The U.S. Department of the Interior Climate Science Centers (CSCs) work with natural and cultural resource managers and scientists to gather information and build tools needed to help fish, wildlife, and ecosystems adapt to the impacts of climate change. The CSCs prioritize the delivery of actionable science products (e.g., synthesized scientific information, maps, decision support tools, etc.) that are focused on key management priorities and co-produced by teams of scientists and managers. In the specific case of the Northwest CSC, we have been successful at promoting and supporting the co-production of actionable climate science at the individual project level, but it has been more difficult to replicate this success at the regional program level. Here we identify the most significant challenges in satisfying this mandate and propose the creation of a Science Advisory Panel to provide improved interface between resource managers and scientists engaged with the Northwest CSC.
Natural and cultural resource management Actionable climate science Co-production of science Manager-scientist engagement U.S. Department of the Interior Climate Science Centers
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
The authors are grateful for the thoughtful and constructive suggestions from Robin O’Malley and two anonymous reviewers. AMM was supported by U.S. Department of the Interior Southwest Climate Science Center Award G13AC00326. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
NMD and GAB declare that they have no competing interests. AMM has been funded through federal finanaical assistance awards by the DOI CSCs.
Amara N, Ouimet M, Landry R (2004) New evidence on instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic utilization of university research in government agencies. Sci Commun 26:75–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beier P, Hansen LJ, Helbrecht L, Behar D (2017) A how-to guide for coproduction of actionable science. Cons Lett 10:288–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell S, Shaw B, Boaz A (2011) Real-world approaches to assessing the impact of environmental research on policy. Res Eval 20:227–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cash DW (2001) “In order to aid in diffusing useful and practical information”: agricultural extension and boundary organizations. Sci Technol Hum Val 26:431–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cash DW, Borck JC, Patt AG (2006) Countering the loading-dock approach to linking science and decision making - Comparative analysis of El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) forecasting systems. Sci Technol Hum Val 31:465–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choo CW (2006) The knowing organization. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
Cvitanovic C, Hobday AJ, van Kerkhoff L, Marshall NA (2015) Overcoming barriers to knowledge exchange for adaptive resource management; the perspectives of Australian marine scientists. Mar Policy 52:38–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dilling L, Lemos MC (2011) Creating usable science: opportunities and constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for science policy. Glob Environ Chang 21:680–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guston DH (1999) Stabilizing the boundary between U.S. politics and science: the role of the Office of Technology Transfer as a boundary organization. Soc Stud Sci 29:87–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guston DH (2001) Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Sci Technol Hum Val 26:399–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemos MC, Morehouse BJ (2005) The co-production of science and policy in integrated climate assessments. Glob Environ Chang 15:57–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meadow AM, Ferguson DB, Guido Z, Horangic A, Owen G, Wall T (2015) Moving toward the deliberate coproduction of climate science knowledge. Weather Clim Soc 7:179–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meagher L, Lyall C, Nutley S (2008) Flows of knowledge, expertise and influence: a method for assessing policy and practice impacts from social science research. Res Eval 17:163–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NCCWSC (National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center) (2014). Climate Science Center Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) terms of reference. NCCWSC, Reston, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
Oh CH, Rich RF (1996) Explaining use of information in public policymaking. Knowl Policy 9:3–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Roux DJ, Stirzaker RJ, Breen CM, Lefroy EC, Cresswell HP (2010) Framework for participative reflection on the accomplishment of transdisciplinary research programs. Environ Sci Policy 13:733–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor RS (1991) Information use environments. In: Dervin B, Voigt MJ (eds) Progress in communication science. Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, NJ, p 217–254Google Scholar
van de Vall M, Bolas C (1982) Using social policy research for reducing social problems: an empirical analysis of structure and functions. J Appl Behav Sci 18:49–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar