4.5 Article

Improving Technical Information Use: What Can Be Learnt from a Manager's Perspective?

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
卷 52, 期 1, 页码 221-233

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00267-013-0084-y

关键词

Information; Use; Access; Expectation; Literacy; Science; Practice

资金

  1. NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, Parks Victoria
  2. Australian Government Natural Heritage Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Conservation practice reportedly suffers from low use of technical information. Understanding of factors that affect the influence of technical information on management decision-making is limited. We sought to identify leverage points for improved technical information dissemination in the New South Wales Parks and Wildlife Service, Australia, given the significant recent investments in monitoring and evaluation that had been made. We did so by exploring the inter-relationships between factors affecting the influence of different information types on management decisions. Results indicate that managers have a high inclination toward adaptive behavior, given they operate in an information poor environment. The most influential types of information were those that enabled interaction between information provider and recipient (e.g., staff experience and expertise). An analysis of the concordance in individuals' responses for different information types showed that neither accessibility nor organizational expectation of use was aligned with influence on decision-making. Alignment of responses also varied by work area. Raising expectations of information use or increasing access to particular types of information is therefore unlikely to result in an increase in influence on management decision-making. Rather than focussing on matching accessibility and expected use of particular information types, our results indicate that technical information uptake is best supported through existing peer networks tailored to specific work areas.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据