Towards productive science-policy interfaces: A research agenda

Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2014, Pages

  Van Enst, Wynanda I ^a   Driessen, Peter P J ^a   Runhaar, Hens A C ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

credibility; knowledge; legitimacy; salience; Science policy interfaces

Indexed keywords

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; DECISION MAKING; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; POLICY ANALYSIS; POLICY APPROACH; STRATEGIC APPROACH; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT; TECHNOLOGY POLICY;

EID: 84898012003     PISSN: 14643332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1142/S1464333214500070     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Arts, J, HAC Runhaar, TB Fischer, U Jha-Thakur, F van Laerhoven, PPJ Driessen and V Onyango (2012). The effectiveness of EIA as an instrument for environmental governance-A comparison of 25 years of EIA practice in the Netherlands and the UK. Journal of Environmental Policy and Management, 14(4), 1250025-1-1250025-40.
2. Bäckstrand, K (2003). Civic science for sustainability. Reframing the role of experts, policy-makers and citizens. Environmental Governance Global Environmental Politics, 3(4), 24-41
3. Bailey, J (1997). Environmental impact assessment and management: An umderexplored relationship. Environmental Management, 2(3), 317-327.
4. Bartlett, RV and PA Kurian (1999). The theory of environmental impact assessment: Implicit models of policy making. Policy and Politics, 27(4), 415-433
5. Bauler, T (2012). An analytical framework to discuss the usability of (environmental) indicators for policy. Ecological Indicators, 17, 38-45
6. Boezeman, D, M Vink and P Leroy (2013). The Dutch Delta Committe as a boundary organisation. Environmental Science & Policy, 27, 162-171
7. Bradshaw, GA and JG Borchers (2000). Uncertainty as information: Narrowing the science-policy gap. Conservation Ecology 4(1), 7.
8. Caldwell, LK (1988). Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA): Origins, evolution, and future directions. Impact Assessment, 6, 75-83
9. Cash, DW (2001). "In order to aid in duffusing useful and practical information": Agricultural extension and boundary organizations. Science, Technology and Human Values. 26(4), 431-453
10. Cash, DW, WC Clark, F Alcock, NM Dickson, N Eckley, Dh Guston, J Jäger and RB Mitchell (2003). Knowledge systems for sustainable development. PNAS, 100(14), 8086-8091
11. Cortner, HJ (2000). Making science relevant to environmental policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 3, 21-30
12. Crowley, K (1997). Values and the state in natural resource management: The Mt Wellington skyway dispute, Hobart, Tasmania. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 2(2), 119-138
13. Derksen, W (2011). Kennis en beleid verbinden. Den Haag: Boom Lemma uitgevers
14. Driessen, PPJ, P Leroy and W van Vierssen (2010). From Climate Change to Social Change: Perspective on Science-Policy Interactions. Utrecht: International Books
15. Ducrotoy, J-P and M Elliott (1997). Interrelations between science and policy-making: The North Sea example. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 34(9), 686-701
16. Edelenbos, J, A van Buuren and N van Schie (2011). Co-producing knowledge: Joint knowledge production between experts, bureaucrats and stakeholders in Dutch water management projects. Environmental Science & Policy, 14, 675-684
17. Ehrmann, JR and BL Stinson (1999). Joint fact-finding and the use of technical experts. In L Susskind, S McKearnan, and J Thomas-Larmer (Eds.), The Consensus Building Handbook. A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement. London: Sage, pp. 375-400
18. Elzinga, A and A Jamison (1995). Changing policy agendas in science and technology. In S Jasanoff, T Pinch, GE Markle and JC Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. London: SAGE
19. Fenger, M and P-J Klok, (2001). Interdependency, beliefs, and coalition behavior: A contribution to the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Sciences, 34, 157-170
20. Ferranti, F, E Turnhout, R Beunen and JH Behagel (2013). Shifting nature conservation approaches in Natura 2000 and the implications for the roles of stakeholders. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2013.827107.
21. Fischer, F (1997). Evaluating Public Policy. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers
22. Fischer, TB, H Dalkmann, M Lowry and A Tennøy (2010). The dimensions and context of transport decision making. In R Joumard and H Gudmundsson (Eds.), Indicators of Environmental Sustainability in Transport, Les collections de l'Inrets. Paris, pp. 79-102; Chapter 3.
23. Fischer, TB and V Onyango (2012). Strategic environmental assessment-related research projects and journal articles: An overview of the past 20 years. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(4), 253-263
24. Funtowicz, SO and JR Ravetz (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739-755
25. Glucker, A, PPJ Driessen, A Kolhoff and HAC Runhaar (2013). Public participation in environmental impact assessment: Why, who, and how? Environmental Impact Assessment Review (published online).
26. Guston, D (2001). Boundary organisations in environmental policy and science: An introduction. Science, Technology and Human Values, 26, 399-408
27. Gieryn, TF (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781-795
28. Hegger, D, M Lamers, A van Zeijl-Rozema and C Dieperink (2012). Conceptualising joint knowledge production in regional climate change adaptation projects: Success conditions and levers for action. Environmental Science and Policy, 18, 52-65
29. Holmes, J and R Clark (2008). Enhancing the use of science in environmental policymaking and regulation. Environmental Science & Policy, 11, 702-711
30. Hoppe, R (2005). Rethinking the science-policy nexus: From knowledge utilization and science technology studies to types of boundary arrangements. Poièsis and Praxis, 3(3), 199-215
31. Hoppe, R (2009). Scientific advice and public policy: Expert advisers' and policymakers' discourses on boundary work. Poièsis and Praxis, 6, 235-263
32. Huitema, D and E Turnhout (2009). Working at the science-policy interface: A discursive analysis of boundary work at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Environmental Politics, 18(4), 576-594
33. Hunt, J and S Shackley (1999). Reconceiving science and policy: Academic, fiducial and bureaucratic knowledge. Minerva, 37, 141-164
34. Jasanoff, S (1990). The Fifth Branch: Advisers as Policy Makers. Harvard: Harvard University Press
35. Jones, SA, B Fischhoff and D Lach (1999). Evaluating the science-policy interface for climate change research. Climatic Change, 43, 581-599
36. Karl, HA, LE Susskind and KH Wallace (2007). A dialogue, not a diatribe: Effective integration of science and policy through joint fact finding. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 49(1), 20-34
37. Klabbers, JHG, RJ Swart, R Janssen, P Vellinga and AP van Ulden (1996). Climate science and climate policy: Improving the science/policy interface. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 1, 73-93
38. Lackey, RT (2007). Science, scientists, and policy advocacy. Conservation Biology, 21(1), 12-17
39. McCool, SF and GH Stankey (2004). Indicators of sustainability: Challenges and opportunities at the interface of science and policy. Environmental Management, 33(3), 294-305
40. McNie, EC (2007). Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: An analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environmental Science & Policy Environmental Science & Policy, 10, 17-38
41. Meyer, M (2010). The rise of the knowledge broker. Science Communication, 32(1), 118-127
42. Michaels, S (2009). Matching knowledge brokering strategies to environmental policy problems and settings. Environmental Science and Policy, 12, 994-1011
43. Morrison-Saunders, A and TB Fischer (2006). What is wrong with EIA and SEA anyway? A sceptic's perspective on sustainability assessment. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 8(1), 19-39
44. Niederberger, AA (2005). Science for climate change policy-making: Applying theory to practice to enhance effectiveness. Science and Public Policy, 32(1), 2-16
45. Nowotny, H, P Scott and M Gibbons (2003). "Mode 2" revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva, 41, 179-194
46. Oreskes, N (2004). Science and public policy: What's proof got to do with it? Environmental Science & Policy, 7, 369-383
47. Owens, S, J Petts and H Bulkeley (2006). Boundary work: Knowledge, policy and the urban environment. Environmental Planning C: Government and Policy, 26, 633-643
48. Ozawa, CP (1996). Science in environmental conflicts. Sociological Perspectives, 39(2), 219-230
49. Pesch, U, D Huitema and M Hisschemöller (2012). A boundary organization and its changing environment: The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, the MNP. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30, 487-503
50. Pielke, RS (2004). When scientists politicize science: Making sense of controversy over The Skeptical Environmentalist. Environmental Science & Policy, 7, 405-417
51. Pielke, RS (2007). The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
52. Pohl, C (2008). From science to policy through transdisciplinary research. Environmental Science and Policy, II, 46-53
53. Quevauviller, P, P Balabanis, C Fragakis, M Weydert, M Oliver, A Kaschl, G Arnold, A Kroll, L Glabiati, JM Zaldivar and G Bidoglio (2005). Science-policy integration needs in support of the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive. Environmental Science & Policy, 8, 203-211
54. Ravetz, JR (1999). What is post-normal science? Futures, 31, 647-653
55. Reed, MS (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation, 141, 2417-2431
56. Retief, F, A Morrison-Saunders, D Geneletti and J Pope (2013). Exploring the psychology of trade-off decision-making in environmental impact assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 31(1), 13-23
57. Richardson, T (2013). Overcoming barriers to sustainability in bioenergy research. Environmental Science and Policy, 33, 1-8
58. Rittel, HWJ and MM Webber (1973). Dilemmas in general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155-169
59. Runhaar, H (2009). Putting SEA in context: A discourse perspective on how SEA contributes to decision-making. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29, 200-209
60. Runhaar, H and K van Nieuwaal (2010). Understanding the use of science in decisionmaking on cockle fisheries and gas mining in the Dutch Wadden Sea: Putting the science-policy interface in a wider perspective. Environmental Science & Policy-Environmental Science & Policy, 13(3), 239-248
61. Runhaar, H, PR Runhaar and T Oegema (2010). Food for thought: Conditions for discourse reflection in the light of Environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30, 339-346
62. Sarawitz, D (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science & Policy, 7, 385-403
63. Sarawitz, D and RA Pielke (2007). The neglected heart of science policy: Reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environmental Science and Policy, 10, 5-16
64. Sheate, WR and MR Partidário (2010). Strategic approaches and assessment techniques-Potential for knowledge brokerage towards sustainability. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30, 278-288
65. Strydom, WF, N Funke, S Nienaber, K Nortje and M Steyn (2010). Evidence-based policy making: A review. S Afr J Sci., 106(5/6), 8.
66. Sundqvist, G, M Letell and R Lidskog (2002). Science and policy in air pollution abatement strategies. Environmental Science & Policy, 5, 147-156
67. Totlandsdal, AI, N Fudge, EG Sanderson, L van Bree and B Brunekreef (2007). Strengthening the science-policy interface: Experiences from a European Thematic Network on Air Pollution and Health (AIRNET). Environmental Science and Policy, 10, 260-266
68. Turnhout, E, M Hisschemöller and H Eijsackers (2007). Ecological indicators. Between the two fires of science and policy. Ecological Indicators, 7, 215-228
69. Van Buuren, A and J Edelenbos (2004). Conflicting knowledge. Why is joint knowledge production such a problem? Science and Public Policy, 31(4), 289-299
70. Van den Hove, S (2007). A rationale for science-policy interfaces. Futures, 39, 807-826
71. Van de Kerkhof, M and P Leroy (2000). Recent Environmental research in the Netherlands: Towards post-normal science? Futures, 32(9/10), 899-911
72. Van der Sluijs J, R van Est and M Riphagen (2010). Beyond consensus: Reflection from a democratic perspective on the interaction between climate politics and science. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2, 409-415
73. Wardekker, JA, JP van der Sluijs, PHM Janssen, P Kloprogge and AC Petersen (2008). Uncertainty communication in environmental assessments: Views from the Dutch science-policy interface. Environmental Science and Policy, 11, 627-641
74. Wassen, MJ, H Runhaar, A Barendregt and T Okruszko (2011). Evaluating the role of participation in model studies for environmental planning. Environment and Planning B, 38(2), 338-358
75. Watson, RT (2005). Turning science into policy: Challenges and experiences from the science-policy interface. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B., 360, 471-477
76. Wiltshire, S (2001). Scientists and policy-makers: Towards a new partnership. International Social Science Journal, 170, 621-635.