限制了二级理念 两次实现海洋生命保护法案的尝试提供了一个分析深层核心理念对利益相关者偏好影响的范围的绝好机 会。这些偏好涉及到两个截然不同的环境决策过程(NRC1983年的直线性科学方式和NRC1996年的解析性 协商方式)。 根据我们的假设,我们可以肯定地否认NRC1996假说。这个假说认为任何人都可以不受他们深层核心理念 约束的选择解析性协商防守。科学家、环保人士和国家政府官员事实上更为偏好NRC1983年的方式,部分 原因是他们他们认为它在保护主要栖息地方面更好。 通过亲科学管理显示出对所有利益相关者有利标准的间接影响,我们发现了对1983NRC理念假说的支持。 我们提供了一些关于1996NRC理念假说的确凿证据,因为亲合作理念间接影响了对避免不公平机构控制和 避免不良捕鱼效应的乐观,但没有明显的对保护主要栖息地的间接影响。 带有亲科学管理理念的利益相关者更喜爱NRC1983年的方法,因为它由科学指导,他们视合作机构为对基 于科学的决策的妥协,其有利于受当地利益相关者影响的决定。就像一个环境学家概括的那样:我认为将 会有巨大的压力迫使向休闲及商业捕鱼利益者让步。如果捕鱼竞赛能够遵照海洋生命保护法案行事那我将 十分高兴。法律是很清晰的。法律说让科学来决定。 最令人吃惊的结果是科学家们的观点。在避免不良捕鱼效应和保护主要栖息地方面,科学家们普遍反对 1996年的方案。考虑到原来的总体规划队进程在好几个社区造成了骚动并被证明在政治上令人不快以至于 加利福尼亚捕鱼竞赛部门不得不彻底修改进程,这是有些令人吃惊的。与其引入更多合作,许多科学家似 乎宁愿将这个公共会议视为对科学有效性的正面攻击。科学家“围绕货车”的倾向在加州鱼类部门因团体 规划进程的失败而指责他们的时候更为强烈了。也有证据表明,许多科学家认为应该是他们而不是利益相 关者来做决策。一个科学家这样说到:“我很担心最终建议将无法有效地阻止开发利用。这是一个高度政 治问题。我不愿意有影响力的利益相关者来做出决定。 阐明政策激进分子具有信仰系统并不非新创。很多研究员承认政策激进分子和大众具有信仰系统。但这个 研究却是由acf指导的三层层次信仰系统的应用而原创的。因而这个分析表现了深层核心信仰是怎样通过 介入政策核心信仰来影响二级信仰的。 Our findings that deep core beliefs indirectly influence stakeholder preferences for a decision-making approach also reflect Schattschneider's(1960)assertion that "organization is the mobilization of bias. "He suggests any institutional arrangement instills the biases of the designers. The two attempts to implement the Marine Life Protection Act and the polarized preferences of opposing stakeholder affiliations provide an excellent illustration of this principle. For stakeholders with proscientific management beliefs, the linear scientific approach is an institutional design that concurs with their beliefs by favoring scientific information over local preferences in a decision-making process. On the other hand, fishing interests and other local stakeholders who disagree with pro-scientific management beliefs are primarily concerned about their right to fish and their economic well-being They are certainly not enthused about establishing MPAs. When faced with pending restrictions, however collaborative institutions provide them with a voice and the potential opportunity to minimize the adverse economic effects and avoid agency domination. In sum, the results from this analysis support the assertion that institutional designs instill biases and that stakeholders prefer institutional arrangements that favor th fundamental concerns(Libecap, 1989, North, 1990; Ostrom, 1990) More and more resources are being put into collaborative institutions in hopes of reducing conflict and improving decision-making. The 1983 linear scientific approach is viewed by the nrC (1996)as an outdated process that leads inevitably to increased litigation, conflict, and inadequate decisions. The agency touts collaborative institutions as an improved decision-making design largely because it incorporates the perspectives of locally ffected stakeholders. As a result, the collaborative institutions have become a prominent decision-making tool mong scholars and practitioners. The findings from this analysis suggest that not everyone buys into the rationa of collaborative institutions and that stakeholder preferences are partly a function of their fundamental beliefs Since a majority of the evidence for collaborative institutions is made without comparison to other institutional designs, we suggest that the endorsement of collaborative processes be made cautiously until the processes and5 限制了二级理念。 两次实现海洋生命保护法案的尝试提供了一个分析深层核心理念对利益相关者偏好影响的范围的绝好机 会。这些偏好涉及到两个截然不同的环境决策过程（NRC1983 年的直线性科学方式和 NRC1996 年的解析性 协商方式）。 根据我们的假设，我们可以肯定地否认 NRC1996 假说。这个假说认为任何人都可以不受他们深层核心理念 约束的选择解析性协商防守。科学家、环保人士和国家政府官员事实上更为偏好 NRC1983 年的方式，部分 原因是他们他们认为它在保护主要栖息地方面更好。 通过亲科学管理显示出对所有利益相关者有利标准的间接影响，我们发现了对 1983NRC 理念假说的支持。 我们提供了一些关于 1996NRC 理念假说的确凿证据，因为亲合作理念间接影响了对避免不公平机构控制和 避免不良捕鱼效应的乐观，但没有明显的对保护主要栖息地的间接影响。 带有亲科学管理理念的利益相关者更喜爱 NRC1983 年的方法，因为它由科学指导，他们视合作机构为对基 于科学的决策的妥协，其有利于受当地利益相关者影响的决定。就像一个环境学家概括的那样：我认为将 会有巨大的压力迫使向休闲及商业捕鱼利益者让步。如果捕鱼竞赛能够遵照海洋生命保护法案行事那我将 十分高兴。法律是很清晰的。法律说让科学来决定。 最令人吃惊的结果是科学家们的观点。在避免不良捕鱼效应和保护主要栖息地方面，科学家们普遍反对 1996 年的方案。考虑到原来的总体规划队进程在好几个社区造成了骚动并被证明在政治上令人不快以至于 加利福尼亚捕鱼竞赛部门不得不彻底修改进程，这是有些令人吃惊的。与其引入更多合作，许多科学家似 乎宁愿将这个公共会议视为对科学有效性的正面攻击。科学家“围绕货车”的倾向在加州鱼类部门因团体 规划进程的失败而指责他们的时候更为强烈了。也有证据表明，许多科学家认为应该是他们而不是利益相 关者来做决策。一个科学家这样说到：“我很担心最终建议将无法有效地阻止开发利用。这是一个高度政 治问题。我不愿意有影响力的利益相关者来做出决定。 阐明政策激进分子具有信仰系统并不非新创。很多研究员承认政策激进分子和大众具有信仰系统。但这个 研究却是由 acf 指导的三层层次信仰系统的应用而原创的。因而这个分析表现了深层核心信仰是怎样通过 介入政策核心信仰来影响二级信仰的。 Our findings that deep core beliefs indirectly influence stakeholder preferences for a decision-making approach also reflect Schattschneider’s (1960) assertion that “organization is the mobilization of bias.” He suggests any institutional arrangement instills the biases of the designers. The two attempts to implement the Marine Life Protection Act and the polarized preferences of opposing stakeholder affiliations provide an excellent illustration of this principle. For stakeholders with proscientific management beliefs, the linear scientific approach is an institutional design that concurs with their beliefs by favoring scientific information over local preferences in a decision-making process. On the other hand, fishing interests and other local stakeholders who disagree with pro-scientific management beliefs are primarily concerned about their right to fish and their economic well-being. They are certainly not enthused about establishing MPAs. When faced with pending restrictions, however, collaborative institutions provide them with a voice and the potential opportunity to minimize the adverse economic effects and avoid agency domination. In sum, the results from this analysis support the assertion that institutional designs instill biases and that stakeholders prefer institutional arrangements that favor their fundamental concerns (Libecap, 1989; North, 1990; Ostrom, 1990). More and more resources are being put into collaborative institutions in hopes of reducing conflict and improving decision-making. The 1983 linear scientific approach is viewed by the NRC (1996) as an outdated process that leads inevitably to increased litigation, conflict, and inadequate decisions. The agency touts collaborative institutions as an improved decision-making design largely because it incorporates the perspectives of locally affected stakeholders. As a result, the collaborative institutions have become a prominent decision-making tool among scholars and practitioners. The findings from this analysis suggest that not everyone buys into the rationale of collaborative institutions and that stakeholder preferences are partly a function of their fundamental beliefs. Since a majority of the evidence for collaborative institutions is made without comparison to other institutional designs, we suggest that the endorsement of collaborative processes be made cautiously until the processes and