@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} } @conference {bnh-3884, title = {Science is critical but it{\textquoteright}s not everything: our findings}, booktitle = {AFAC17}, year = {2017}, month = {09/2017}, publisher = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, organization = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Sydney}, abstract = {

While scientific institutions and forms of scientific knowledge are critical for understanding and mitigating natural hazard risk, there is significant debate about their real utility to policy and practice. We ask: how are practitioners able to use scientific methods and evidence to make risk reduction decisions; how useful is this science for arguing for and defending these decisions; and, what other knowledge sources might we need to reduce our risk? In this paper we provide an end-of-project synthesis of our research regarding the use of science and scientific research by risk mitigation practitioners across three case studies of bushfire and flood risk.

Publics demand and politicians promise greater certainty when it comes to understanding and mitigating the risks of traumatic natural hazard events. It is often the scientific approaches and methods that are expected to produce all the evidence required to know, and prove, the right course of action. This is when the cracks appear in the assumed linear model of\  {\textquoteleft}evidenced-based policy and practice{\textquoteright}. In this paper we interrogate what is meant by {\textquoteleft}scientific facts{\textquoteright}, how they are employed to mitigate risk, and what the consequences are for policy and practice. We find that instead of relying solely on scientific approaches, or assuring publics or governments that certainty can be found, we need to affirm the critical importance of scientific methods and results whilst also incorporating other ways of understanding. The rich learnings from the various kinds of scientific inquiry are essential for complex problem solving, but are not sufficient in isolation.

}, author = {Jessica Weir and Timothy Neale and Liz Clarke} } @article {bnh-4210, title = {Scientific diversity, scientific uncertainty and risk mitigation policy and planning: annual report 2016-17}, number = {323}, year = {2017}, month = {09/2017}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

What is the problem?

There is a significant knowledge deficit concerning how science and other forms of knowledge are used and integrated into sector policy and practice, leading to incorrect and counter-productive misunderstandings. The emphasis on the value of scientific knowledge within the natural hazards sector {\textendash} and particularly in regards to risk mitigation {\textendash} is legitimate. However, this valuing of science has not been accompanied by research into the opportunities and challenges of using science in policy and practice. It is important to understand the inherent uncertainties in scientific results and methods so that practitioners are more able to judge and use this work, including in terms of evaluating it with respect to other knowledge sources {\textendash} social science, professional knowledge, experiential knowledge and so on.

Why is it important?

Without greater insight into how science and other forms of knowledge are used and integrated into sector policy and practice, the ability of policymakers and practitioners to explain risk mitigation and translate its scientific basis is compromised. The sector does not receive the full range of information it requires, and it continues to be vulnerable to the perpetuation of received ideas and {\textquoteleft}myths{\textquoteright} about science, its use and its utility. This work supports the capacity of risk management practitioners to explain and justify mitigation practices to other risk mitigation professionals, the public, the media, and courts and inquiry processes.

How are we going to solve it?

This research project will provide insight into the opportunities and challenges of using science in policy and practice through case studies conducted about and with practitioners. In doing so, it will provide an improved understanding of scientific integration pathways and an improved basis for articulating and defending science-based decision-making in natural hazard risk mitigation. Our findings are showing how knowledge integration and knowledge diversity are essential to navigating risk and uncertainty.

}, issn = {323}, author = {Jessica Weir and Liz Clarke} }