Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The RIU model as an analytical framework for scientific knowledge transfer: the case of the “decision support system forest and climate change”

Biodiversity and Conservation volume 23, pages 3641–3656 (2014)Cite this article

Abstract

Since a direct, so-called “linear” scientific knowledge transfer from science to political practice does not seem to be possible, we suggest an alternative model of the science–policy-interface. This model understands scientific knowledge transfer as the connection between research (R), integration (I), and utilization (U)—the RIU model. Within this RIU-model, scientific knowledge is produced in the science system (research), and science-based problem solutions are utilized within practice by political actors (utilization). Between the two spheres there is no “automatic” connection that leads to a linear application of science in policy making. Rather, the RIU-model highlights the important sphere of “integration”, a step that lies between science and utilization. A case study on a German decision support system for sustainable forest management within climate change is presented. It is shown that this informational instrument failed since no application in practice could be observed. An analysis by using the RIU model demonstrates (1) what are the reasons for the failure in this case and (2) which recommendations can be drawn by the RIU model for scientific advice that matters in forest policy-making.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

39,95 €

Price includes VAT (Netherlands)

Fig. 1

References

  • Ascher W, Steelman T, Robert H (2010) Knowledge and environmental policy. Re-imagining the boundaries of science and politics. MIT press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck U (1986) Risikogesellschaft. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck S (2011) Moving beyond the linear model of expertise? IPCC and the test of adaptation. Reg Environ Change 11:297–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck S (2012) From truth to trust : lessons learned from “climategate”. In: Hogl K, Kvarda E, Nordbeck R, Pregernig M (eds) Environmental governance : the challenge of legitimacy and effectiveness. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 220–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Böcher M (2012a) A theoretical framework for explaining the choice of instruments in environmental policy. For Policy Econ 16:14–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Böcher M (2012b) Wissenschaftsbasierte Politikberatung auf Abruf–zur Rolle der Ressortforschungseinrichtungen für Ministerien am Beispiel des BMU. der mod Staat 5(2):459–480

    Google Scholar 

  • Böcher M, Krott M (2010) Umsetzung des Konzepts einer modernen Ressortforschung im Geschäftsbereich des BMU, Texte des Umweltbundesamts vol 39/2010. Umweltbundesamt, Dessau-Roßlau

    Google Scholar 

  • Böcher M, Krott M (2011) Institutionalisierung multi- und transdisziplinärer Umweltwissenschaften durch Ressortforschungseinrichtungen. In: Fischer K, Laitko H, Parthey H (eds) Interdisziplinarität und Institutionalisierung der Wissenschaft (Wissenschaftsforschung Jahrbuch 2010). Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, Berlin, pp 59–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Böcher M, Krott M (2012) Professionelle Integration als zentraler Baustein zur Qualitätssicherung von Politikberatung. Z für Politikberatung 1(5):13–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Böcher M, Krott M (2014) Mit Wissen bewegen! Erfolgsfaktoren für Wissenstransfer in den Umweltwissenschaften. Oekom-Verlag, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Böcher M, Töller AE (2012) Umweltpolitik in Deutschland. Eine politikfeldanalytische Einführung, Reihe Grundwissen Politik. Springer, Wiesbaden

    Google Scholar 

  • Bocking S (2004) Nature’s experts. Science, politics and the environment. Rutgers University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehmer-Christiansen S (1995) Reflections on scientific advice and EC transboundary pollution policy. Sci Public Policy 22(3):195–203

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun D, Benninghoff M (2003) Policy learning in swiss research policy—the case of the national centres of competence in research. Res Policy 32(10):1849–1863. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00063-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson N, Eckley N, and Jäger J (2002) Salience, credibility, legitimacy and boundaries: linking research, assessment and decision making. KSG faculty research working paper 02-046. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

  • Clark SG (2011) The policy process. A practical guide for natural resource professionals (2nd edn). Yale University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelenbos J, van Buuren A, van Schie N (2011) Co-producing knowledge: joint knowledge production between experts, bureaucrats and stakeholders in Dutch water management projects. Environ Sci Policy 14(6):675–684. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2011.04.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forschungszentrum Waldökosysteme der Universität Göttingen (FZW) (2005) Anpassungsstrategien für eine nachhaltige Waldbewirtschaftung unter sich wandelnden Klimabedingungen—decision support system Wald und Klimawandel (DSS-WuK). Göttingen

  • Grebner DL, Bettinger P, Siry JP (2013) Introduction to forestry and natural resources. Academic (Elsevier), London

    Google Scholar 

  • Grundmann R (2009) The role of expertise in governance processes. For Pol Econ 11:498–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta A, Andresen S, Siebenhüner B, Biermann F (2013) Science networks. In: Biermann F, Pattberg P (eds) Global environmental governance reconsidered. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 69–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Guston, DH (2001) Toward a “best practice” of constructing “serviceable truths”. In Hisschemöller M, Hoppe, Robert, Dunn, William N, Ravetz JR (eds) I. Policy studies review annual No. 12. (pp. 97–118). Transaction, New Brunswick

  • Haas PM (2005) Science and international environmental governance. In: Dauvergne P (ed) Handbook of global environmental politics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 383–401

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulme M (2009) Why we disagree about climate change: understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Janse G (2006) Information search behaviour of European forest policy decision makers. For policy and economics 5:349–359

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen M, Döring C, Ahrends B, Bolte A, Czajkowski T, Panferov O, Beese F (2008) Anpassungsstrategien für eine nachhaltige waldbewirtschaftung unter sich wandelnden klimabedingungen—entwicklung eines entscheidungsunterstützungssystems “wald und klimawandel” (DSS-WuK). Forstarchiv 79(4):131–142

  • Jasanoff S (1990) The fifth branch : science advisers as policy makers. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff S, Wynne B (1998) Science and decisionmaking. In: Rayner S, Malone E (eds) Human choice and climate change volume 1: the societal framework. Batelle, Columbus, Ohio, pp 1–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon JW (1984) Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Little, Brown & Company, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinschmit D, Böcher M, Giessen L (2009) Discourse and expertise in forest and environmental governance—an overview. For Policy Econ 11(5–6):309–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klenk NL, Hickey G (2011) Government science in forestry: characteristics and policy utilization. For Policy Econ 13:37–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krott M (2005) Forest policy analysis. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Krott M (2012) Value and risks of the use of analytical theory in science for forest policy. For Policy Econ 16:35–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavis JN, Robertson Dave, Woodside Jennifer M, McLeod Christopher B, Abelson Julia et al (2003) How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers? Milbank Q 81(2):221–248

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence A, Marzano M (2014) Is the private forest sector adapting to climate change? A study of forest managers in north Wales. Ann For Sci 71(2):291–300. doi:10.1007/s13595-013-0326-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lentsch J, Weingart P (eds) (2011) The politics of scientific advice. Institutional design for quality assurance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Lidskog R, Sundqvist G (2004) From consensus to credibility: policy-relevant science in late modernity. Innovation: Eur J Soc Sci Res 17(3):205–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Maasen S, Weingart P (2005) What’s new in scientific advice to politics? In Maasen S, Weingart P (ed) Democratization of expertise? Exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision making-sociology of the sciences, vol 24. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 1–19

  • Maiello A, Viegas CV, Frey M, Ribeiro JLD (2013) Public managers as catalysts of knowledge co-production? Investigating knowledge dynamics in local environmental policy. Environ Sci Policy 27(0):141–150. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.12.007

  • Milad M, Storch S, Schaich H, Konold W, Winkel G (2012) Wälder und Klimawandel: künftige Strategien für Schutz und nachhaltige Nutzung. Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn

    Google Scholar 

  • Milad M, Schaich H, Konold W (2013) How is adaptation to climate change reflected in current practice of forest management and conservation? A case study from Germany. Biodivers Conserv 22:1181–1202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller N (2009) Environmental politics. stakeholders, interests and policy making, 2nd edn. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell RB, Clark WC, Cash DW, Alcock F (2004) Science, scientists and the policy process: lessons from global environmental assessments for the northwest forest. In: Arabas K, Bowersox J (eds) Forest futures: science, politics and policy for the next century. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD, pp 95–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Pregernig M, Böcher M (2012) Normative and analytical perspectives on the role of science and expertise in environmental governance. In: Hogl K, Kvarda E, Nordbeck R, Pregernig M (eds) Environmental governance: the challenge of legitimacy and effectiveness. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 199–219

    Google Scholar 

  • Radaelli CM (1995) The role of knowledge in the policy process. J Eur Public Policy 2(2):160–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz D, Pielke RJ (2007) The neglected heart of science policy: reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environ Sci Policy 10:5–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schramm E, Litschel J (2014) Stakeholder-dialoge—ein instrument zur bearbeitung von konflikten um biodiversität in mitteleuropäischen wäldern. Natur Landsc (in press)

  • Stevanov M, Böcher M, Krott M, Orlovic S, Vuletic D, Krajter S (2011) Analitički model resornoga istraživanja kao znanstveno utemeljenoga savjetovanja sudionika u političkom procesu-analiza znanstveno-istraživačke djelatnosti instituta za nizinsko šumarstvo i okoliš iz novog sada (Analytical model of departmental research as science-based advising of actors in political process). Sumarski list (scientific–technical and professional journal of Croatia Forestry Society) 9–10:449–466

  • Stevanov M, Böcher M, Krott M, Krajter S, Vuletic D, Orlovic S (2013) The research, integration and utilization (RIU) model as analytical framework for the professionalization of departmental research organizations: case studies of publicly funded forest research institutes in Serbia and Croatia. For Policy Econ 37:20–28. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.03.006

  • Storch S (2012) Forstpraxis und Wissenstransfer: Einflussfaktoren am Beispiel des Themas “Anpassung an den Klimawandel”. Forstarchiv 83:170–182

    Google Scholar 

  • Storch S, Krott M, Böcher M (2012) Institutionalization of accountability within programme research—the example of the “decision support system forest and climate change”. In: Hogl K, Kvarda E, Nordbeck R, Pregernig M (eds) Environmental governance: the challenge of legitimacy and effectiveness. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 260–279

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren ME (1999) What is political? J Theor Polit 11(2):207–231. doi:10.1177/0951692899011002004

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Chairgroup Forest and Nature Conservation Policy, University of Göttingen, Goettingen, Germany

    Michael Böcher & Max Krott

Authors
  1. Michael Böcher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Max Krott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Böcher.

Additional information

Communicated by Georg Winkel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Böcher, M., Krott, M. The RIU model as an analytical framework for scientific knowledge transfer: the case of the “decision support system forest and climate change”. Biodivers Conserv 23, 3641–3656 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0820-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0820-5

Keywords

  • Scientific knowledge transfer
  • Forest management
  • Climate change adaptation
  • Decision
  • Support system

Search

Navigation