复旦大学：《公共政策过程分析》课程教学资源（作业展示）案例分析的第1小组

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

Three hypothesis Robust nrc 1996 Hypothesis: All stakeholders will prefer the Stakeholder Working Group process compared with the master Plan Team process independent of their deep core beliefs 1983 NRC Belief constraint hypothesis: The greater the degree of stakeholder concurrence with pro-scientific management beliefs, which embodies the rationale of the 1983 NRC report, the greater the degree of stakeholder preference for the master Plan Team process compared to the stakeholder Working Group process

Three Hypothesis • Robust NRC 1996 Hypothesis: All stakeholders will prefer the Stakeholder Working Group process compared with the Master Plan Team process independent of their deep core beliefs. • 1983 NRC Belief Constraint Hypothesis: The greater the degree of stakeholder concurrence with pro-scientific management beliefs, which embodies the rationale of the 1983 NRC report, the greater the degree of stakeholder preference for the Master Plan Team process compared to the Stakeholder Working Group process

Data Federal Scientist Environ Stabe Gowt Local Gort Recreational Commercial Other Total pral Gort Interest Officials Officials& Fishi Fishi Harbor Interests Interest mster Deep Core Belief n 150 4342000 Pro-Collbboration (n: 142) 60 47 45013 Policy Core Belief InE 5952 22404200 Pro-Local Knowledge (n 151) 5.9 6666100 "All numbers are mean values with l= Strongly Disagree and 7 trongly Agree

Data

Table 2. Secondary Beliefs and Rehtive Measure of Optimism by Stakeholder Affiliation(mean valuesy Federal Scientits Environ. Stabe Govt Local Govt Recreational Commercial Other Total R.val Govt Officials Official Fishing Fishing Official &r Harbor Interest stere master g Unfair Agency Domination Stakeholder Working Groups 5.4 57 3 00 n=135) Master Plan Team (n = 143) 5.0 Relative Measure Optimism for the Stakeholder 05 04 07 Working Groups Compared to the Master Plan Team (n= 124) ting Major Habita Stakeholder Working Groups 52 4.5 43 40 3.7 45 42 a.15 Master Plan Team (n= 124) 5.3 56 54 56 35 33 Relontiey mensure Optimism for the Stakeholder Working Groups Compared bo 0.6 12 07 02 00 the Master Plan Team (n= 113) Aroiding Adverse Fishing Effects Stakeholder Working Groups 54 55 25 00 (n=129) Master Plan Team (n 140 58 00 Relative Measure Optimism for the Stakeholder Working Groups Compared bo -02 0.2 0.1 04 00 the Master Plan Team (n = 118)

analysis Pro- Pro.Scientific Core Collaboration Management Beliefs DAS 0.32· Policy Pro-Local Pro-MPA Beliefs Knowledge Empircal R=438E=4.7 R2=0.85.E=0.39 0.17 0.17 0.14 Secondary Beliefs Optimism for Optimism for iding Unfair Optimism for Avoiding Adverse Agency 0.1O Protecting Fishing Effects Domination Major Habitats R2=031,E=0.83 R"=0.12.E=9 R=●.24E=087

Analysis

Conclusion Stakeholders with strong preferences for scientific management support empirical claims for the benefits of MPAs and are more optimistic about the linear scientific approach compared to the analytic and deliberative approach for protecting major habitats, avoiding adverse fishing effects, and avoiding unfair agency domination. In contrast, stakeholders with pro-collaborative beliefs respect local knowledge and are more optimistic about the analytic and deliberative approach compared to the linear scientific approach for avoiding adverse fishing effects and unfair agency domination

Conclusion • Stakeholders with strong preferences for scientific management support empirical claims for the benefits of MPAs and are more optimistic about the linear scientific approach compared to the analytic and deliberative approach for protecting major habitats, avoiding adverse fishing effects, and avoiding unfair agency domination. In contrast, stakeholders with pro-collaborative beliefs respect local knowledge and are more optimistic about the analytic and deliberative approach compared to the linear scientific approach for avoiding adverse fishing effects and unfair agency domination