A Comparison of a Collaborative and Top-Down Approach to the Use of Science in Policy Establishing Marine Protected Areas in California By group 1
A Comparison of a Collaborative and Top-Down Approach to the Use of Science in Policy: Establishing Marine Protected Areas in California By group 1
Abstract · nrC two approaches MPA two attempts Three tired model from acF Data acquisition and analysis · Conclusion
• NRC two approaches • MPA two attempts • Three tired model from ACF • Data acquisition and analysis • Conclusion Abstract
the National research council (A) The NrC put forth a linear scientific approach in a 1983 report on risk entitled risk assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process--also known as the red book Under the NrC s 1983 approach, scientific experts first developed a proposal with limited contributions from affected stakeholders fterward, this science-based proposal was presented to interested and affected stakeholders for comment The NrCs 1983 linear scientific approach symbolized a top-down strategy for combining science and policy and has been used by multiple government agencies
the National Research Council (A) • The NRC put forth a linear scientific approach in a 1983 report on risk entitled Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process—also known as the Red Book. • Under the NRC’s 1983 approach, scientific experts first developed a proposal with limited contributions from affected stakeholders; afterward, this science-based proposal was presented to interested and affected stakeholders for comment. • The NRC’s 1983 linear scientific approach symbolized a top-down strategy for combining science and policy and has been used by multiple government agencies
(B) The NrC responded by advocating a collaborative process called the analytic and deliberative approach in Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society or the analytic and deliberative approach: (1) Get the science right by using high scientific standards; (2) Get the right science by ensuring scientists address stakeholder concerns; 3) Get the right participation by choosing a representative set of affected stakeholders to participate in the process; (4) Get the participation right by giving stakeholders a informative synthesis by addressing the tal op accurate, balanced, and fair opportunity to contribute; and(5)Devel range of and acknowledge the limits of available knowledge(NRC, 1996)
(B) • The NRC responded by advocating a collaborative process called the analytic and deliberative approach in Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society • The NRC provided five objectives • for the analytic and deliberative approach: (1) Get the science right by using high scientific standards; (2) Get the right science by ensuring scientists address stakeholder concerns; (3) Get the right participation by choosing a representative set of affected stakeholders to participate in the process; (4) Get the participation right by giving stakeholders a fair opportunity to contribute; and (5) Develop accurate, balanced, and informative synthesis by addressing the full range of and acknowledge the limits of available knowledge (NRC, 1996)
Marine protected areas the department of fish and game the master plan team Stakeholder Working Groups
Marine Protected Areas the Department of Fish and Game the Master Plan Team Stakeholder Working Groups