The politics of evidence-based policy: A comparative analysis of climate adaptation in Australia and the UK

Peter Tangney, M. Howes
{"title":"The politics of evidence-based policy: A comparative analysis of climate adaptation in Australia and the UK","authors":"Peter Tangney, M. Howes","doi":"10.1177/0263774X15602023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper presents a comparative analysis of the use of climate science for adaptation policy in Queensland, Australia and the UK. We examine policy players’ perceptions of climate science alongside prevailing political influences on evidence-based policy making. In Queensland, the evidence-based mandate has been weakened by partisan politics so that the political acceptability of evidence is a foremost concern for policy makers. In the UK, the evidence-based mandate is enshrined in the Climate Change Act (2008), yet here too political forces have sought to limit the acceptable use of climate science for policy making. Both cases reveal normative and political tensions in the interpretation and use of climate science, suggesting that important political challenges must be overcome by the scientific community to ensure the ongoing utility of climate science for policy making.","PeriodicalId":232420,"journal":{"name":"Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"22","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X15602023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 22

Abstract

This paper presents a comparative analysis of the use of climate science for adaptation policy in Queensland, Australia and the UK. We examine policy players’ perceptions of climate science alongside prevailing political influences on evidence-based policy making. In Queensland, the evidence-based mandate has been weakened by partisan politics so that the political acceptability of evidence is a foremost concern for policy makers. In the UK, the evidence-based mandate is enshrined in the Climate Change Act (2008), yet here too political forces have sought to limit the acceptable use of climate science for policy making. Both cases reveal normative and political tensions in the interpretation and use of climate science, suggesting that important political challenges must be overcome by the scientific community to ensure the ongoing utility of climate science for policy making.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于证据的政策的政治:澳大利亚和英国气候适应的比较分析
本文对澳大利亚昆士兰州和英国在适应政策中使用气候科学进行了比较分析。我们研究了政策参与者对气候科学的看法,以及对基于证据的政策制定的普遍政治影响。在昆士兰州,以证据为基础的授权已被党派政治削弱,因此证据的政治可接受性是政策制定者最关心的问题。在英国,《气候变化法案》(2008年)明文规定了以证据为基础的授权,但在这里,政治力量也试图限制气候科学在政策制定中的可接受使用。这两个案例都揭示了气候科学解释和使用中的规范和政治紧张关系,表明科学界必须克服重要的政治挑战,以确保气候科学在政策制定中的持续效用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Energy transitions and uncertainty: Creating low carbon investment opportunities in the UK electricity sector Scale as both material and discursive: A view through China’s rescaling of urban planning system for environmental governance Global and local governance, industrial and geographical dynamics: A tale of two clusters Bundling the procurement of sports infrastructure projects: How neither public nor private actors really benefit The impact of innovation support programs on small and medium enterprises innovation in traditional manufacturing industries: An evaluation for seven European Union regions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1