The very fact that information comes from a well-known organisation with a seemingly good reputation is for many a sufficient guarantee of quality. On the other hand, there is a fair risk that information from unknown or unrecognised sources will be ignored. Like the nature of the source, the very nature of the information process may determine whether the conclusions are going to be accepted. In addition, the quality of the process itself can help assure that the results of the study will be accepted by all major stakeholders - and hence used. Furthermore, it is hoped that this may help to identify and eventually fill information gaps.
Information is useful if it improves our understanding and knowledge and helps make decisions.
Otherwise it only contributes to noise . Unless we know how our information will be used or how we want it to be used, we can hardly make it useful. The need to be specific and to link information to concrete action has been long recognised in marketing, pro-paganda, and advocacy campaigns, and among many NGOs. One of the practical lessons from studying the impact of environmental information is that, in order to be interesting and relevant, it should be presented within a local or even individual context. Another lesson is that the media are still among the most powerful vehicles for delivering information to people, both in the streets and in the parliaments.