Abstract
Efforts by both natural and social scientists have brought significant new bodies of information to bear on natural resources policy making. Among these have been new insights in conservation biology and landscape ecology, new methods for valuing intangible resource benefits, and new frameworks for resource accounting. The use of these new sources of information is analyzed from a Lasswellian policy process perspective, with illustrations from recent experience with U.S. national forest planning. A distinction is made between the impact of new information on ‘ordinary’ as contrasted to ‘constitutive’ policy making. This experience suggests that these new sources of information may increase emphasis on sustainable, multiple benefit use of resources, but they can also shift power away from non-expert actors, undermine rights arguments, polarize debates over appropriate resource use, and delay timely decisionmaking.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ascher, William (1978).Forecasting: An Appraisal for Policymakers and Planners. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Ascher, William and Brewer, Garry D. (1988). ‘Sustainable development and natural resource forecasting,” in Clark S. Binkley, Garry D. Brewer, and V. Alaric Sample, eds.,Redirecting the RPA. New Haven: Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.
Behan, R. W. (1990). “The RPA/NFMA: Solution to a nonexistent problem,”Journal of Forestry 88: 20–25.
Brewer, Garry (1973).Politicians, Bureaucrats, and the Consultant: A Critique of Urban Problem Solving. New York: Basic Books.
Brewer, Garry and Peter de Leon (1983).Foundations of Policy Analysis. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
Chappelle, Daniel E. (1990).Review of RPA Valuation Guidelines. Technical Bulletin 9001. Washington, DC: American Forest Alliance.
Congressional Record (1974).Daily Digest. S2051–2071. February 21.
Gale, Richard P. (1994). ‘Not scientifically sound,’Journal of Forestry 92: 33.
Giltmier, James (1976). ‘Resources Planning Act: A Congressional perspective,’Journal of Forestry 74: 275.
Greenberger, Martin, Matthew Crenson, and Brian Crissey (1976).Models in the Policy Process. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Hays, Samuel P. (1987).Beauty, Health, and Permanence: Environmental Politics in the United States, 1955–1985. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hufschmidt, Maynard, David James, Anton Meister, Blair Bower and John Dixon (1983).Environment, Natural Systems, and Development: An Economic Valuation Guide. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Iverson, David C. and Richard M. Alston (1986). ‘The genesis of FORPLAN: A historical and analytical review of Forest Service planning models,’General Technical Report, INT-214. U.S. Forest Service, Ogden, Utah. Intermountain Research Station.
Jackson, Laura (1989).Mountain Treasures at Risk: The Future of the Southern Appalachian National Forests. Washington, DC: Wilderness Society.
Lasswell, Harold D. (1971).A Pre-View of Policy Sciences. New York: American Elsevier.
Lindblom, Charles (1980).The Policymaking Process. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Loomis, John B (1987). ‘Economic efficiency analysis, bureaucrats, and budgets: A test of hypotheses,”Western Journal of Agricultural Economics 12: 27–34.
McKillop, William (1994). ‘Critique of Economic Aspects,’Journal of Forestry 92: 37.
McQuillan, Alan G. (1989). ‘The problem with economics in forest planning ... An overview at three levels,’The Public Land Law Review 10: 55–72.
Morrison, James F. (1987). ‘The National Forest Management Act and below cost timber sales: Determining the economic suitability of land for timber production,’Environmental Law 17: 557–590.
Newberry, James D. (1994). ‘Scientific opinion, not process,’Journal of Forestry 92: 44.
Norgaard, Richard (1989). ‘Three dilemmas of environmental accounting,’Ecological Economics 1: 301–19.
Repetto, Robert, William Magrath, Michael Wells, Christine Beer, and Fabrizio Rossini (1989).Wasting Assets: Natural Resources in the National Income Accounts. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
Sagoff, Mark (1988).The Economy of the Earth: Philosophy, Law and the Environment. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sample, V. A. (1989). ‘National forest policy-making and program planning: The role of the President's Office of Management and Budget,’Journal of Forestry 87: 17–25.
Sample, V. A. (1990). Personal communication.
Shannon, Margaret A. and K. Norman Johnson (1994). ‘Lessons from the FEMAT,’Journal of Forestry 92: 6.
Staebler, Rebecca N. (1994). ‘FEMAT: An intense experience for all,’Journal of Forestry 92: 5.
Stone, Christopher D. (1974).Should Trees Have Standing? Los Altos, CA: William Kaufmann.
Stone, Deborah A. (1988).Policy Paradox and Political Reason Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Thomas, Jack Ward (1994). ‘Forest ecosystem management assessment team: Objectives, process and options in an attempt to end the gridlock,’Journal of Forestry 92: 12–17.
Wales, Diana (1994). ‘Gambling with the future,’Journal of Forestry 92: 30.
Whittington, Dale and MacRae, Duncan, Jr. (1986). ‘Standing in cost-benefit analysis,’Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 5: 665–682.
Wilderness Society (1987).Forests of the Future. Washington, DC: Wilderness Society.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Healy, R.G., Ascher, W. Knowledge in the policy process: Incorporating new environmental information in natural resources policy making. Policy Sci 28, 1–19 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01000818
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01000818