Beyond the research-policy interface. Boundary arrangements at research-stakeholder interfaces in the policy debate on biofuel sustainability in Mozambique

Environmental Science and Policy

Volumn 27, Issue , 2013, Pages 91-102

  Schut, Marc ^a   van Paassen, Annemarie ^a   Leeuwis, Cees ^a  

^a WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Biofuels; Boundary arrangements; Competing claims contexts; Mozambique; Policy processes; Research stakeholder interface

Indexed keywords

BIOFUEL;

ARTICLE; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY; GEOGRAPHY; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; MOZAMBIQUE; POLICY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESEARCH; STRATEGIC PLANNING;

EID: 84871551815     PISSN: 14629011     EISSN: 18736416     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2012.10.007     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Aarts N., Leeuwis C. Participation and power: reflections on the role of government in land use planning and rural development. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 2010, 16(2):131-145.
2. Boaz A., Fitzpatrick S., Shaw B. Assessing the impact of research on policy: a literature review. Science and Public Policy 2009, 36(4):255-270.
3. Burton P. Modernising the policy process: making policy research more significant?. Policy Studies 2006, 27(3):173-195.
4. Cash D.W., Clark W.C., Alcock F., Dickson N.M., Eckley N., Guston D.H., Jäger J., Mitchell R.B. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2003, 100(14):8086-8091.
5. Cortner H.J. Making science relevant to environmental policy. Environmental Science & Policy 2000, 3(1):21-30.
6. Cutts B.B., White D.D., Kinzig A.P. Participatory geographic information systems for the co-production of science and policy in an emerging boundary organization. Environmental Science & Policy 2011, 14(2011):977-985.
7. Dilling L. Towards science in support of decision making: characterizing the supply of carbon cycle science. Environmental Science & Policy 2007, 10(1):48-61.
8. Edelenbos J., van Buuren A., van Schie N. Co-producing knowledge: joint knowledge production between experts, bureaucrats and stakeholders in Dutch water management projects. Environmental Science & Policy 2011, 14(6):675-684.
9. Gibbons M. Science's new social contract with society. Nature 1999, 402(6761):C81-C84.
10. Gieryn T.F. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review 1983, 48(6):781-795.
11. Giller K.E., Leeuwis C., Andersson J.A., Andriesse W., Brouwer A., Frost P., Hebinck P., Heitkönig I., van Ittersum M.K., Koning N., Ruben R., Slingerland M., Udo H., Veldkamp T., van de Vijver C., van Wijk M.T., Windmeijer P. Competing claims on natural resources: what role for science?. Ecology and Society 2008, 13(2):34. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss32/art34/.
12. Graffy E.A. Meeting the challenges of policy-relevant science: bridging theory and practice. Public Administration Review 2008, 68(6):1087-1100.
13. Haas P.M. When does power listen to truth? A constructivist approach to the policy process. Journal of European Public Policy 2004, 11(4):569-592.
14. Hajer M.A. The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process 1995, Clarendon, Oxford.
15. Hoppe R. Rethinking the science-policy nexus: from knowledge utilization and science technology studies to types of boundary arrangements. Poiesis and Praxis 2005, 3(3):199-215.
16. Huitema D., Turnhout E. Working at the science-policy interface: a discursive analysis of boundary work at the Netherlands environmental assessment agency. Environmental Politics 2009, 18(4):576-594.
17. Jasanoff S. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policymakers 1990, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
18. Klerkx L., Leeuwis C. Delegation of authority in research funding to networks: experiences with a multiple goal boundary organization. Science and Public Policy 2008, 35(3):183-196.
19. Klosterman J., Geerling-Eiff F., Schut M., van Slobbe E., Terwisscha van Scheltinga C., Wielinga E. Samen breien aan gebiedsontwikkeling. Verkenning van de theorie over het gebruik van wetenschappelijke kennis in gebiedsprocessen 2009, LEI, Wageningen University and Research Centre, The Hague, p. 120.
20. Leeuwis C. Communication for Rural Innovation. Rethinking Agricultural Extension (with Contributions of Anne van den Ban) 2004, Blackwell Science, Oxford.
21. Leeuwis C. Reconceptualizing participation for sustainable rural development: towards a negotiation approach. Development and Change 2000, 31(5):931-959.
22. McNie E.C. Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environmental Science & Policy 2007, 10(1):17-38.
23. Michaels S. Matching knowledge brokering strategies to environmental policy problems and settings. Environmental Science & Policy 2009, 12(7):994-1011.
24. Opdam P. Groenblauwe netwerken: brug tussen wetenschap en praktijk bij gebiedsontwikkeling. Landschap 2006, 23(3):147-154.
25. Pielke R.A. The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics 2007, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
26. Pleijte M., Schut M., During R. Reflexivity in action research: two spatial planning cases. Knowledge in Action. The Search for Collaborative Research for Sustainable Landscape Development 2011, 221-243. Mansholt Publication Series, Wageningen Publishers, Wageningen. A. van Paassen, J. van den Berg, E. Steingröver, R. Werkman, B. Pedroli (Eds.).
27. Sabatier P.A., Jenkins-Smith H. The advocacy coalition framework: an assessment. Theories of the Policy Process 1999, 117-168. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. P.A. Sabatier (Ed.).
28. Sarewitz D. How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science & Policy 2004, 7(5):385-403.
29. Schut M., Bos S., Machuama L., Slingerland M. Working Towards Sustainability. Learning Experiences for Sustainable Biofuel Strategies in Mozambique 2010, Wageningen University and Research Centre, the Netherlands in collaboration with CEPAGRI, Mozambique, p. 103.
30. Schut M., Leeuwis C., van Paassen A. Room for the river - Room for research? The case of depoldering De Noordwaard, the Netherlands. Science and Public Policy 2010, 37(8):611-627.
31. Schut M., Leeuwis C., van Paassen A., Lerner A. Knowledge and innovation management in the policy debate on biofuel sustainability in Mozambique: what roles for researchers?. Knowledge Management for Development Journal 2011, 7(1):45-64.
32. Schut M., Slingerland M., Locke A. Biofuel developments in Mozambique. Update and analysis of policy, potential and reality. Energy Policy 2010, 38(9):5151-5165.
33. Schut M., van Paassen A., Leeuwis C., Bos S., Leonardo W., Lerner A. Space for innovation for sustainable community-based biofuel production and use: lessons learned for policy from Nhambita community, Mozambique. Energy Policy 2011, 39(9):5116-5128.
34. Sterk B., Carberry P., Leeuwis C., van Ittersum M.K., Howden M., Meinke H., van Keulen H., Rossing W.A.H. The interface between land use systems research and policy: multiple arrangements and leverages. Land Use Policy 2009, 26:434-442.
35. Tuinstra W. Preparing for the European thematic strategy on air pollution: at the interface between science and policy. Environmental Science & Policy 2007, 10(5):434-444.
36. Tuinstra W., Hordijk L., Kroeze C. Moving boundaries in transboundary air pollution co-production of science and policy under the convention on long range transboundary air pollution. Global Environmental Change 2006, 16(2006):349-363.
37. Turnhout E., Hisschemöller M., Eijsackers H. Science in Wadden Sea policy: from accommodation to advocacy. Environmental Science & Policy 2008, 11(3):227-239.
38. van Paassen A., Werkman R., Pedroli B., van den Berg J., Steingröver E., Leeuwis C. Conclusion: from knowledge for action to knowledge in action. Knowledge for Action. The Search for Effective Collaborative Research for Sustainable Landscape Development 2011, Mansholt Series, Wageningen Publishers, Wageningen. A. van Paassen, J. van den Berg, E. Steingröver, R. Werkman, B. Pedroli (Eds.).
39. Waterton C. Scientists conceptions of the boundaries between their own research and policy. Science and Public Policy 2005, 32(6):435-444.
40. Woodhill J. Dialogue and transboundary water resources management: towards a framework for facilitating social learning. Environmental Information in European Transboundary Water Management 2004, 44-59. IWA Publishing, London, UK. J.G. Timmerman, S. Langaas (Eds.).
41. Weingart P. Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science in politics. Science and Public Policy 1999, 26(3):151-161.