Advertisement

Sustainability Science

, Volume 11, Issue 5, pp 855–859 | Cite as

A call for empirically based guidelines for building trust among stakeholders in environmental sustainability projects

  • Fabio Boschetti
  • Christopher Cvitanovic
  • Aysha Fleming
  • Elisabeth Fulton
Note and Comment
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Concepts, Methodology, and Knowledge Management for Sustainability Science

“The scientific community must rapidly reorganize to focus on global sustainability solutions. We must develop a new strategy for creating and rapidly translating knowledge into action, which will form part of a new contract between science and society” (UN State of the Planet Declaration).

Sustainability challenges present a significant threat to humanity. Often described as wicked problems, they are large in scale, complex, difficult to predict, and plagued by political, social, environmental and administrative uncertainty. As highlighted through the quote above, successfully responding to these challenges requires knowledge, action and coordination, and thus depends on understanding complex socio-ecological systems and processes as much as on efficient and effective two way knowledge exchange among scientists, decision-makers and stakeholders. This leads to the questions: how can the science community best allocate limited funds between producing new scientific knowledge and...

Keywords

Knowledge Exchange Stakeholder Engagement Trust Building Wicked Problem Sustainability Initiative 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Arnott DC, Wilson D, Doney PM, Barry JM, Abratt R (2007) Trust determinants and outcomes in global B2B services. Eur J Mark 41:1096–1116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Batt PJ (2003) Building trust between growers and market agents. Supply Chain Manag Int J 8:65–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blomqvist K (1997) The many faces of trust. Scand J Manag 13:271–286. doi: 10.1016/S0956-5221(97)84644-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowles S (2008) Policies designed for self-interested citizens may undermine“the moral sentiments”: Evidence from economic experiments. Science 320:1605–1609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brugnach M, Dewulf A, Pahl-Wostl C, Taillieu T (2008) Toward a relational concept of uncertainty: about knowing too little, knowing too differently, and accepting not to know. Ecol Soc 13:30Google Scholar
  6. Canning L, Hanmer-Lloyd S (2007) Trust in buyer-seller relationships: the challenge of environmental (green) adaptation. Eur J Mark 41:1073–1095. doi: 10.1108/03090560710773354 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carolan MS (2006) Social change and the adoption and adaptation of knowledge claims: Whose truth do you trust in regard to sustainable agriculture? Agric Hum Values 23:325–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cash D, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Jäger J (2002) Salience, credibility, legitimacy and boundaries: linking research, assessment and decision making. KSG working papers series RWP02-046. Available at SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.372280
  9. Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jäger J, Mitchell RB (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100:8086–8091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Castaldo S, Premazzi K, Zerbini F (2010) The meaning(s) of trust. a content analysis on the diverse conceptualizations of trust in scholarly research on business relationships. J Bus Ethics 96:657–668. doi: 10.1007/s10551-010-0491-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cook KS, Hardin R, Levi M (2005) Cooperation without trust? Russell Sage FoundationGoogle Scholar
  12. Cvitanovic C, Marshall NA, Wilson SK, Dobbs K, Hobday AJ (2014) Perceptions of Australian marine protected area managers regarding the role, importance, and achievability of adaptation for managing the risks of climate change. Ecol Soc 19(4):33. doi: 10.5751/ES-07019-190433
  13. Cvitanovic C, Hobday A, van Kerkhoff L, Wilson S, Dobbs K, Marshall N (2015) Improving knowledge exchange among scientists and decision-makers to facilitate the adaptive governance of marine resources: A review of knowledge and research needs. Ocean Coast Manag 112:25–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dewey J (1933) How we think: a restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educational process. Heath, LexingtonGoogle Scholar
  15. Dowd A-M, Marshall N, Fleming A, Jakku E, Gaillard E, Howden M (2014) The role of networks in transforming Australian agriculture. Nat Clim Change 4:558–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dryzek JS (1997) The politics of the earth, environmental discourses, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Eade D (2007) Capacity building: who builds whose capacity? Dev Pract 17:630–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fischer C (2013) Trust and communication in European agri-food chains. Supply Chain Manag Int J 18:208–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fiske ST, Dupree C (2014) Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111(Suppl 4):13593–13597. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1317505111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fleming A, Wilson S, Measham P (2014) Research to practice—a case study in relationship building for successful extension. Rural Ext Innov Syst J 10(1):1–10Google Scholar
  21. Fritz M, Canavari M (2008) Management of perceived e-business risks in food-supply networks: e-trust as prerequisite for supply-chain system innovation. Agribusiness 24:355–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fulmer CA, Gelfand MJ (2012) At what level (and in whom) we trust: trust across multiple organizational levels. J Manag 38:1167–1230. doi: 10.1177/0149206312439327 Google Scholar
  23. Fulton E, Jones T, Boschetti F, Chapman K, Little R, Syme G, Dzidic P, Gorton B, Sporcic M, de la Mare W (2013) Assessing the impact of stakeholder engagement in management strategy evaluation. IJEME 3:82–98Google Scholar
  24. Gibbons M (1999) Science’s new social contract with society. Nature 402:C81–C84. doi: 10.1038/35011576 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Guston DH (2000) Retiring the social contract for science. Issues Sci Technol 16:32Google Scholar
  26. Guston DH (2001) Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Sci Technol Human Values 26:399–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hardin R (2002) Trust and trustworthiness. Russell Sage Foundation, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. House LA, House MC, Mullady J (2008) Do recommendations matter? Social networks, trust, and product adoption. Agribusiness 24:332–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Inayatullah S (2004) Causal layered analysis: theory, historical context, and case studies. In: Inayatullah S (ed) The causal layered analysis (CLA) reader: theory and case studies of an integrative and transformative methodology. Tamkang University Press, Taipei, pp 8–49Google Scholar
  30. Jan Hofstede G, Fritz M, Canavari M, Oosterkamp E, van Sprundel G (2010) Towards a cross-cultural typology of trust in B2B food trade. British Food Journal 112:671–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kunseler E-M, Tuinstra W, Vasileiadou E, Petersen AC (2015) The reflective futures practitioner: balancing salience, credibility and legitimacy in generating foresight knowledge with stakeholders. Futures 66:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lacey J, Howden SM, Cvitanovic C, Dowd A-M (2015) Informed adaptation: ethical considerations for adaptation researchers and decision-makers. Glob Environ Change 32:200–210. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Longstaff PH, Yang SU (2008) Communication management and trust: their role in building resilience to "surprises" such as natural disasters, pandemic flu, and terrorism. Ecol Soc 13(1)Google Scholar
  34. Lubchenco J (1998) Entering the century of the environment: a new social contract for science. Science 279:491–497. doi: 10.1126/science.279.5350.491 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lucas C, Leith P, Davison A (2015) How climate change research undermines trust in everyday life: a review. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change 6:79–91. doi: 10.1002/wcc.320 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Memmo D, Sartor G, Di Cardano GQ (2003) Trust, reliance, good faith, and the law. In: Trust management. Springer, New York, pp 150–164Google Scholar
  37. Metcalf EC, Mohr JJ, Yung L, Metcalf P, Craig D (2015) The role of trust in restoration success: public engagement and temporal and spatial scale in a complex social-ecological system: trust in restoration success. Restor Ecol 23:315–324. doi: 10.1111/rec.12188 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Michaels S (2009) Matching knowledge brokering strategies to environmental policy problems and settings. Environ Sci Policy 12:994–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mukherjee A, Nath P (2007) Role of electronic trust in online retailing: a re-examination of the commitment-trust theory. Eur J Mark 41:1173–1202. doi: 10.1108/03090560710773390 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Neef A, Neubert D (2011) Stakeholder participation in agricultural research projects: a conceptual framework for reflection and decision-making. Agric Hum Values 28:179–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Oreskes N (2004) BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Science 306:1686. doi: 10.1126/science.1103618 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Oreszczyn S, Lane A, Carr S (2010) The role of networks of practice and webs of influencers on farmers’ engagement with and learning about agricultural innovations. J Rural Stud 26:404–417. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2010.03.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pielke RA (2003) The role of models in prediction for decision. In: Canham CD, Cole JJ, Lauenroth WK (eds) Models in ecosystem science. Princeton University Press, Princeton, Oxford, pp 111–135Google Scholar
  44. Reed MS, Stringer LC, Fazey I, Evely AC, Kruijsen JHJ (2014) Five principles for the practice of knowledge exchange in environmental management. J Environ Manag 146:337–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Roberts K, Lacey J (2008) What is the relationship between human and social capital: what transfers to whom? Rural Soc 18(2):103–116Google Scholar
  46. Sherman MH, Ford J (2014) Stakeholder engagement in adaptation interventions: an evaluation of projects in developing nations. Clim Policy 14:417–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Small B, Brown P, Montes de Oca Munguia O, (2015) Values, trust, and management in New Zealand agriculture. Int J Agric Sustain 1–25Google Scholar
  48. Smith JW, Leahy JE, Anderson DH, Davenport MA (2013) Community/agency trust and public involvement in resource planning. Soc Nat Resour 26:452–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stern MJ, Coleman KJ (2015) The multidimensionality of trust: applications in collaborative natural resource management. Soci Nat Resour 28:117–132. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2014.945062 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sutherland L-A, Mills J, Ingram J, Burton RJ, Dwyer J, Blackstock K (2013) Considering the source: commercialisation and trust in agri-environmental information and advisory services in England. J Environ Manage 118:96–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Young JC, Searle K, Butler A, Simmons P, Watt AD, Jordan A (2016) The role of trust in the resolution of conservation conflicts. Biol Conserv 195:196–202. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2015.12.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Australia 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial OrganisationCanberraAustralia
  2. 2.School of Earth and Geographical SciencesThe University of Western AustraliaPerthAustralia
  3. 3.Centre for Marine Socioecology, Institute for Marine and Antarctic StudiesThe University of TasmaniaHobartAustralia
  4. 4.Faculty of LawThe University of TasmaniaHobartAustralia

Personalised recommendations