No abstract

No abstract

Our understanding of the human and biophysical dimensions of tropical dry forest change and its cumulative effects is still in the early stages of academic discovery. The papers in this special section on Neotropical dry forests cover a wide range of sites and problems ranging from the use of multispectral and hyperspectral remote sensing platforms to the impact of hurricanes on tropical dry forest regeneration. Here, we present to the scientific community the results of a workshop on which research priorities for tropical dry forests were discussed. This discussion focuses on the need to develop linkages between remote sensing, ecological, and social science research. The incorporation of social sciences into ecological research could contribute dramatically to our understandings of tropical dry forests by providing important contextual information to ecologists, and by helping to develop an important science–policy–public nexus on which environmental management can succeed.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

This article investigates the role of culture in the social production of risks and risk communication surrounding industrial development in a region located at a rural-urban interface. A case study examined a public consultation that was undertaken to inform local residents about an eco-industrial development proposal being planned near Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. The research employed the social amplification of risk framework (SARF) to examine the relationships among culture, place, and socially constructed risk. A total of 44 in-depth, semi-structured interviews were carried out with 33 landowners (farmers, acreage owners), public officials (municipal politicians, administrators), journalists, and industry representatives. Analysis revealed that risk communication occurred in relation to situated experiences of place that were based on conflicting cultural worldviews. The research shows that place is a useful component of the SARF, providing a spatial explanation for why some people amplify, and others attenuate, risks in locally contentious environmental debates.

The effective use of evidence and its resultant knowledge is increasingly recognized as critical in risk analysis. This, in turn, has led to a growing concern over issues of epistemology in risk communication, and, in particular, interest in how knowledge is constructed and employed by the key players in risk--scientists, policy makers, and the public. This article uses a critical theoretical approach to explore how evidence is recognized and validated, and how limits are placed on knowledge by scientists, policy makers, and the public. It brings together developments in the sociology of science, policy and policy development, public understandings of science, and risk communication and analysis to explicate the differing forms of rationality employed by each group. The work concludes that each group employs different, although equally legitimate, forms of rationality when evaluating evidence and generating knowledge around risky environment and health issues. Scientists, policy makers, and the public employ scientific, political, and social rationality, respectively. These differing forms of rationality reflect underlying epistemological distances from which can develop considerable misunderstandings and misinterpretations.