IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v46y2019i4p504-517..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholder perceptions of scientific knowledge in policy processes: A Peruvian case-study of forestry policy development

Author

Listed:
  • Luisa F Ramirez
  • Brian M Belcher

Abstract

There is a need to better understand how scientific knowledge is used in decision-making. This is especially true in the Global South where policy processes often occur under high political uncertainty and where a shift toward multilevel governance and decision-making brings new opportunities and challenges. This study applies knowledge-policy models to analyse a forestry research project that succeeded in influencing national policy-making. We investigate how decisions were made, what factors affected and shaped the policy process, and how scientific knowledge was used. The results highlight the complexity of policy processes and the related challenges in crossing the science-policy interface. Perceptions of scientific knowledge differed greatly among stakeholders, and those perceptions strongly influenced how scientific knowledge was valued and used. The findings suggest a need for researchers to better understand the problem context to help design and implement research that will more effectively inform decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Luisa F Ramirez & Brian M Belcher, 2019. "Stakeholder perceptions of scientific knowledge in policy processes: A Peruvian case-study of forestry policy development," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(4), pages 504-517.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:46:y:2019:i:4:p:504-517.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scz003
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:46:y:2019:i:4:p:504-517.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.