<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:creator>Berton L. Lamb</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>1986</dc:date>
  <dc:description>Water resource scientists face complex tasks in evaluating aspects of water projects, but relatively few assessment procedures have been applied and accepted as standard applications. Decision-makers often rely on environmental assessments to evaluate the value and operation of projects. There is often confusion about scientists' role in policy decisions. The scientist can affect policy-making as an expert withess, an advocate or a surrogate. By understanding the policy process, scientists can make their work more “policy relevant.” Using the Terror Lake hydro project in Alaska as a guide, three lessons are discussed: (1) not all problems are able to be solved with technology; (2) policy-relevant technology is rarely imposed on a problem; and (3) the scientist need not just react to the policy process, but can have an impact on how that process unfolds.</dc:description>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>10.1111/j.1752-1688.1986.tb00755.x</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>en</dc:language>
  <dc:publisher>American Water Resources Association</dc:publisher>
  <dc:title>Meeting the challenge of policy-relevant science: lessons from a water resource project</dc:title>
  <dc:type>article</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>