Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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):4

    Google Scholar 

  • Bierly PE, Kessler EH, Christensen EW (2000) Organizational learning, knowledge and wisdom. J Organ Change Manag 13(6):595–618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bomberg E (2007) Policy learning in an enlarged European Union: environmental NGOs and new policy instruments. J Eur Public Policy 14(2):248–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks TM, Lamoreux JF, Soberón J (2014) IPBES ≠ IPCC. Trends Ecol Evol 29:543–545

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Butchart SHM et al (2010) Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328:1164. doi:10.1126/science.1187512

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Candela L, Castelli D, Manghi P, Tani A (2015) Data journals: a survey. J Assoc Info Sci Technol 66(9):1747–1762

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jäger J, Mitchell R (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. PNAS 100:8086–8091

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chateauraynaud F (2004) Invention argumentative et débat public regard sociologique sur l’origine des bons arguments. Cahiers d’économie Politique/Papers Polit Econ 2:191–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark WC (2001) Social learning. In: Goudie AS, Cuff DJ (eds) Encyclopedia of global change. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 382–384

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):578–585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engels A (2005) The science-policy interface. Integr Assess. doi:10.1080/14693062.2015.1119096

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engdahl E, Lidskog R (2014) Risk, communication and trust: towards an emotional understanding of trust. Public Underst Sci 23(6):703–717

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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, London

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fazey I et al (2013) Knowledge exchange: a review and research agenda for environmental management. Environ Conserv 40:1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):51–62

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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/B2

  • Fresco-Santalla A, Hernández-Pérez T (2014) Current and evolving models of peer review. Ser Libr 67(4):373–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gauchat G (2011) The cultural authority of science: public trust and acceptance of organized science. Public Underst Sci 20:751–770

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gauchat G (2012) Politicization of science in the public sphere. Am Sociol Rev 77(2):167–187. doi:10.1177/0003122412438225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guston DH (2001) Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Sci Technol Hum Values 26(4):399–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haas PM (2004) When does power listen to truth? A constructivist approach to the policy process. J Eur Public Policy 11(4):569–592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hulme M et al (2011) Science-policy interface: beyond assessments. Science 333:697–698

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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):314–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 12:1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 353–374

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lewandowsky S, Gignac GE, Oberauer K (2013) The role of conspiracist ideation and worldviews in predicting rejection of science. PLoS One 8(10):e75637

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lomas J (2007) The in-between world of knowledge brokering. Brit Med J 334(7585):129–132

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lövbrand E (2011) Co-producing European climate science and policy: a cautionary note on the making of useful knowledge. Sci Pub Policy 38(3):225–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mace GM (2014) Whose conservation? Science 345(6204):1558–1560

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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):488–500

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marzano M, Carss DN, Bell S (2006) Working to make interdisciplinarity work: investing in communication and interpersonal relationships. J Agric Econ 57(2):185–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meine C, Soule M, Noss RF (2006) “A mission-driven discipline”: the growth of conservation biology. Conserv Biol 20(3):631–651

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Michaels S (2009) Matching knowledge brokering strategies to environmental policy problems and settings. Environ Sci Policy 12:994–1011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mickwitz P et al. (2009) Climate policy integration, coherence and governance. Peer Report No 2 Helsinki: partnership for European environmental research, 92 pp

  • Miller JD, Augenbraun E, Schulhof J, Kimmel LG (2006) Adult science learning from local television newscasts. Sci Commun 28(2):216–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 22:99–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet MC (2009) Communicating climate change: why frames matter for public engagement. Environ Sci Policy Sust Dev 51(2):12–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 York

    Google Scholar 

  • Nosek BA, Bar-Anan Y (2012) Scientific utopia: I. Opening scientific communication. Psychol Inq 23(3):217–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nutley SM, Walter I, Davies HTO (2007) Using evidence: how research can inform public services. Policy Press, Bristol

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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):131–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien K (2013) Global environmental change III Closing the gap between knowledge and action. Prog Human Geogr 37(4):587–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osmond D et al (2010) The role of interface organizations in science communication and understanding. Front Ecol Environ 8(6):306–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owens S, Petts J, Bulkeley H (2006) Boundary work: knowledge, policy, and the environment. Environ Plan C Gov Policy 24(5):633–643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 27:1–3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 36:362–388

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Pielke RA (2007) The Honest Broker. Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. CUP, Cambridge, UK

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Radaelli CM (2009) Measuring policy learning: regulatory impact assessment in Europe. J Eur Public Policy 16(8):1145–1164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):r1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose DC (2015) The case for policy-relevant conservation science. Conserv Biol 29(3):748–754

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon D, Schiemer F (2015) Crossing boundaries: complex systems, transdisciplinarity and applied impact agendas. Curr opin Environ Sustain 12:6–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stirling A (2008) “Opening up” and “closing down” power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Sci Technol Human Values 33(2):262–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson GN, Estabrooks CA, Degner LF (2006) Clarifying the concepts in knowledge transfer: a literature review. J Adv Nursing 53(6):691–701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. Routledge

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • van Eeten MJ (1999) ‘Dialogues of the deaf’on science in policy controversies. Sci Public Policy 26(3):185–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Hove S (2007) A rationale for science–policy interfaces. Futures 39:807–826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.01/2009

  • Van Kerkhoff L, Lebel L (2006) Linking knowledge and action for sustainable development. Ann Rev Environ Resour 31:445–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):1188–1194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson R (2005) Turning science into policy: challenges and experiences from the science–policy interface. Philos Trans Royal Soc Lond B 360(1454):471–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):229–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weingart P (1999) Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science in politics. Sci public policy 26(3):151–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whatmore SJ (2009) Mapping knowledge controversies: science, democracy and the redistribution of expertise. Prog Hum Geogr 33(5):587–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne B, Felt U, Chair and Rapporteur (2007) Taking European knowledge society seriously. Report EUR 22700, European Commission, Science Economy and Society. Brussels: DG Research

  • 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):387–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Median, Carrer Vista Alegre 20, 08197, Sant Cugat del Valles, Spain

    Rob Tinch, Estelle Balian & Sybille van den Hove

  2. NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Edinburgh, Midlothian, EH26 0QB, UK

    Dave Carss, Allan Watt & Juliette C. Young

  3. INBO, Rue de la Clinique 25, 1070, Anderlecht, Belgium

    Hans Keune

  4. Social, Economic and Geographical Sciences Group, James Hutton Institute, Aberdeen, AB15 8QH, UK

    Kerry A. Waylen

  5. UFZ- Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Permoserstr. 15, 04318, Leipzig, Germany

    Ulrich Heink, Carsten Nesshöver & Heidi Wittmer

  6. Verein zur Erhaltung der Nutzpflanzenvielfalt, Mondrianplatz 11, 36041, Fulda, Germany

    Johannes Timaeus

  7. Cultural Anthropology, Faculty of Humanities, University of Oulu, PO Box 1000, 90014, Oulu, Finland

    Simo Sarkki

  8. Department of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, PO Box 65, 00014, Helsinki, Finland

    Jari Niemelä

  9. University of Bucharest - Research Center in Systems Ecology and Sustainability, Splaiul Independentei 91-95, 050095, Bucharest, Romania

    Nicoleta Adriana Geamana & Angheluta Vadineanu

  10. Observatoire du Sahara et du Sahel, Tunis, Tunisia

    Maxime Thibon

  11. CIRAD - French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development, 34398, Montpellier, France

    Driss Ezzine de Blas

Authors
  1. Rob Tinch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Estelle Balian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dave Carss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Driss Ezzine de Blas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nicoleta Adriana Geamana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ulrich Heink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Hans Keune
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Carsten Nesshöver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jari Niemelä
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Simo Sarkki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Maxime Thibon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Johannes Timaeus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Angheluta Vadineanu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Sybille van den Hove
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Allan Watt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Kerry A. Waylen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Heidi Wittmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Juliette C. Young
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rob Tinch.

Additional information

Communicated by Rob Bugter, Paula Harrison, John Haslett and Rob Tinch.

This is part of the special issue on ‘BESAFE’.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tinch, R., Balian, E., Carss, D. et al. Science-policy interfaces for biodiversity: dynamic learning environments for successful impact. Biodivers Conserv 27, 1679–1702 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1155-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1155-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation