Advertisement

Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 27, Issue 7, pp 1679–1702 | Cite as

Science-policy interfaces for biodiversity: dynamic learning environments for successful impact

  • Rob TinchEmail author
  • Estelle Balian
  • Dave Carss
  • Driss Ezzine de Blas
  • Nicoleta Adriana Geamana
  • Ulrich Heink
  • Hans Keune
  • Carsten Nesshöver
  • Jari Niemelä
  • Simo Sarkki
  • Maxime Thibon
  • Johannes Timaeus
  • Angheluta Vadineanu
  • Sybille van den Hove
  • Allan Watt
  • Kerry A. Waylen
  • Heidi Wittmer
  • Juliette C. Young
Original Paper

Abstract

To address the pressing problems associated with biodiversity loss, changes in awareness and behaviour are required from decision makers in all sectors. Science-policy interfaces (SPIs) have the potential to play an important role, and to achieve this effectively, there is a need to understand better the ways in which existing SPIs strive for effective communication, learning and behavioural change. Using a series of test cases across the world, we assess a range of features influencing the effectiveness of SPIs through communication and argumentation processes, engagement of actors and other aspects that contribute to potential success. Our results demonstrate the importance of dynamic and iterative processes of interaction to support effective SPI work. We stress the importance of seeing SPIs as dynamic learning environments and we provide recommendations for how they can enhance success in meeting their targeted outcomes. In particular, we recommend building long-term trust, creating learning environments, fostering participation and ownership of the process and building capacity to combat silo thinking. Processes to enable these changes may include, for example, inviting and integrating feedback, extended peer review and attention to contextualising knowledge for different audiences, and time and sustained effort dedicated to trust-building and developing common languages. However there are no ‘one size fits all’ solutions, and methods must be adapted to context and participants. Creating and maintaining effective dynamic learning environments will both require and encourage changes in institutional and individual behaviours: a challenging agenda, but one with potential for positive feedbacks to maintain momentum.

Keywords

Science policy interfaces Biodiversity Communication, argumentation, iterativity, behavioural change, societal change 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank all the interviewees and participants who took part in this work. This research was supported by SPIRAL “Science Policy Interfaces for Biodiversity Research Action and Learning”, an interdisciplinary research project funded under the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme, contract number: 244035.

References

  1. Assante M, Candela L, Castelli D, Manghi P, Pagano P (2015) Science 2.0 repositories: time for a change in scholarly communication. D-Lib Mag 21(1):4Google Scholar
  2. Bierly PE, Kessler EH, Christensen EW (2000) Organizational learning, knowledge and wisdom. J Organ Change Manag 13(6):595–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boeuf B, Fritsch O (2016) Studying the implementation of the Water Framework Directive in Europe: a meta-analysis of 89 journal articles. Ecol Soc. doi: 10.5751/ES-08411-210219 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bomberg E (2007) Policy learning in an enlarged European Union: environmental NGOs and new policy instruments. J Eur Public Policy 14(2):248–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brooks TM, Lamoreux JF, Soberón J (2014) IPBES ≠ IPCC. Trends Ecol Evol 29:543–545CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Butchart SHM et al (2010) Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328:1164. doi: 10.1126/science.1187512 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Candela L, Castelli D, Manghi P, Tani A (2015) Data journals: a survey. J Assoc Info Sci Technol 66(9):1747–1762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jäger J, Mitchell R (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. PNAS 100:8086–8091CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Chateauraynaud F (2004) Invention argumentative et débat public regard sociologique sur l’origine des bons arguments. Cahiers d’économie Politique/Papers Polit Econ 2:191–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark WC (2001) Social learning. In: Goudie AS, Cuff DJ (eds) Encyclopedia of global change. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 382–384Google Scholar
  11. Duchelle AE, Biedenweg K, Lucas C, Virapongse A, Radachowsky J, Wojcik DJ, Londres M, Bartels WL, Alvira D, Kainer KA (2009) Graduate students and knowledge exchange with local stakeholders: possibilities and preparation. Biotropica 41(5):578–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Engels A (2005) The science-policy interface. Integr Assess. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2015.1119096 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Engdahl E, Lidskog R (2014) Risk, communication and trust: towards an emotional understanding of trust. Public Underst Sci 23(6):703–717CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Farrell K, van den Hove S, Luzzati T (2013) What lies beyond reductionism? Taking stock of interdisciplinary research in ecological economics. In: Farrell K, Luzzati T, van den Hove S (eds) Beyond reductionism: a passion for interdisciplinarity. Routledge, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fazey I et al (2013) Knowledge exchange: a review and research agenda for environmental management. Environ Conserv 40:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fischer P, Kastenmüller A, Greitemeyer T, Fischer J, Frey D, Crelley D (2011) Threat and selective exposure: the moderating role of threat and decision context on confirmatory information search after decisions. J Exp Psychol Gen 140(1):51–62CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Fournier N, Gantioler S, Good S, Herkenrath P, Mees C (2010). In: European commission biodiversity knowledge base, assessment of the EU Biodiversity action plan as a tool for implementing biodiversity policy. Service contract no 09/543261/B2Google Scholar
  18. Fresco-Santalla A, Hernández-Pérez T (2014) Current and evolving models of peer review. Ser Libr 67(4):373–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gauchat G (2011) The cultural authority of science: public trust and acceptance of organized science. Public Underst Sci 20:751–770CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Gauchat G (2012) Politicization of science in the public sphere. Am Sociol Rev 77(2):167–187. doi: 10.1177/0003122412438225 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Granjou C, Mauz I, Louvel S, Tournay V (2013) Assessing nature? The genesis of the Intergovernmental Platform On Biodiversity And Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Sci Technol Soc 18:9–27. doi: 10.1177/0971721813484232 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Groffman et al (2010) Restarting the conversation: challenges at the interface between ecology and society. Front Ecol Environ 8(6):284–291. doi: 10.1890/090160 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Guston DH (2001) Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Sci Technol Hum Values 26(4):399–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haas PM (2004) When does power listen to truth? A constructivist approach to the policy process. J Eur Public Policy 11(4):569–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hmielowski JD, Feldman L, Myers TA, Leiserowitz A, Maibach E (2013) An attack on science? Media use, trust in scientists, and perceptions of global warming. Public Underst Sci. doi: 10.1177/0963662513480091 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hulme M et al (2011) Science-policy interface: beyond assessments. Science 333:697–698CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Kaika M, Page B (2003) The EU Water Framework Directive: part 1. European policy-making and the changing topography of lobbying. Eur Environ 13(6):314–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Koetz T, Farrell K, Bridgewater P (2012) Building better science-policy interfaces for international environmental governance: assessing potential within the Intergovernmental Platform For Biodiversity And Ecosystem Services. Intern Environ Agreem 12:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lentsch J, Weingart P (2011) Quality control in the advisory process: towards an institutional design for robust science advice. In: Lentsch J, Weingart P (eds) Institutional design for quality assurance. The politics of scientific advice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 353–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lewandowsky S, Gignac GE, Oberauer K (2013) The role of conspiracist ideation and worldviews in predicting rejection of science. PLoS One 8(10):e75637CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Lomas J (2007) The in-between world of knowledge brokering. Brit Med J 334(7585):129–132CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Lövbrand E (2011) Co-producing European climate science and policy: a cautionary note on the making of useful knowledge. Sci Pub Policy 38(3):225–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mace GM (2014) Whose conservation? Science 345(6204):1558–1560CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Maibach EW, Roser-Renouf C, Leiserowitz A (2008) Communication and marketing as climate change–intervention assets: a public health perspective. Am J Prev Med 35(5):488–500CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Marzano M, Carss DN, Bell S (2006) Working to make interdisciplinarity work: investing in communication and interpersonal relationships. J Agric Econ 57(2):185–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Meine C, Soule M, Noss RF (2006) “A mission-driven discipline”: the growth of conservation biology. Conserv Biol 20(3):631–651CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Michaels S (2009) Matching knowledge brokering strategies to environmental policy problems and settings. Environ Sci Policy 12:994–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mickwitz P et al. (2009) Climate policy integration, coherence and governance. Peer Report No 2 Helsinki: partnership for European environmental research, 92 ppGoogle Scholar
  39. Miller JD, Augenbraun E, Schulhof J, Kimmel LG (2006) Adult science learning from local television newscasts. Sci Commun 28(2):216–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nesshöver C, Timaeus J, Wittmer H, Krieg A, Geamana N, van den Hove S, Young J, Watt A (2013) Improving the science-policy interface of biodiversity research projects. GAIA 22:99–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nisbet MC (2009) Communicating climate change: why frames matter for public engagement. Environ Sci Policy Sust Dev 51(2):12–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nisbet MC (2010) Knowledge into action: framing the debates over climate change and poverty. In: D’Angelo P, Kuypers JA (eds) Doing news framing analysis: empirical and theoretical perspectives. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Nosek BA, Bar-Anan Y (2012) Scientific utopia: I. Opening scientific communication. Psychol Inq 23(3):217–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nutley SM, Walter I, Davies HTO (2007) Using evidence: how research can inform public services. Policy Press, BristolCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nutley SM, Morton S, Jung T, Boaz A (2010) Evidence and policy in six European countries: diverse approaches and common challenges. Evid Policy 6(2):131–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. O’Brien K (2013) Global environmental change III Closing the gap between knowledge and action. Prog Human Geogr 37(4):587–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Opgenoorth L, Faith DP (2013) The intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES), up and walking. Front Biogeogr. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Osmond D et al (2010) The role of interface organizations in science communication and understanding. Front Ecol Environ 8(6):306–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Owens S, Petts J, Bulkeley H (2006) Boundary work: knowledge, policy, and the environment. Environ Plan C Gov Policy 24(5):633–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pahl-Wostl C, Mostert E, Tàbara D (2008) The growing importance of social learning in water resources management and sustainability science. Ecol Soc 13(1):24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pe’er G, McNeely JA, Dieterich BG, Selva N, Fitzgerald JM, Neßhöver C (2013) IPBES: opportunities and challenges for SCB and other learned societies. Conserv Biol 27:1–3CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Petersen AC, Cath A, Hage M, Kunseler E, van der Sluijs JP (2011) Postnormal science in practice at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Sci Technol Human Values 36:362–388CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Pielke RA (2007) The Honest Broker. Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. CUP, Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Radaelli CM (2009) Measuring policy learning: regulatory impact assessment in Europe. J Eur Public Policy 16(8):1145–1164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Reed MS, Evely AC, Cundill G, Fazey I, Glass J, Laing A, Newig J, Parrish B, Prell C, Raymond C, Stringer LC (2010) What is social learning? Ecol Soc 15(4):r1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rose DC (2015) The case for policy-relevant conservation science. Conserv Biol 29(3):748–754CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Sarkki S, Niemelä J, Tinch R, van den Hove S, Watt A, Young J (2014) Balancing credibility, relevance and legitimacy: a critical assessment of trade-offs in science–policy interfaces. Sci Pub Policy 41(2):194–206. doi: 10.1093/scipol/sct046 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sarkki Simo, Tinch R, Niemelä J, Heink U, Waylen K, Timaeus J, Young J, Watt A, Neßhöver C, van den Hove S (2015a) “Adding ‘iterativity’to credibility, relevance, legitimacy: a novel scheme to highlight dynamic aspects of science–policy interfaces.”. Environ Sci Policy. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.02.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sarkki S, Niemelä J, Tinch R, Jäppinen J-P, Nummelin M, Toivonen H, Von Weissenberg M (2015b) Are national biodiversity strategies and action plans appropriate for building responsibilities for mainstreaming biodiversity across policy sectors? The case of Finland. J Environ Plan Manag. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2015.1076384 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Simon D, Schiemer F (2015) Crossing boundaries: complex systems, transdisciplinarity and applied impact agendas. Curr opin Environ Sustain 12:6–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stirling A (2008) “Opening up” and “closing down” power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Sci Technol Human Values 33(2):262–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Storksdieck M, Stein JK, Dancu T (2006) Summative evaluation of public engagement in current health science at the Current Science & Technology Center, Museum of Science. Institute for Learning Innovation, BostonGoogle Scholar
  63. Thompson GN, Estabrooks CA, Degner LF (2006) Clarifying the concepts in knowledge transfer: a literature review. J Adv Nursing 53(6):691–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tinch R, Schoumacher C, van den Hove S (2015) Exploring barriers to integration of biodiversity concerns across EU policy. In: Gasparatos A, Willis KJ (eds.) Biodiversity in the Green Economy. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  65. UNEP (2008) Report of the ad hoc intergovernmental and multi-stakeholder meeting on an intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (“Putrajaya meeting”) (UNEP/IPBES/1/6). UNEP. http://www.ipbes.net/sites/default/files/downloads/UNEP_IPBES_1_6_EN.pdf
  66. UNEP (2009) Report of the second ad hoc intergovernmental and multi-stakeholder meeting on an intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (“Nairobi meeting”) (UNEP/IPBES/2/4/Rev.1). UNEP, Nairobi. http://www.ipbes.net/sites/default/files/downloads/UNEP_IPBES_2_4_Rev.1_EN.pdf
  67. UNEP (2010) Report of the third ad hoc intergovernmental and multi-stakeholder meeting on an intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (“Busan Outcome”) - UNEP/IPBES/3/3. UNEP, Nairobi. http://www.ipbes.net/images/stories/documents/K1061514_IPBES-3-3-REPORT.pdf
  68. van Eeten MJ (1999) ‘Dialogues of the deaf’on science in policy controversies. Sci Public Policy 26(3):185–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. van den Hove S (2007) A rationale for science–policy interfaces. Futures 39:807–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. van den Hove S, Chabason L (2009) The debate on an intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES): exploring gaps and needs. Iddri—Idées pour la débat No.01/2009Google Scholar
  71. Van Kerkhoff L, Lebel L (2006) Linking knowledge and action for sustainable development. Ann Rev Environ Resour 31:445–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Vohland K, Mlambo MC, Horta LD, Jonsson B, Paulsch A, Martinez SI (2011) How to ensure a credible and efficient IPBES? Environ Sci Policy 14(8):1188–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Watson R (2005) Turning science into policy: challenges and experiences from the science–policy interface. Philos Trans Royal Soc Lond B 360(1454):471–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Waylen KA, Young JC (2014) Expectations and experiences of diverse forms of knowledge use: the case of the UK National Ecosystem Assessment. Environ Plan C 32(2):229–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Weingart P (1999) Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science in politics. Sci public policy 26(3):151–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Whatmore SJ (2009) Mapping knowledge controversies: science, democracy and the redistribution of expertise. Prog Hum Geogr 33(5):587–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wynne B, Felt U, Chair and Rapporteur (2007) Taking European knowledge society seriously. Report EUR 22700, European Commission, Science Economy and Society. Brussels: DG ResearchGoogle Scholar
  78. Young JC et al (2014) Improving the science-policy dialogue to meet the challenges of biodiversity conservation: having conversations rather than talking at one-another. Biodivers Conserv 23(2):387–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rob Tinch
    • 1
  • Estelle Balian
    • 1
  • Dave Carss
    • 2
  • Driss Ezzine de Blas
    • 11
  • Nicoleta Adriana Geamana
    • 9
  • Ulrich Heink
    • 5
  • Hans Keune
    • 3
  • Carsten Nesshöver
    • 5
  • Jari Niemelä
    • 8
  • Simo Sarkki
    • 7
  • Maxime Thibon
    • 10
  • Johannes Timaeus
    • 6
  • Angheluta Vadineanu
    • 9
  • Sybille van den Hove
    • 1
  • Allan Watt
    • 2
  • Kerry A. Waylen
    • 4
  • Heidi Wittmer
    • 5
  • Juliette C. Young
    • 2
  1. 1.MedianSant Cugat del VallesSpain
  2. 2.NERC Centre for Ecology and HydrologyMidlothianUK
  3. 3.INBOAnderlechtBelgium
  4. 4.Social, Economic and Geographical Sciences GroupJames Hutton InstituteAberdeenUK
  5. 5.UFZ- Helmholtz Centre for Environmental ResearchLeipzigGermany
  6. 6.Verein zur Erhaltung der NutzpflanzenvielfaltFuldaGermany
  7. 7.Cultural Anthropology, Faculty of HumanitiesUniversity of OuluOuluFinland
  8. 8.Department of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Biological and Environmental SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  9. 9.University of Bucharest - Research Center in Systems Ecology and SustainabilityBucharestRomania
  10. 10.Observatoire du Sahara et du SahelTunisTunisia
  11. 11.CIRAD - French Agricultural Research Centre for International DevelopmentMontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations