Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The provision and utility of earth science to decision-makers: synthesis and key findings

  • Published:
Environment Systems and Decisions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper synthesizes important elements from case studies presented in its companion paper (Quigley et al. in Environ Syst Decis, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-019-09728-0) to define mutual and distinct characteristics, and to develop a more holistic understanding of how earth science was used to support diverse examples of decision-making. We identify a suite of 28 different science actions used within the case studies that are classified as pertaining to (i) evidence acquisition and analysis, (ii) provision of science to target audience, or (iii) enhancing future science provision and utility. Sample action pathways provide empirically evidenced, albeit simplified, examples of how scientists may contribute to the progression of science through complex decision-making frameworks. Decision trees with multiple scientific and non-scientific inputs are presented based on empirical evidence and theory to provide scientists and decision-makers with simplified examples of complex multi-step decision-making processes under conditions of risk and uncertainty. Evidence for nonlinear engagement between decision-makers and science providers is presented, including non-traditional approaches such as provision of unsolicited science through the media and stakeholders. Examples of scientifically informed, precautionary decision-making with adaptive capacity, even where economically favourable decision alternatives exist, are provided. We undertake a self-elicitation exercise of case studies to derive values and uncertainties for % scientific agreement amongst utilized inputs and % uptake of potentially relevant and available science. We observe a tendency towards increased scientific uptake with increasing scientific agreement, but this is not ubiquitous; politically affected decisions and/or complex multi-decision scenarios under time pressure complicate this relationship. An increasing need for decision-making expediency that is not met by increased availability of relevant science evidence may rely on expert judgement, based on incomplete knowledge that is manifested as large uncertainties in defining a singular value for scientific agreement and uptake. We encourage scientists to further document their experiences using the science-action classification scheme provided herein to stimulate further comparative analyses of this nature.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Notably, Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication, Cambridge University, UK, https://medium.com/wintoncentre; Institute for Risk and Uncertainty, University of Liverpool, UK, https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/risk-and-uncertainty; Mitchell Centre for Sustainability Solutions, University of Maine, USA, https://umaine.edu/mitchellcenter/; Program on Science in the Public Interest, Georgetown University, USA, https://spi.georgetown.edu.

  2. See http://www.eqrecoverylearning.org/assets/downloads/res0052-land-zoning-policy-and-the-residential-red-zone2.pdf.

  3. See https://ceraarchive.dpmc.govt.nz/sites/default/files/Documents/memorandum-for-cabinet-land-damage-june-2011_0.pdf.

  4. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10574099/Alpine-Fault-unlikely-to-trigger-Port-Hills-rockfall.

  5. http://www.chchplan.ihp.govt.nz/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Natural-Hazards-Part.pdf.

  6. http://www.environment.gov.au/marine/gbr/long-term-sustainability-plan.

  7. See: https://www.epa.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Documents/Marine-Activities-EEZ/Activities/TTRL-Marine-Consent-Decision-EEZ000011-FINAL-version.pdf and https://www.ttrl.co.nz/fileadmin/user_upload/TTR_Media_Statement_DMC_Decision_10Aug17.pdf.

  8. See https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/the-taranaki-whanganui-conservation-board-v-the-environmental-protection-authority/@@images/fileDecision?r=222.009077804.

References

  • Aspinall W (2010) A route to more tractable expert advice. Nature 463:294–295

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Aven T, Renn O (2010) Risk management. In: Aven T, Renn O (eds) Risk management and governance. Springer, Berlin, pp 121–158

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brownson R, Fielding J, Maylahn C (2009) Evidence-based public health: a fundamental concept for public health practice. Annu Rev Public Health 30:175–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cash DW, Borck JC, Patt AG (2006) Countering the loading-dock approach to linking science and decision making: comparative analysis of el niño/southern oscillation (enso) forecasting systems. Sci Technol Hum Value 31(4):465–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colyvan M, Kitto K, Quigley M, Bennetts L, Durance P, Galton-Fenzi B, Geenens G, Hamilton K, Ickowicz A, Killedar M, Kuhnert P, Lindsay M, Pembleton K, Roberts M, Verdejo-Garcia A, White C (2017) Addressing Risk in Conditions of Uncertainty, Ignorance, and Partial Knowledge . In: An interdisciplinary approach to living in a risky world. Recommendations from the Theo Murphy High Flyers Workshop, pp 5–7

  • Dilling L, Lemos MC (2011) Creating usable science: opportunities and constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for science policy. Glob Environ Chang 21(2):680–689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doubleday R, Wilsdon J (2012) Science policy: beyond the great and good. Nature 485:301–302

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle EE, Johnston DM, Smith R, Paton D (2019) Communicating model uncertainty for natural hazards: a qualitative systematic thematic review. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 33:449–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.10.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle EEH, Paton D (2018) Decision-making: preventing miscommunication and creating shared meaning between stakeholders. Springer, Cham, pp 549–570. https://doi.org/10.1007/11157_2016_31

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle EEH, Paton D, Johnston DM (2015) Enhancing scientific response in a crisis: evidence-based approaches from emergency management in New Zealand. J Appl Volcanol 4(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13617-014-0020-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dudo A, Besley J (2016) Scientists’ prioritization of communication objectives for public engagement. PLoS ONE 11:e0148867

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman IHMDL (2009) Making science useful to decision makers: climate forecasts, water management, and knowledge networks. Weather Clim Soc 1(1):9–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischoff B, Davis A (2014) Communicating scientific uncertainty. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:13664–13671

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Foster K, Vecchia P, Repacholi M (2000) Science and the precautionary principle. Science 288:979–981

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Frodeman R (1995) Geological reasoning: geology as an interpretive and historical science. Geol Soc Am Bull 107:960–968

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillieson D (2004) Submission to the alpine grazing taskforce, victoria. Tech. rep., Australian Academy of Science

  • Gluckman P (2014) Policy: the art of science advice to government. Nature 507:163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gluckman P (2016) Making decisions in the face of uncertainty: Understanding risk. Tech. rep., Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Auskland, New Zealand

  • Haasnoot M, Kwakkel JH, Walker WE, ter Maat J (2013) Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: a method for crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain world. Glob Environ Chang 23(2):485–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.12.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapucu N, Garayev V (2011) Collaborative decision-making in emergency and disaster management. Int J Public Admin 34(6):366–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karr J (2006) When governments ignore science, scientists should speak up. BioScience 56:287–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King A, Middleton D, Brown C, Johnston D, Johal S (2014) Insurance: its role in recovery from the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence. Earthq Spectra 30:475–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirchhoff CJ, Lemos MC, Dessai S (2013) Actionable knowledge for environmental decision making: broadening the usability of climate science. Ann Rev Environ Resour 38:393–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krupnick A, Morgenstern R, Batz M, Nelson P, Burtraw D, Shih JS, McWilliams M (2006) Not a sure thing: making regulatory choices under uncertainty. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Langer L, Tripney J, Gough D (2016) The science of using science: researching the use of research evidence in decision-making. Tech. rep., University College London, London

  • Lorenzoni I, Nicholson-Cole S, Whitmarsh L (2007) Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Glob Environ Chang 17:445–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackey B, Quigley M (2014) Strong proximal earthquakes revealed by cosmogenic 3he dating of prehistoric rockfalls, Christchurch, New Zealand. Geology 42:975–978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massey C, McSaveney M, Taig T, Richards L, Litchfield N, Rhoades D, McVerry G, Lukovic B, Heron D, Ries W, Van Dissena R (2014) Determining rockfall risk in Christchurch using rockfalls triggered by the 2010–2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence. Earthq Spectra 30:155–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mervis J (2017) Trump’s 2018 budget proposal ‘devalues’ science. Science 355:1246–1247

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet M, Markowitz E (2015) Understanding public opinion in debates over biomedical research: looking beyond political partisanship to focus on beliefs about science and society. PLoS ONE 9:e88473

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • North DW (1968) A tutorial introduction to decision theory. IEEE Trans Syst Sci Cybern 4(3):200–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nutbeam D, Boxall A (2008) What influences the transfer of research into health policy and practice? Observations from England and Australia. Public Health 122:747–753

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Owen C, Bearman C, Brooks B, Chapman J, Paton D, Hossain L (2013) Developing a research framework for complex multi-team coordination in emergency management. Int J Emerg Manag 9(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEM.2013.054098

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pielke RA Jr (2003) The role of models in prediction for decision. In: Canham CD, Cole JJ, Lauenroth WK (eds) Models in ecosystem science. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 111–135 chap 7

    Google Scholar 

  • Pielke RA Jr, Conant RT (2003) Best practices in prediction for decision-making: lessons from the atmospheric and earth sciences. Ecology 84:1351–1358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quigley MC, Bennetts LG, Durance P, Kuhnert PM, Lindsay MD, Pembleton KG, Roberts ME, White CJ (2019) The provision and utility of science and uncertainty to decision-makers: earth science case studies. Environ Syst Decis. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-019-09728-0

  • Reardon S, Tollefson J, Witze A, Ross E (2017) US science agencies face deep cuts in trump budget. Nature 543:471–472

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schaal B (2017) Informing policy with science. Science 355:435

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Science Council of Japan (2013) Code of conduct for scientists—revised version. http://www.scj.go.jp/en/report/Code_of_Conduct_for_Scientists-Revised_version.pdf, english version, translated from the original Japanese version

  • Seeger M (2006) Best practices in crisis communication: an expert panel process. J Appl Commun Res 34:232–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Speirs-Bridge A, Fidler F, McBride M, Flander L, Cumming G, Burgman M (2010) Reducing overconfidence in the interval judgments of experts. Risk Anal 30(3):512–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01337.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland W, Spiegelhalter D, Burgman M (2013) Twenty tips for interpreting scientific claims. Nature 503:335–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Asselt MB, Renn O (2011) Risk governance. J Risk Res 14(4):431–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varis O (1997) Bayesian decision analysis for environmental and resource management. Environ Model Softw 12(2–3):177–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White C, Remenyi T, McEvoy D, Trundle A, Corney S (2016) 2016 Tasmanian state natural disaster risk assessment: all hazard summary. Tech. rep. University of Tasmania, Hobart

  • White DJ (2018) Decision theory. Routledge, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Whitmer A, Ogden L, Lawton J, Sturner P, Groffman P, Schneider L, Hart D, Halpern B, Schlesinger W, Raciti S, Bettez N (2010) The engaged university: providing a platform for research that transforms society. Front Ecol Environ 8:314–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou L, Wu X, Xu Z, Fujita H (2018) Emergency decision making for natural disasters: an overview. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 27:567–576

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

MQ thanks Sue Stubenvoll for the funding and encouragment to participate in, and submit evidence to, the Christchurch District Replacement Plan Hearings. The modelling conducted in case study 2 and analysis activities reported, and the development of the armonline.com.au tools were made possible through funding provided by the Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries under the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries—University of Southern Queensland Broad Acre Grains Partnership. Dr Lance Pedergast (Senior Development Agronomist with the Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries) assisted in the design, analysis and communication of chickpea analysis presented in this case study. Mr Howard Cox (Senior Agronomist Department of Agriculture and Fisheries) has contributed to the design and development of the ARM online tools. The author of case study 5 (PD) would like to thank Ray Wood and Renee Grogan for discussing many aspects of the CRP application and EPANZ hearing and decision. Their comments and suggestion greatly improved the original document. Hamish Campbell is also acknowledged for providing a thorough review of the draft. The paper benefited from a highly thoughtful review by Emma Hudson-Doyle and two anonymous reviewers. We thank Igor Linkov for the professional editorship of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia

    Mark C. Quigley

  2. Department of Geological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

    Mark C. Quigley

  3. School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, 5005, Australia

    Luke G. Bennetts

  4. GNS Science, 1 Fairway Drive, Lower Hutt, 5010, New Zealand

    Patricia Durance

  5. CSIRO Data61, GPO Box 1700, Canberra, ACT, Australia

    Petra M. Kuhnert

  6. Centre for Exploration Targeting, School of Earth Sciences, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, 6009, Australia

    Mark D. Lindsay

  7. School of Agricultural, Computational and Environmental Sciences and Centre for Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD, 4350, Australia

    Keith G. Pembleton

  8. Australian Rivers Institute, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD, 4111, Australia

    Melanie E. Roberts

  9. School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia

    Melanie E. Roberts

  10. School of Engineering, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, 7005, Australia

    Christopher J. White

  11. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK

    Christopher J. White

Authors
  1. Mark C. Quigley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luke G. Bennetts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Patricia Durance
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Petra M. Kuhnert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mark D. Lindsay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Keith G. Pembleton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Melanie E. Roberts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Christopher J. White
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark C. Quigley.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Quigley, M.C., Bennetts, L.G., Durance, P. et al. The provision and utility of earth science to decision-makers: synthesis and key findings. Environ Syst Decis 39, 349–367 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-019-09737-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-019-09737-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation