@article {bnh-5731, title = {Scientific diversity, scientific uncertainty and risk mitigation policy \& planning - final report}, number = {494}, year = {2019}, month = {07/2019}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This is the Final Report of the {\textquoteleft}RMPP project{\textquoteright} (Scientific Diversity, Scientific Uncertainty and Risk Mitigation Policy and Planning project), which addressed the use and utility of science and other forms of knowledge by natural hazard practitioners, and the pragmatic meaning these hold for their risk mitigation work. Natural hazard managers often expect, and are expected, to achieve outcomes by using scientific facts and rational problem-solving to increase certainty of decisions in the face of hazardous events (Funtowitcz and Ravetz, 2003). At the same time, the uncertainties of natural hazards means that this sector has always set different terms to the this {\textquoteleft}pipeline{\textquoteright} approach to the use science (also called the {\textquoteleft}linear model of scientific expertise{\textquoteright}). The ability of policymakers and practitioners to explain and justify risk mitigation and its evidence is compromised without greater insight into how science and other forms of knowledge are used in emergency management policy and practice. The sector does not receive the full range of information it requires, and continues to be vulnerable to the perpetuation of {\textquoteleft}myths{\textquoteright} about science, its use and its usefulness.

}, keywords = {fire impact, policy and planning, risk, scientific diversity, scientific uncertainty}, issn = {494}, author = {Jessica Weir and Timothy Neale and Liz Clarke} } @article {bnh-6255, title = {Navigating the fiery debate: the role of scientific evidence in eliciting policy and management responses for contentious plants in northern Australia}, journal = {Pacific Conservation Biology}, volume = {24}, year = {2018}, month = {08/2018}, pages = {318-328}, abstract = {

Australia{\textquoteright}s vast tropical savannas contain outstanding biodiversity and cultural values. The region supports many industries, with broad-scale pastoralism being the most widespread. Hundreds of plant species were introduced into northern Australia to support the pastoral industry; some species have since been termed {\textquoteleft}contentious{\textquoteright} or {\textquoteleft}conflict{\textquoteright} species due to their perceived positive value for industry but negative impacts on non-pastoral values when they invaded non-pastoral landscapes. Heated political and public debate ensued about the appropriate policy and management response to these species based on people{\textquoteright}s perceptions of values being altered by invasion by these species, and conflicting views on what constituted appropriate management actions to control their use and spread. Here we share our insights into the role of scientific evidence in progressing this debate, by quantifying the impacts of species on environmental, socioeconomic and cultural values. We reflect on the importance of science for underpinning evidence-based risk management tools, the outputs of which supported policy response by politicians and other policy decision-makers. We also assess the gap in translation from policy to coordinated on-ground action at the national scale, and provide our insights into the contribution that science can make to bridging this gap.

}, keywords = {conservation biology, conservation policy, invasive species, policy and planning, Savanna}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1071/PC18028}, url = {https://www.publish.csiro.au/pc/PC18028}, author = {Setterfield, SA and Rossiter-Rachor, Natalie and Vanessa M Adams} }