Adam Wellstead

Questionable survey methods generate a questionable list of recommended articles

To the Editor — In response to Mayer and Wellstead1, we take the opportunity to clarify here several components of our original article2, which they claim was flawed on four grounds: inaccurate information; small sample and low representativeness; low response rate; and no correction for non-response bias. The main issue invoked in this critique is that our pool of respondents was “biased” and not “representative” of our sample population or the ecological community as a whole. We argue that these issues are not relevant in this case, because these statistical terms apply only to non-representative or inaccurate measurements that attempt to estimate a true value of a population from a sample. We attempted no such estimation or representation. We clearly specified that our respondents were the editorial board members of six general ecology journals and members of the Faculty of 1000 Ecology section, and no more than this. However, we could have been clearer in the original article that the main results should be interpreted in light of the specific pool of respondents, and not the entire ecological community (which has since clearly emerged as a point of confusion). We do, of course, agree that ecology as a discipline (as well as all facets of science) would benefit greatly from fostering more diversity and inclusivity, but this has nothing to do with our article.

Mechanisms of environmental policy change in a federal system: The case of open federalism and the 2006–15 Harper government

ABSTRACT Between 2006 and 2011, the Canadian Conservative government advocated the concept of ‘open federalism’ which sought to minimize the role of the federal government in areas falling under provincial jurisdiction. Environmental policy-making was particularly impacted with the passage of the highly contentious 2012 omnibus Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, commonly known as Bill C-38. This paper argues that environmental policy needs to ‘bring back federalism’ into their analysis. In order to do so, a mechanisms approach is employed and focuses on the role of both macro and meso level historical institutionalism mechanisms in explaining policy layering and policy dismantling during this period.

Reducing ambiguity to close the science-policy gap

Abstract Scientists often worry that their evidence is not used properly in the policy-making process. Their main response is to change the supply of evidence to reduce policymaker uncertainty. They should focus more on ambiguity, combining evidence and persuasion to help policymakers define the policy problem. To do so, they need to understand the policy process in which they engage. They cannot do so alone. Policy scholars can help, by articulating the practical value of policy theories. To help most effectively, they need to state clearly the “causal mechanisms” of the policy process. For example, what causes policymakers to pay attention to an issue informed partly by evidence, or what rules guide their behavior most strongly when weighing up evidence with other factors? In this paper, we show that policy theories have informed this debate, but often without making explicit statements of causality. We draw on the social science causal mechanisms field to improve such analysis and suggest use qualitative methods to clarify and measure causal mechanisms to benefit policy scholars and the wider policy analysis community. A focus on mechanisms can inform policy scholarship, science community engagement and on-the-ground policy work.

A historical analysis of US climate change policy in the Pan-American context

The problem that climate change poses globally is being addressed locally through the use of diverse policy responses in many countries. Following its five-decade history of environmental policy making in the USA, the country has employed a particular mix of different renewable energy policy instruments, or tools, in order to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and replace fossil fuels with renewably sourced energy. We analyze and compare renewable energy policies and policy instruments from 2000 to 2016 for Argentina, Brazil, Canada, and Mexico with the USA, to determine what makes the USA unique in its robust approach to climate policy and reflect on the time periods when policy making has been the most active. We found that the most often used regulatory instruments in the USA to achieve its climate policy goals have been Renewable Portfolio Standard requirements implemented at the state level, with federal climate mitigation policy being contested.

Policy formulation, policy advice and policy appraisal: the distribution of analytical tools

At its heart, policy analysis is what Gill and Saunders (1992, pp. 6‒7) have characterized as ‘a method for structuring information and providing opportunities for the development of alternative choices for the policymaker’. An important part of the process of policy formulation, policy analysis involves policy appraisal: providing information or advice to policymakers concerning the relative advantages and disadvantages of alternative policy choices (Mushkin 1977; Wildavsky 1979; Sidney 2007; Howlett et al. 2009). Such advice comes from a variety of different actors operating in a wide range of venues both internal and external to government. And policy workers operating in these venues employ many different types of analytical techniques or ‘policy formulation tools’ in this effort (Mayer et al. 2004; Colebatch et al. 2011). These tools generally are designed to help evaluate current or past practices and aid decision making by clarifying or eliminating some of the many possible alternative courses of action mooted in the course of policy formulation. They play a significant role in structuring policymaking activity and in determining the content of policy outputs and thus policy outcomes (Sidney 2007) and are a worthy subject of investigation in their own right. Unfortunately, although many works have made recommendations and suggestions for how formulation should be conducted (Vining and Weimer 2010; Dunn 2004), very few works have studied how it is actually practiced, on the ground (Colebatch 2005 and 2006; Colebatch and Radin 2006; Noordegraaf 2011). This lack of knowledge is generally true of many of the tasks and activities involved in policy formulation (DeLeon 1992;