Researchers must be aware of their roles at the interface of ecosystem services science and policy
- 555 Downloads
Scientists working on ecosystem service (ES) science are engaged in a mission-driven discipline. They can contribute to science-policy interfaces where knowledge is co-produced and used. How scientists engage with the governance arena to mobilise their knowledge remains a matter of personal choice, influenced by individual values. ES science cannot be considered neutral and a discussion of the values that shape it forms an important part of the sustainability dialogue. We propose a simple decision tree to help ES scientists identify their role and the purpose of the knowledge they produce. We characterise six idealised scientific postures spanning possible roles at the science-policy interface (pure scientist, science arbiter—guarantor, issue advocate—guardian, officer, honest broker and stealth issue advocate) and illustrate them with feedbacks from interviews. We encourage ES scientists to conduct a reflexive exploration of their attitudes regarding knowledge production and use, with the intention of progressing toward a higher recognition of the political and ethical importance of ES assessments.
KeywordsEcosystem services Mission-driven discipline Science-policy interface Scientific postures Scientific reflexivity
This work was funded by ERAnet BiodivERsA project CONNECT, with support from the French Agence Nationale pour la Recherche, and by the project OPERAs FP7-ENV-2012-two-stage-308393.
- Coreau, A., C. Nowak, and L. Mermet. 2013. L’expertise pour les politiques nationales de biodiversité en France: quelles stratégies face aux mutations en cours? VertigO 13: 2.Google Scholar
- Guerry, A.D., S. Polasky, J. Lubchenco, R. Chaplin-Kramer, G.C. Daily, R. Griffin, M. Ruckelshaus, I.J. Bateman, et al. 2015. Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to practice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 112: 7348–7355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Jasanoff, S. 1990. The fifth branch: Scientific advisors as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Latour, B., and S. Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- McKenzie, E., S. Posner, P. Tillmann, J.R. Bernhardt, K. Howard, and A. Rosenthal. 2014. Understanding the use of ecosystem service knowledge in decision making: lessons from international experiences of spatial planning. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 32: 320–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sandbrook, C., I.R. Scales, B. Vira, and W.M. Adams. 2011. Value plurality among conservation professionals. Conservation Biology 25: 285–294.Google Scholar
- Young, J.C., K.A. Waylen, S. Sarkki, S. Albon, I. Bainbridge, E. Balian, J. Davidson, D. Edwards, et al. 2014. Improving the science-policy dialogue to meet the challenges of biodiversity conservation: Having conversations rather than talking at one-another. Biodiversity and Conservation 23: 387–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar