Green pages: the business of saving the world
In: Futures, Band 20, Heft 6, S. 695-696
13 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Futures, Band 20, Heft 6, S. 695-696
In: Energy Policy and Land-Use Planning, S. 241-281
In: Urban studies, Band 9, Heft 2, S. 249-250
ISSN: 1360-063X
In: Journal of biosocial science: JBS, Band 12, Heft 3, S. 287-300
ISSN: 1469-7599
SummaryIntentional childlessness in Britain has been investigated by means of a postal questionnaire survey of married women who to date had never had a child. These wives were categorized according to their fertility intentions. As a group the wives were well-educated, likely to be employed and to be married to men in professional or managerial occupations, although there were some with husbands in manual occupations. The main reason perceived by the wives for their decision not to have children was the value they placed on the freedom they consequently gained. A majority of the wives felt there were no disadvantages in remaining childless. The remainder who felt that there were disadvantages identified these as: missing the positive features of children; possible loneliness and lack of support in old age; feelings of deviancy; and economic and social discrimination resulting from their childlessness.
In: Energy Policy and Land-Use Planning, S. 1-19
In: Urban and regional Planning Series 32
Public policy requires public support, which in turn implies a need to enable the public not just to understand policy but also to be engaged in its development. Where complex science and technology issues are involved in policy making, this takes time, so it is important to identify emerging issues of this type and prepare engagement plans. In our horizon scanning exercise, we used a modified Delphi technique [1]. A wide group of people with interests in the science and policy interface (drawn from policy makers, policy adviser, practitioners, the private sector and academics) elicited a long list of emergent policy issues in which science and technology would feature strongly and which would also necessitate public engagement as policies are developed. This was then refined to a short list of top priorities for policy makers. Thirty issues were identified within broad areas of business and technology; energy and environment; government, politics and education; health, healthcare, population and aging; information, communication, infrastructure and transport; and public safety and national security.Public policy requires public support, which in turn implies a need to enable the public not just to understand policy but also to be engaged in its development. Where complex science and technology issues are involved in policy making, this takes time, so it is important to identify emerging issues of this type and prepare engagement plans. In our horizon scanning exercise, we used a modified Delphi technique [1]. A wide group of people with interests in the science and policy interface (drawn from policy makers, policy adviser, practitioners, the private sector and academics) elicited a long list of emergent policy issues in which science and technology would feature strongly and which would also necessitate public engagement as policies are developed. This was then refined to a short list of top priorities for policy makers. Thirty issues were identified within broad areas of business and technology; energy and ...
BASE
In: Parker , M , Acland , A , Armstrong , H J , Bellingham , J R , Bland , J , Bodmer , H C , Burall , S , Castell , S , Chilvers , J , Cleevely , D D , Cope , D , Costanzo , L , Dolan , J A , Doubleday , R , Feng , W Y , Godfray , H C J , Good , D A , Grant , J , Green , N , Groen , A J , Guilliams , T T , Gupta , S , Hall , A C , Heathfield , A , Hotopp , U , Kass , G , Leeder , T , Lickorish , F A , Lueshi , L M , Magee , C , Mata , T , McBride , T , McCarthy , N , Mercer , A , Neilson , R , Ouchikh , J , Oughton , E J , Oxenham , D , Pallett , H , Palmer , J , Patmore , J , Petts , J , Pinkerton , J , Ploszek , R , Pratt , A , Rocks , S A , Stansfield , N , Surkovic , E , Tyler , C P , Watkinson , A R , Wentworth , J , Willis , R , Wollner , P K A , Worts , K & Sutherland , W J 2014 , ' Identifying the Science and Technology Dimensions of Emerging Public Policy Issues through Horizon Scanning ' PloS one , vol 9 , no. 5 , e96480 . DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0096480
Public policy requires public support, which in turn implies a need to enable the public not just to understand policy but also to be engaged in its development. Where complex science and technology issues are involved in policy making, this takes time, so it is important to identify emerging issues of this type and prepare engagement plans. In our horizon scanning exercise, we used a modified Delphi technique [1]. A wide group of people with interests in the science and policy interface (drawn from policy makers, policy adviser, practitioners, the private sector and academics) elicited a long list of emergent policy issues in which science and technology would feature strongly and which would also necessitate public engagement as policies are developed. This was then refined to a short list of top priorities for policy makers. Thirty issues were identified within broad areas of business and technology; energy and environment; government, politics and education; health, healthcare, population and aging; information, communication, infrastructure and transport; and public safety and national security.
BASE
In: Sutherland , W J , Bellingan , L , Bellingham , J R , Blackstock , J J , Bloomfield , R M , Bravo , M , Cadman , V M , Cleevely , D D , Clements , A , Cohen , A S , Cope , D R , Daemmrich , A A , Devecchi , C , Anadon , L D , Denegri , S , Doubleday , R , Dusic , N R , Evans , R J , Feng , W Y , Godfray , H C J , Harris , P , Hartley , S E , Hester , A J , Holmes , J , Hughes , A , Hulme , M , Irwin , C , Jennings , R C , Kass , G S , Littlejohns , P , Marteau , T M , McKee , G , Millstone , E P , Nuttall , W J , Owens , S , Parker , M M , Pearson , S , Petts , J , Ploszek , R , Pullin , A S , Reid , G , Richards , K S , Robinson , J G , Shaxson , L , Sierra , L , Smith , B G , Spiegelhalter , D J , Stilgoe , J , Stirling , A , Tyler , C P , Winickoff , D E & Zimmern , R L 2012 , ' A Collaboratively-Derived Science-Policy Research Agenda ' PL o S One , vol 7 , no. 3 , e31824 , pp. N/A . DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0031824
The need for policy makers to understand science and for scientists to understand policy processes is widely recognised. However, the science-policy relationship is sometimes difficult and occasionally dysfunctional; it is also increasingly visible, because it must deal with contentious issues, or itself becomes a matter of public controversy, or both. We suggest that identifying key unanswered questions on the relationship between science and policy will catalyse and focus research in this field. To identify these questions, a collaborative procedure was employed with 52 participants selected to cover a wide range of experience in both science and policy, including people from government, non-governmental organisations, academia and industry. These participants consulted with colleagues and submitted 239 questions. An initial round of voting was followed by a workshop in which 40 of the most important questions were identified by further discussion and voting. The resulting list includes questions about the effectiveness of science-based decision-making structures; the nature and legitimacy of expertise; the consequences of changes such as increasing transparency; choices among different sources of evidence; the implications of new means of characterising and representing uncertainties; and ways in which policy and political processes affect what counts as authoritative evidence. We expect this exercise to identify important theoretical questions and to help improve the mutual understanding and effectiveness of those working at the interface of science and policy.
BASE
The need for policy makers to understand science and for scientists to understand policy processes is widely recognised. However, the science-policy relationship is sometimes difficult and occasionally dysfunctional; it is also increasingly visible, because it must deal with contentious issues, or itself becomes a matter of public controversy, or both. We suggest that identifying key unanswered questions on the relationship between science and policy will catalyse and focus research in this field. To identify these questions, a collaborative procedure was employed with 52 participants selected to cover a wide range of experience in both science and policy, including people from government, non-governmental organisations, academia and industry. These participants consulted with colleagues and submitted 239 questions. An initial round of voting was followed by a workshop in which 40 of the most important questions were identified by further discussion and voting. The resulting list includes questions about the effectiveness of science-based decision-making structures; the nature and legitimacy of expertise; the consequences of changes such as increasing transparency; choices among different sources of evidence; the implications of new means of characterising and representing uncertainties; and ways in which policy and political processes affect what counts as authoritative evidence. We expect this exercise to identify important theoretical questions and to help improve the mutual understanding and effectiveness of those working at the interface of science and policy. ; ESRC
BASE