It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Governments and intergovernmental organizations support scientific research to produce the knowledge and tools needed to monitor and mitigate global environmental changes (GEC). However, GEC-related policy decisions are often not based on scientific evidence, and GEC research is often not based on policy-relevant questions, resulting in a science-policy gap. Assessing the GEC policy priorities of researchers and policymakers is an essential step towards closing this gap. This task was undertaken by the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI), an intergovernmental organization pursuing science and capacity building to reach the vision of a sustainable Americas. The assessment included survey consultations, listening sessions, and an analysis of policy documents for 17 countries of the Americas. Three key findings emerged from this assessment. First, the top current priority for policymakers was Climate action, and Biodiversity and ecosystem services for researchers, with a poor alignment between the priorities of these social actors at the country level. Second, clusters of non-neighboring countries had a profile of GEC priorities more similar than clusters of neighboring countries, although there were some sub-regional clusters around particular GEC goals. Third, researchers and policymakers agreed that the lack of cross-sectoral collaboration and communication between technical and non-technical actors are important barriers. A key opportunity for policymakers was the growing funding and international cooperation for GEC, while for researchers, the growing body of evidence to inform GEC decision-making. These findings have implications for the design of research and capacity-building actions targeted to the priorities and needs of the region.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI), Montevideo, Uruguay; Grupo de Estudio de Agroecosistemas y Paisajes Rurales, Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Balcarce, Argentina; Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina
2 Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI), Montevideo, Uruguay; Fundación Octaedro, Quito, Ecuador
3 Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI), Montevideo, Uruguay; Pacific International Center for Disaster Risk Reduction (PIC-RRD), Escuela Superior Politecnica del Litoral (ESPOL), Guayaquil, Ecuador; ESPOL, Faculty of Maritime Engineering and Sea Sciences, Guayaquil, Ecuador
4 Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI), Montevideo, Uruguay; Centre for the Study of Science and Innovation Policy, Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, University of Regina, Regina, Canada
5 Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI), Montevideo, Uruguay