| dc.description.abstract | My aim is to challenge the widespread notion among scientists that science is, or should be, the predominant basis for decision-making about natural resources and the environment. This misconception among researchers results in issues that begin with problem framing and continue along to data-gathering, as well as in the presentation of results. I will show that values should be the predominant basis for decision-making. The appropriate role for science is to provide insight into the potential consequences associated with decision alternatives. I will support these claims with an analysis of the scholarly literature on decision-making and demonstrate the issues through a case study in urban forest management literature. The case study will examine Chalker-Scott’s (2015) paper entitled “Nonnative, noninvasive woody species can enhance urban landscape biodiversity” as a demonstration of problematic claims about the role of science in resource and environmental decision-making. | en_US |
