Improving the Use of Science in Evidencebased Policy: Some Victorian Experiences in Natural Resource Management

  • Kimberley J Dripps
  • Martin Bluml
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)


This chapter describes the characteristics of effective science and policy linkages using several current examples relating to natural resource management, landscape analysis and visualisation. It ties these findings to the notion of effective evaluation and the pursuit of evidence-based public policy. Key features of successful case studies and empirical evidence from policy ‘next users’ reinforce the importance of research design tailored to address a particular policy need when policy makers are expected to utilise the findings. In a more general sense, research projects seeking to communicate more effectively with policy are most successful when project leaders pursue personal networks and exposure through mechanisms such as policy advisory committees. Research projects are also more likely to have policy influence when they provide a web presence that is easily located using commonly used search engines such as Google.


Natural Resource Management Policy Process Policy Analyst Policy Influence Policy Mechanism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. CEBP (2007) Centre for Evidence-based Policy. Retrieved 16 July 2007, ose_agenda_3_06pdf and Scholar
  2. CM4310 (1999) Modernising Government White Paper. The Stationary Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Davies HTO, Nutley SM, Smith PC (2000) What works? Evidence-based policy and practice in public services. The Policy Press, University of BristolGoogle Scholar
  4. De Broucker P, Sweetman A (2001) Towards evidence-based policy for Canadian Education. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Queen’s University, Kingston, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  5. DEFRA (2003) Delivering the evidence: DEFRA’s science and innovation strategy, 2003–2006. Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. DEFRA (2007) Evidence-based policy making. Retrieved 8 August 2007, Scholar
  7. Dripps K (2001) Will marketing science make a greater contribution to government organisations which contribute to natural resource management in this millennium than it did in the last? MBA assignment, RMIT University, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  8. Funnell S, Rogers P (2006) Evaluating complex and complicated programs: issues, approaches, implementation and implications — lessons from the evaluation of the stronger families and communities strategy 2000–2004. Australasian Evaluation Society Conference, 4–7 December 2006, Darwin, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  9. Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:1243–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. HRCNZ (2003) Partnerships for evidence-based policy and practice. Health Research Council New Zealand. Retrieved 27 August 2007, Scholar
  11. Kotler P, Roberto EL (1989), Social marketing. The Free Press, Macmillan Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Lawton JH (2007) Ecology, politics and policy. Journal of Applied Ecology 44:465–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Laverty SM (2003) Hermeneutic phenomenology and phenomenology: A comparison of historical and methodological considerations. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2(3) Article 3. Retrieved 8 August 2007,$∼ $iiqm/backissues/2_3final/html/laverty.htmlGoogle Scholar
  14. Lee KN (1999) Appraising adaptive management. Conservation Ecology 3(2):3Google Scholar
  15. Linehan C, Wright V (2007) What is your product? Department of Primary Industries workshop presentation delivered 7 February and 22 March 2007, Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  16. Lubchenco J (1998) Entering the century of the environment: a new social contract for science. Science 279:491–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lucas Group (2007) Market research report for DPI Victoria, integrating farming systems into the landscape program. Unpublished report for the Department of Primary Industries, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  18. Marsh D (2006) Evidence-based policy: framework, results and analysis from the New Zealand biotechnology sector. International Journal of Biotechnology 8:206–224Google Scholar
  19. Mulgan G (2006) Good and bad power: the ideals and betrayals of government. Allen Lane, London, pp 257–262Google Scholar
  20. Nutley S, Webb J (2000) Evidence and the policy process In: Davis HTO, Nutley SM, Smith PC (eds) What works? Evidence-based policy and practice in public services. The Policy Press, University of BristolGoogle Scholar
  21. Nutley SM, Walter I, Davies HTO (2007) Using evidence: how research can inform public services. The Policy Press, University of BristolGoogle Scholar
  22. Owens S (2005) Making a difference? Some perspectives on environmental research and policy. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 30:287–292Google Scholar
  23. Pawson R (2006) Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. Sage Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Sarewitz D (2000) Science and environmental policy: an excess of objectivity. Retrieved 17 July 2007, .htmlGoogle Scholar
  25. Solesbury W (2001) Evidence-based policy: whence it came and where it’s going. Economic and Social Research Council UK, Centre for Evidence-based Policy and Practice, University of London, retrieved 7 May 2007, Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kimberley J Dripps
    • 1
  • Martin Bluml
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Sustainability and EnvironmentEast MelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Primary IndustriesEpsom CentreAustralia

Personalised recommendations