
@jlehtoma
2.
3. 1. Suitability of commonly available forest
inventory data for informative spatial
conservation prioritization in Finnish forests
2. Effects of scale and connectivity at regional and
national extents
3. Develop, demonstrate, and implement a practical
workflow using Zonation
Dissertation
Objectives
4. 4. Providing support for Finnish forest
conservation decision-making
Dissertation
Objectives
5. • Whose priorities?
• Have the results provided support for decision
making?
•
• Additional considerations
• Science-policy interfaces
• Knowledge systems
• Policy X (research, relevance etc.)
This talk
Objectives
25. Credibility
The scientific adequacy of the technical evidence and arguments.
Salience
The relevance of the assessment to the needs of decision makers.
Legitimacy
The perception that the production of information and technology has
been respectful of stakeholders’ divergent values and beliefs, unbiased in
its conduct, and fair in its treatment of opposing views and interests.
Cash et al. 2003
Models of science-policy interaction
Attributes of science-policy interface
26. • Data
• Knowledge
• Decisions
Scientists
Policym
akers
Public
Stakeholders
Models of science-policy interaction
The roundtable model of science-policy interaction
Soranno et al. 2014; Lynman et al. 2007
27. Credibility
Increased by bringing multiple types of expertise to the table.
Salience
Increased by engaging end-users early in defining data needs.
Legitimacy
Increased by providing multiple stakeholders with more, and
more transparent, access to the information production
process.
Cash et al. 2003
Models of science-policy interaction
Attributes of science-policy interface
30. Providing support for conservation decision making
Whose priorities?
• Credibility
• Results genuinely useful for tackling complex issues
• Objective vs. subjective (careful here…)
• Salience
• Types of information is actually needed
• Types of data actually available
• Values and preferences
• Legitimacy
• Involvement can mean acceptance can understanding
• Explicit path of choices for decision-making
31. Providing support for conservation decision making
Alternative/complementary models
Dicks et al. 2014
32. Providing support for conservation decision making
Scientists’ role
The Science Arbiter /
The honest broker
Whistleblower
33. References
Cash, D.W. et al. (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America 100, 8086–91
Dicks, L. V et al. (2014) Organising evidence for environmental management decisions: a “4S” hierarchy. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 29, 607–613
Lehtomäki, J. (2014) , Spatial conservation prioritization for Finnish forest conservation management. , University of Helsinki
Lehtomäki, J. et al. (2009) Applying spatial conservation prioritization software and high-resolution GIS data to a national-scale study in forest
conservation. Forest Ecology and Management 258, 2439–2449
Lynam, T. et al. (2007) A Review of Tools for Incorporating Community Knowledge , Preferences , and Values into Decision Making in Natural
Resources Management. Ecology And Society 12, 5
Sarkki, S. et al. (2013) Balancing credibility, relevance and legitimacy: A critical assessment of trade-offs in science-policy interfaces. Science and Public
Policy
Soranno, P.A. et al. (2015) It’s good to share: Why environmental scientists' ethics are out of date. BioScience 65, 69–73
Pielke Jr, R.A. (2007) The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics, Cambridge University Press.
Young, J.C. et al. (2014) Improving the science-policy dialogue to meet the challenges of biodiversity conservation: Having conversations rather than
talking at one-another. Biodiversity and Conservation 23, 387–404
34. References – conservation biology
Cook, C.N. et al. (2013) Achieving conservation science that bridges the knowledge-action boundary. Conservation Biology 27, 669–678
Opdam, P. (2010) Learning science from practice. Landscape Ecology 25, 821–823
Reyers, B. et al. (2010) Conservation Planning as a Transdisciplinary Process. Conservation biology 24, 957–65
