Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Improving the Connection Between Science and Policy for River Basin Management

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Risk-Informed Management of European River Basins

Part of the book series: The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry ((HEC,volume 29))

Abstract

River basin management is highly complicated as it addresses a complex social–ecological system. It consists of a large area that crosses many administrative borders, it involves different stakeholder’s views on the problem and its solutions, and knowledge about the river basin system is uncertain and fragmented. Many problems in the river basin are of the unstructured type, in which policy objectives are contested and high uncertainty exists. Collaborative knowledge production is especially suited to establish the connection between science and policy for this type of problem. From boundary spanning theory, it is argued that collaborative knowledge production requires (a) sound process management (boundary spanning process), (b) people in both worlds that are willing to cross the boundaries (‘boundary spanners’) and (c) production of joint knowledge objects for instance a model, a map or joint paper (boundary objects). In river basin management roughly four groups with different roles and dynamics can be discerned: (1) scientists from various scientific backgrounds, (2) stakeholders with different interests, (3) policymakers from different policy sectors and (4) politicians from different political parties. This implicates multiple boundaries not only between these groups but also within these groups. In two case studies (both complex research projects), the ‘science–science’ boundary and the ‘science–policy’ boundary are explored. From these cases it is recommended that specific boundary spanning processes should be designed and facilitated by professionals who have preferably an education or training in mediation or process management. ‘Boundary spanners’ are the people who can act at both sides of the boundary, either as a scientist or as a policymaker. They should know both ‘worlds’ very well.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See also www.eu-aquaterra.de

  2. 2.

    Systems approach means that the project aimed for improving of the integrated understanding of the ‘groundwater, (deep) soil, sediment, subsurface and surface water’, i.e. the river basin ecosystem

References

  1. Müller-Grabherr D, Valentin Florin M, Harris B, Crilly D, Gugic G, Vegter J, Slob A, Borowski I, Brils J (2014) Integrated river basin management and risk governance. In: Brils J, Brack W, Müller-Grabherr D, Négrel P, Vermaat JE (eds) Risk-informed management of European river basins. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ellen GJ, Gerrits L, Slob A (2007) Risk perception and risk communication. In: Heise S (ed) Sediment risk management and communication. Elsevier, The Netherlands, pp 237–247

    Google Scholar 

  3. Brils J, Barceló D, Blum W, Brack W, Harris B, Müller-Grabherr D, Négrel P, Ragnarsdottir V, Salomons W, Slob A, Track T, Vegter J, Vermaat JE (2014) Introduction: the need for risk-informed river basin management. In: Brils J, Brack W, Müller-Grabherr D, Négrel P, Vermaat JE (eds) Risk-informed management of European River Basins. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  4. Folke C (2006) Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analysis. Glob Environ Chang 16:253–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hisschemöller M, Hoppe R (1996) Coping with intractable controversies, the case for problem structuring in policy design and analysis. Knowl Policy 8(4):40–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hisschemöller M, Hoppe R (2001) Coping with intractable controversies, the case for problem structuring in policy design and analysis. In: Hisschemöller M, Hoppe R, Dunn WN, Ravetz JR (eds) Knowledge, power and participation in environmental policy analysis and risk assessment. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick

    Google Scholar 

  7. Turnhout E, Hisschemöller M, Eijsackers H (2007) Ecological indicators: between the two fires of science and policy. Ecol Indicat 7:215–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. van Maasakkers M, Duijn M, Kastens B (2014) Participatory approaches and the role of facilitative leadership. In: Brils J, Brack W, Müller-Grabherr D, Négrel P, Vermaat JE (eds) Risk-informed management of European River Basins. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hoppe H (2005) “Rethinking the science-policy nexus: from knowledge utilization and science technology studies to types of boundary arrangements.” Poiesis & Praxis: Int J Technol Assess Ethics Sci 3(3) (July 1, 2005): 199–215. doi:10.1007/s10202-005-0074-0

    Google Scholar 

  10. Jasanoff S (2004) States of knowledge: the co-production of science and social order, international library of sociology. Routledge, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Gerrits L (2008) The gentle art of coevolution: a complexity theory perspective on decision making over estuaries in Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands, Thesis. Erasmus University Rotterdam

    Google Scholar 

  12. Duijn M, Rijnveld M (2007) Beleidsanalyse als ‘Bricolage’ (in Dutch). In: Cornelissen EMH et al (eds) Betoverend Bestuur. Lemma, Den Haag

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hajer MA, Wagenaar H (eds) (2003) Deliberative policy analysis: understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lasswell HD (1971) A pre-view of policy sciences. American Elsevier, New York

    Google Scholar 

  15. Caplan N (1979) The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization’. Am Behav Sci 22:3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Weiss C (1977) Using social research in public policy making. Lexington Books, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  17. Edelenbos J, Teisman GR, van Buuren MW (2002) Sustainable development as a joint fact-finding process: overcoming institutional barriers through process management. 2002 Berlin Conference on the human dimensions of global environmental change: Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  18. Teisman GR (1995) De reconstructie van complexe besluitvorming: over fasen, stromen en ronden. In: t’Hart P, Metselaar M, Verbeek B (eds) Publieke besluitvorming. Den Haag, VUGA

    Google Scholar 

  19. Flood RL (1999) Re-thinking the fifth discipline: learning within the unknowable. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hunt J, Shackley S (1999) Reconceiving science and policy: academic, fiducial and bureaucratic knowledge. Minerva 37:141–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Petts J, Owens S, Bulkeley H (2008) Crossing boundaries: interdisciplinarity in the context of urban environments. Geoforum 39:593–601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Jasanoff S (1990) The fifth branch; advisors as policy makers. Harvard, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  23. Brown JS, Duguid P (1991) Organizational learning and communities of practice: towards a unified view of working, learning an innovation. Organ Sci 2(1):40–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wenger E, McDermott R, Snyder WM (2002) Cultivating communities of practice. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  25. Leifer R, Delbecq A (1978) Organizational/environmental interchange: a model of boundary spanning activity. Acad Manage Rev 3(1):40–50

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Tushman ML, Scanlan TJ (1981) Boundary spanning individuals: their role in information transfer and their antecedents. Acad Manage J 24(2):289–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Dougherty D (1992) Interpretative barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organ Sci 10(4):381–400

    Google Scholar 

  28. Carlile PR (2002) A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: boundary objects in new product development. Organ Sci 13(4):442–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Bogenrieder I (2003) Knowledge flow and learning between groups: the role of multiple group membership. In: McGrath F, Remenyi D (eds) Fourth European Conference on Knowledge Management, Oriel College, Oxford University, United Kingdom. MCIL, Reading, England

    Google Scholar 

  30. Daft RL (1989) Organization theory and design. West Publishing Company, St. Paul

    Google Scholar 

  31. Star SL, Griesemer JR (1989) Institutional ecology, ‘Translations’, and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–1939. Soc Stud Sci 19:387–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Bechky BA (2003) Sharing meaning across occupational communities: the transformation of understanding on a production floor. Organ Sci 14(3):312–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Latour B, Woolgar S (1979) Laboratory life: the social construction of scientific facts. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  34. Foucault M (1979) Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. Vintage Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  35. Duijn M (2009) Embedded reflection on public policy innovation—a relativist/pragmatist inquiry into the practice of innovation and knowledge transfer in the WaterINNovation Program. Delft, Eburon

    Google Scholar 

  36. Duijn M, St Armour W, Bogenrieder I, Rijnveld M (2008) An integrative approach to knowledge transfer and integration: spanning boundaries through objects, people and processes. In: Proceedings of the OLKC 2008, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  37. Bouma G, Slob A (2014) How spatial planning can connect to river basin management. In: Brils J, Brack W, Müller-Grabherr D, Négrel P, Vermaat JE (eds) Risk-informed management of European River Basins. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  38. Negrel P, Darmendrail D, Slob A (2008) Transferring scientific knowledge to societal use: clue from the AquaTerra Integrated Project. In: Quevauviller P (ed) Groundwater science and policy, an international overview. RSC Publishing, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  39. Gerzabek MH, Barceló D, Bellin A, Rijnaarts HHM, Slob A, Darmendrail D, Fowler HJ, Négrel P, Frank E, Grathwohl P, Kuntz D, Barth JAC (2007) The integrated project AquaTerra of the EU sixth framework lays foundations for better understanding of river-sediment-soil-groundwater systems. J Environ Manage 84:237–243

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Slob AFL, Rijnveld M, Chapman AS, Strosser P (2007) Challenges of linking scientific knowledge to river basin management policy: AQUATERRA as a case study. Environ Pollut 148(3):867–874

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Brewer GD (1986) Methods for policy synthesis: policy exercises. In: Clark WC, Munn RE (eds) Sustainable development of the bio sphere. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  42. Levi-Strauss C (1966) The savage mind. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  43. Foster-Fishman PG, Berkowitz SL, Lounsbury DW, Jacobson S, Allen NA (2001) Building collaborative capacity in community coalitions: a review and integrative framework. Am J Commun Psychol 29(2):241–261

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Innes JE, Booher DE (2003) Collaborative policy making: governance through dialogue. In: Hajer MW, Wagenaar H (eds) Deliberative policy analysis: governance in the network society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 33–59

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  45. Leach WD, Pelkey NW (2001) Making watershed partnerships work: a review of the empirical literature. J Water Resour Plann Manage 127:378–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Sabatier PA, Focht W, Lubell M, Trachtenberg Z, Vedlitz A, Matlock M (eds) (2005) Swimming upstream: collaborative approaches to watershed management. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. TNO, Strategy and Policy, 49, 2600AA, Delft, The Netherlands

    Adriaan Slob & Michael Duijn

Authors
  1. Adriaan Slob
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Duijn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adriaan Slob .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Deltares, Utrecht, Netherlands

    Jos Brils

  2. Department of Effect-Directed Analysis, UFZ Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, Sachsen, Germany

    Werner Brack

  3. Umweltbundesamt GmbH, Wien, Austria

    Dietmar Müller-Grabherr

  4. Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Mini, Orléans cedex 2, France

    Philippe Négrel

  5. Inst. Environmental Studies, Free University Amsterdam Fac. Earth & Life Sciences, Amsterdam, Netherlands

    Jan E. Vermaat

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Slob, A., Duijn, M. (2014). Improving the Connection Between Science and Policy for River Basin Management. In: Brils, J., Brack, W., Müller-Grabherr, D., Négrel, P., Vermaat, J. (eds) Risk-Informed Management of European River Basins. The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, vol 29. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38598-8_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation