为什么我们不同意墨累-达令盆地计划:水改革、环境知识和科学政策决策背景

IF 2.4 Q2 WATER RESOURCES Australasian Journal of Water Resources Pub Date : 2019-07-03 DOI:10.1080/13241583.2019.1664878
M. Colloff, J. Pittock
{"title":"为什么我们不同意墨累-达令盆地计划:水改革、环境知识和科学政策决策背景","authors":"M. Colloff, J. Pittock","doi":"10.1080/13241583.2019.1664878","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Narratives emerging from the interaction between science and policy set the common language for understanding complex environmental issues. We explore discourses of contestation over a major environmental policy, the Murray–Darling Basin Plan, intended to re-allocate irrigation water to restore the environment in south-eastern Australia. We examine three areas of scientific knowledge and decision-making at the science-policy interface: (1) water accounting and availability; (2) perspectives on ecological change and (3) issues of trust and the management of environmental water. Engagement and communication between scientists, bureaucrats and the public forms the basis for understanding contestation: over different sets of values, expectations of what scientists can deliver, perceptions of risk and uncertainty, interpretation of conflicting messages and economic development versus conservation. The Basin Plan was shaped by institutional processes not designed to account for such differences and has inadvertently promoted contestation through exclusion of world views that do not fit those of the decision makers. We consider how the Basin Plan can be re-framed by changing the values, rules and knowledge that set the decision context. These changes enable the Basin Plan to be re-conceptualised from a problem to be solved to an idea that can mobilise imaginative engagement by agents with diverse perspectives.","PeriodicalId":51870,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Journal of Water Resources","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13241583.2019.1664878","citationCount":"42","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why we disagree about the Murray–Darling Basin Plan: water reform, environmental knowledge and the science-policy decision context\",\"authors\":\"M. Colloff, J. Pittock\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13241583.2019.1664878\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Narratives emerging from the interaction between science and policy set the common language for understanding complex environmental issues. We explore discourses of contestation over a major environmental policy, the Murray–Darling Basin Plan, intended to re-allocate irrigation water to restore the environment in south-eastern Australia. We examine three areas of scientific knowledge and decision-making at the science-policy interface: (1) water accounting and availability; (2) perspectives on ecological change and (3) issues of trust and the management of environmental water. Engagement and communication between scientists, bureaucrats and the public forms the basis for understanding contestation: over different sets of values, expectations of what scientists can deliver, perceptions of risk and uncertainty, interpretation of conflicting messages and economic development versus conservation. The Basin Plan was shaped by institutional processes not designed to account for such differences and has inadvertently promoted contestation through exclusion of world views that do not fit those of the decision makers. We consider how the Basin Plan can be re-framed by changing the values, rules and knowledge that set the decision context. These changes enable the Basin Plan to be re-conceptualised from a problem to be solved to an idea that can mobilise imaginative engagement by agents with diverse perspectives.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51870,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australasian Journal of Water Resources\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13241583.2019.1664878\",\"citationCount\":\"42\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australasian Journal of Water Resources\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13241583.2019.1664878\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"WATER RESOURCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australasian Journal of Water Resources","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13241583.2019.1664878","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"WATER RESOURCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 42

摘要

科学与政策之间的相互作用所产生的叙述为理解复杂的环境问题提供了共同的语言。我们探讨了关于一项主要环境政策——墨累-达令盆地计划的争论,该计划旨在重新分配灌溉用水以恢复澳大利亚东南部的环境。我们研究了科学知识和决策在科学-政策界面的三个领域:(1)水会计和可用性;(2)生态变化的观点;(3)信任和环境水管理的问题。科学家、官僚和公众之间的接触和沟通构成了理解争论的基础:关于不同的价值观、对科学家所能提供的东西的期望、对风险和不确定性的看法、对相互冲突的信息的解释以及经济发展与保护。《流域计划》是由没有考虑到这种差异的体制程序形成的,通过排除不符合决策者的世界观,无意中促进了争论。我们考虑如何通过改变设定决策背景的价值观、规则和知识来重新构建盆地计划。这些变化使盆地计划从一个待解决的问题重新概念化为一个可以调动具有不同观点的代理人的想象力参与的想法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Why we disagree about the Murray–Darling Basin Plan: water reform, environmental knowledge and the science-policy decision context
ABSTRACT Narratives emerging from the interaction between science and policy set the common language for understanding complex environmental issues. We explore discourses of contestation over a major environmental policy, the Murray–Darling Basin Plan, intended to re-allocate irrigation water to restore the environment in south-eastern Australia. We examine three areas of scientific knowledge and decision-making at the science-policy interface: (1) water accounting and availability; (2) perspectives on ecological change and (3) issues of trust and the management of environmental water. Engagement and communication between scientists, bureaucrats and the public forms the basis for understanding contestation: over different sets of values, expectations of what scientists can deliver, perceptions of risk and uncertainty, interpretation of conflicting messages and economic development versus conservation. The Basin Plan was shaped by institutional processes not designed to account for such differences and has inadvertently promoted contestation through exclusion of world views that do not fit those of the decision makers. We consider how the Basin Plan can be re-framed by changing the values, rules and knowledge that set the decision context. These changes enable the Basin Plan to be re-conceptualised from a problem to be solved to an idea that can mobilise imaginative engagement by agents with diverse perspectives.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
21.90%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: The Australasian Journal of Water Resources ( AJWR) is a multi-disciplinary regional journal dedicated to scholarship, professional practice and discussion on water resources planning, management and policy. Its primary geographic focus is on Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands. Papers from outside this region will also be welcomed if they contribute to an understanding of water resources issues in the region. Such contributions could be due to innovations applicable to the Australasian water community, or where clear linkages between studies in other parts of the world are linked to important issues or water planning, management, development and policy challenges in Australasia. These could include papers on global issues where Australasian impacts are clearly identified.
期刊最新文献
Short-term water demand forecasting: a review Review of hydrological modelling in the Australian Alps: from rainfall-runoff to physically based models Risks in the current groundwater regulation approach in the Beetaloo region, Northern Territory, Australia Artificial Intelligence of Things (AIoT)-oriented framework for blockage assessment at cross-drainage hydraulic structures Comment on sustainable salinity management in ‘the three-infrastructures framework and water risks in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia’ by Williams et al. (2022)
×
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