Science-policy interfaces for enriched environmental decision-making : A research into the strategies of boundary work, illustrated by case studies in the Dutch Wadden Sea

In recent decades, scientific knowledge has been extremely important in informing environmental decision-making processes on e.g. air and water quality, and coastal zone management. However, in many cases the relationship between science and policy is often still troubled and contested. This can be attributed to the complex and multi-layered character of the field of environmental governance, and the involvement of a broad array of stakeholders with conflicting stakes and needs. Issues include the selective use of knowledge, knowledge being ignored by policy-makers, the use of counter-expertise, and differences in the demand for and supply of knowledge in terms of language, timeframes, and level of detail. Consequently, opportunities to enrich decision-making processes – i.e. the use of knowledge to gain a clearer picture of the problem setting, underpin and implement policy and management measures, explore policy options, inform policy evaluations, and apply in learning processes between policy-makers, scientists and stakeholders – are not fully exploited. The aim of this dissertation is to increase our understanding of the interaction problems science and policy face, and the extent to which science–policy interfaces could contribute to eliminating these problems and enriching decision-making. Science–policy interfaces can be organisations, individuals or objects, which are placed (or place themselves) at the boundary between science and policy with the aim of enhancing the interactions and enriching decision-making processes by the use of scientific knowledge. Following the scholarly literature in this subject, in order to be used in environmental decision making and to enrich it, science must meet three criteria: it needs to be perceived as credible (scientifically valid) and salient (relevant to decision makers), and to have been produced in a way that is seen as legitimate by all stakeholders involved. The empirical focus of this research is on the Dutch Wadden Sea, an area in which the ecological and economic stakes are strongly opposing, scientific insights are used strategically in favour of or against certain positions and where the institutional network (consisting of governmental institutes and organisations, environmental agencies, research institutes and industry) is highly complex. This dissertation concludes that in the case of a multitude of pressing environmental issues, disciplines involved, stakeholders, conflicting interests, ‘truths’ and scientific insights leading to various interaction problems set in a multi-actor and multi-interest setting, science–policy interfaces can only contribute to enriching decision-making processes when the interaction and knowledge development processes they aim to enhance are perceived to be legitimate. If in these processes the dominant aim is to create scientific knowledge which is as ‘credible’ as possible, the usability of knowledge, which greatly depends on legitimacy and salience, is put under pressure. By engaging science–policy interfaces such as boundary organisations or boundary workers proactively instead of reactively in these complex and contested situations in order to establish and guide such legitimate interaction processes, room for manoeuvre is created for the negotiation on and development of credible and salient knowledge, which in turn could lead to enriched decision-making processes

Science-policy interfaces for enriched environmental decision-making : A research into the strategies of boundary work, illustrated by case studies in the Dutch Wadden Sea

In recent decades, scientific knowledge has been extremely important in informing environmental decision-making processes on e.g. air and water quality, and coastal zone management. However, in many cases the relationship between science and policy is often still troubled and contested. This can be attributed to the complex and multi-layered character of the field of environmental governance, and the involvement of a broad array of stakeholders with conflicting stakes and needs. Issues include the selective use of knowledge, knowledge being ignored by policy-makers, the use of counter-expertise, and differences in the demand for and supply of knowledge in terms of language, timeframes, and level of detail. Consequently, opportunities to enrich decision-making processes – i.e. the use of knowledge to gain a clearer picture of the problem setting, underpin and implement policy and management measures, explore policy options, inform policy evaluations, and apply in learning processes between policy-makers, scientists and stakeholders – are not fully exploited. The aim of this dissertation is to increase our understanding of the interaction problems science and policy face, and the extent to which science–policy interfaces could contribute to eliminating these problems and enriching decision-making. Science–policy interfaces can be organisations, individuals or objects, which are placed (or place themselves) at the boundary between science and policy with the aim of enhancing the interactions and enriching decision-making processes by the use of scientific knowledge. Following the scholarly literature in this subject, in order to be used in environmental decision making and to enrich it, science must meet three criteria: it needs to be perceived as credible (scientifically valid) and salient (relevant to decision makers), and to have been produced in a way that is seen as legitimate by all stakeholders involved. The empirical focus of this research is on the Dutch Wadden Sea, an area in which the ecological and economic stakes are strongly opposing, scientific insights are used strategically in favour of or against certain positions and where the institutional network (consisting of governmental institutes and organisations, environmental agencies, research institutes and industry) is highly complex. This dissertation concludes that in the case of a multitude of pressing environmental issues, disciplines involved, stakeholders, conflicting interests, ‘truths’ and scientific insights leading to various interaction problems set in a multi-actor and multi-interest setting, science–policy interfaces can only contribute to enriching decision-making processes when the interaction and knowledge development processes they aim to enhance are perceived to be legitimate. If in these processes the dominant aim is to create scientific knowledge which is as ‘credible’ as possible, the usability of knowledge, which greatly depends on legitimacy and salience, is put under pressure. By engaging science–policy interfaces such as boundary organisations or boundary workers proactively instead of reactively in these complex and contested situations in order to establish and guide such legitimate interaction processes, room for manoeuvre is created for the negotiation on and development of credible and salient knowledge, which in turn could lead to enriched decision-making processes

Boundary organisations and the Wadden Sea: What works when, where and how?

Strategic issues, including political (mis)use of knowledge, selective production of knowledge and a misfit of demand for and supply of knowledge are often mentioned as problems in the interactions between science and policy. Scientific literature suggests science-policy interfaces as ‘solutions’. Boundary organisations are known to be organisations which provide such solutions by acting as a bridge between science and policy. In order to enhance the process of political decision-making, these organisations are supposed to enable a more effective use and production of knowledge in the often contested boundary area between the two domains, increasing its legitimacy and credibility. But how do these organisations work? In which situations is their added value needed? And how do they position themselves between the dynamic demand for and supply of knowledge? It appears that after presenting boundary organisations as the solution, literature comes to an end point due to the lack of empirical analysis and the often high level of abstraction literature uses to explain this type of interface. This paper will present a framework of the concept ‘boundary organisation’ where the focus will lie on the (participating) actors, the (presupposed) goals and their strategies. With the use of empirical research on three case studies of boundary organisations, the aim of the paper is to provide a better understating of the strategies by which the organisations aim to promote the selection, production and use of credible, legitimate and/or salient knowledge. The focus area of these organisations will be the Wadden Sea – a shallow estuarine sea where ecological interests compete with economic and social interests (such as gas mining, shipping and tourism), resulting in various problems with the interaction between science and policy

Економічний хаос та зубожіння – вірогідні ознаки розвитку України у 2009 році

14 січня 2009 року в Медіа-холдингу «ОВОЗ.ua» відбулося засідання Українського клубу економістів. Кращі експерти в галузі економіки підбили підсумки 2008-го року й озвучили прогнози - песимістичні та оптимістичні - на 2009-й

Boundary organisations and the Wadden Sea: What works when, where and how?

Strategic issues, including political (mis)use of knowledge, selective production of knowledge and a misfit of demand for and supply of knowledge are often mentioned as problems in the interactions between science and policy. Scientific literature suggests science-policy interfaces as ‘solutions’. Boundary organisations are known to be organisations which provide such solutions by acting as a bridge between science and policy. In order to enhance the process of political decision-making, these organisations are supposed to enable a more effective use and production of knowledge in the often contested boundary area between the two domains, increasing its legitimacy and credibility. But how do these organisations work? In which situations is their added value needed? And how do they position themselves between the dynamic demand for and supply of knowledge? It appears that after presenting boundary organisations as the solution, literature comes to an end point due to the lack of empirical analysis and the often high level of abstraction literature uses to explain this type of interface. This paper will present a framework of the concept ‘boundary organisation’ where the focus will lie on the (participating) actors, the (presupposed) goals and their strategies. With the use of empirical research on three case studies of boundary organisations, the aim of the paper is to provide a better understating of the strategies by which the organisations aim to promote the selection, production and use of credible, legitimate and/or salient knowledge. The focus area of these organisations will be the Wadden Sea – a shallow estuarine sea where ecological interests compete with economic and social interests (such as gas mining, shipping and tourism), resulting in various problems with the interaction between science and policy

Understanding Science-Policy Interfaces

This article gives a brief overview of the theoretical approaches towards SPIs. Against this theoretical background, the research projects of nine early-career researchers exploring SPIs in their various forms are then presented. These projects all take an empirical stance. The article shows how these projects tackle research gaps in three overarching areas crucial to the understanding of SPIs: a) knowledge co-production, b) communication of research results to decision-makers, and c) policy impact assessment processes as institutionalised instruments for enhancing SPIs. The empirical material from the ESR projects illustrates that SPIs can benefit from greater interaction between scientists, policy-makers and societal stakeholders, but that the functioning of these three groups is highly dependent on contextual circumstances

Understanding Science-Policy Interfaces

This article gives a brief overview of the theoretical approaches towards SPIs. Against this theoretical background, the research projects of nine early-career researchers exploring SPIs in their various forms are then presented. These projects all take an empirical stance. The article shows how these projects tackle research gaps in three overarching areas crucial to the understanding of SPIs: a) knowledge co-production, b) communication of research results to decision-makers, and c) policy impact assessment processes as institutionalised instruments for enhancing SPIs. The empirical material from the ESR projects illustrates that SPIs can benefit from greater interaction between scientists, policy-makers and societal stakeholders, but that the functioning of these three groups is highly dependent on contextual circumstances