@article {bnh-5731,
	title = {Scientific diversity, scientific uncertainty and risk mitigation policy \& planning - final report},
	number = {494},
	year = {2019},
	month = {07/2019},
	institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC},
	address = {Melbourne},
	abstract = {<p>This is the Final Report of the {\textquoteleft}RMPP project{\textquoteright} (Scientific Diversity, Scientific Uncertainty and Risk Mitigation Policy and Planning project), which addressed the use and utility of science and other forms of knowledge by natural hazard practitioners, and the pragmatic meaning these hold for their risk mitigation work. Natural hazard managers often expect, and are expected, to achieve outcomes by using scientific facts and rational problem-solving to increase certainty of decisions in the face of hazardous events (Funtowitcz and Ravetz, 2003). At the same time, the uncertainties of natural hazards means that this sector has always set different terms to the this {\textquoteleft}pipeline{\textquoteright} approach to the use science (also called the {\textquoteleft}linear model of scientific expertise{\textquoteright}). The ability of policymakers and practitioners to explain and justify risk mitigation and its evidence is compromised without greater insight into how science and other forms of knowledge are used in emergency management policy and practice. The sector does not receive the full range of information it requires, and continues to be vulnerable to the perpetuation of {\textquoteleft}myths{\textquoteright} about science, its use and its usefulness.</p>},
	keywords = {fire impact, policy and planning, risk, scientific diversity, scientific uncertainty},
	issn = {494},
	author = {Jessica Weir and Timothy Neale and Liz Clarke}
}
