Toward successful joint knowledge production for climate change adaptation: Lessons from six regional projects in the Netherlands

Ecology and Society

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 2014, Pages

  Hegger, Dries ^a   Dieperink, Carel ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Comparative case study analysis; Constructivist approach; Design principles; Environmental governance; Joint knowledge production; Knowledge production for sustainable development; Regional climate change adaptation; The Netherlands; Typology

Indexed keywords

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT; CLIMATE CHANGE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; KNOWLEDGE; PROJECT MANAGEMENT; REGIONAL CLIMATE; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT; TYPOLOGY;

NETHERLANDS;

EID: 84903721410     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17083087     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5751/ES-06453-190234     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Armitage, D., F. Berkes, A. Dale, E. Kocho-Schellenberg, and E. Patton. 2011. Co-management and the co-production of knowledge: learning to adapt in Canada's Arctic. Global Environmental Change 21(3): 995-1004. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/j. gloenvcha. 2011. 04. 006.
2. Arts, B., P. Leroy, and J. van Tatenhove. 2006. Political modernisation and policy arrangements: a framework for understanding environmental policy change. Public Organization Review 6(2): 93-106. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1007/s11115-006-0001-4.
3. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1007/s11115-006-0001-4.
4. Bäckstrand, K., J. Khan, A. Kronsell, and E. Lövbrand, editors. 2010. Environmental politics and deliberative democracy: examining the promise of new modes of governance. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
5. Boon, W., and E. Horlings. 2013. Kenniscoproductie voor de grote maatschappelijke vraagstukken. Rathenau Institute, The Hague, The Netherlands.
6. Cash, D. W., W. C. Clark, F. Alcock, N. M. Dickson, N. Eckley, D. H. Guston, J. Jäger, and R. B. Mitchell. 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100(14): 8086-8091. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1073% 2Fpnas. 1231332100.
7. Climate Changes Spatial Planning. 2008. Opgedragen projecten, April 2008. Climate Changes Spatial Planning, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. [online] URL: http://edepot. wur. nl/3800.
8. Climate Changes Spatial Planning, and Knowledge for Climate. 2009. Climate research Netherlands: research highlights. Climate Changes Spatial Planning, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. [online] URL: http://www. climatechangesspatialplanning. nl/research-highlights.
9. de Pater, F., S. Brinkman, and E. Schellekens. 2010. Hotspot definition study. Report KvR 010/2010. Climate Changes Spatial Planning, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. [online] URL: http://promise. klimaatvoorruimte. nl/pro1/publications/publications. aspx? workspaceid=0&personid=0&pubtypeid=2&groupid=0&clusterid= 1&subclusterid=0&string1=&string2=&string3=&string4=& operator1=AND&operator2=AND&operator3= AND&search_scope=1&age_start=0&age_end=0&pub_year=0.
10. Edelenbos, J., A. van Buuren, and N. van Schie. 2011. Coproducing knowledge: joint knowledge production between experts, bureaucrats and stakeholders in Dutch water management projects. Environmental Science and Policy 14 (6): 675-684. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/j. envsci. 2011. 04. 004.
11. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/j. envsci. 2011. 04. 004.
12. Edelenbos, J., A. van Buuren, and E.-H. Klijn. 2012. Connective capacities of network managers: a comparative study of management styles in eight regional governance networks. Public Management Review 15(1): 131-159. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1080/14719037. 2012. 691009.
13. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1080/14719037. 2012. 691009.
14. Enengel, B., A. Muhar, M. Penker, B. Freyer, S. Drlik, and F. Ritter. 2012. Co-production of knowledge in transdisciplinary doctoral theses on landscape development-an analysis of actor roles and knowledge types in different research phases. Landscape and Urban Planning 105(1-2): 106-117. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/j. landurbplan. 2011. 12. 004.
15. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/j. landurbplan. 2011. 12. 004.
16. Few, R., K. Brown, and E. L. Tompkins. 2007. Public participation and climate change adaptation: avoiding the illusion of inclusion. Climate Policy 7(1): 46-59. http://dx. doi. org/10. 3763/cpol. 2007. 0704.
17. http://dx. doi. org/10. 3763/cpol. 2007. 0704.
18. Funtowicz, S. O., and J. R. Ravetz. 1993. Science for the postnormal age. Futures 25(7): 739-755. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/0016-3287 (93)90022-L.
19. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L.
20. Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, and M. Trow. 1994. The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage, London, UK.
21. Gieryn, T. F. 1983. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in the professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review 48 (6): 781-795.
22. Guston, D. H. 2001. Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Science, Technology and Human Values 26(4): 399-408. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1177/016224390102600401.
23. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1177/016224390102600401.
24. Hegger, D., M. Lamers, A. van Zeijl-Rozema, and C. Dieperink. 2012a. Conceptualising joint knowledge production in regional climate change adaptation projects: success conditions and levers for action. Environmental Science and Policy 18: 52-65. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/j. envsci. 2012. 01. 002.
25. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/j. envsci. 2012. 01. 002.
26. Hegger, D., A. van Zeijl-Rozema, and C. Dieperink. 2012b. Toward design principles for joint knowledge production projects: lessons from the deepest polder of The Netherlands. Regional Environmental Change, online first Dec. 2012. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1007/s10113-012-0382-6.
27. Hegger, D., A. van Zeijl-Rozema, and C. Dieperink. 2012c. Towards successful joint knowledge production for global change and sustainability: lessons from six Dutch adaptation projects. Pages 149-166 in A. E. J. Wals and P. B. Corcoran, editors. Learning for sustainability in times of accelerating change. Wageningen Academic Publisher, Wageningen, The Netherlands. [online] URL: http://www. wageningenacademic. com/_clientFiles/download/learn4-e_09. pdf?sg=%7BEA48992C%2D93C4%2D4396% 2DBC03%2D015E8B40B2FC%7D.
28. Hoppe, R. 2011. The governance of problems: puzzling, powering, and participation. Policy Press, Bristol, UK.
29. Jasanoff, S., editor. 2004. States of knowledge: the co-production of science and social order. Routledge, London, UK. http://dx. doi. org/10. 4324/9780203413845.
30. Kabat, P., W. van Vierssen, J. Veraart, P. Vellinga, and J. Aerts. 2005. Climate proofing The Netherlands. Nature 438 (7066): 283-284. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1038/438283a.
31. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1038/438283a.
32. Kemp, R., and P. Martens. 2007. Sustainable development: how to manage something that is subjective and never can be achieved? Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy 3(2): 5-14. [online] URL: http://sspp. proquest. com/archives/vol3iss2/0703-007. kemp. html.
33. Kemp, R., and J. Rotmans. 2009. Transitioning policy: coproduction of a new strategic framework for energy innovation policy in the Netherlands. Policy Sciences 42(4): 303-322. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1007/s11077-009-9105-3.
34. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1007/s11077-009-9105-3.
35. Lamers, M., B. Ottow, G. Francois, and Y. von Korff. 2010. Beyond dry feet? Experiences from a participatory watermanagement planning case in The Netherlands. Ecology and Society 15(1): 14. [online] URL: http://www. ecologyandsociety. org/vol15/iss1/art14/.
36. Latour, B. 1987. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
37. Liefferink, D. 2006. The dynamics of policy arrangements: turning round the tetrahedron. Pages 45-68 in B. Arts and P. Leroy, editors. Institutional dynamics in environmental governance. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1007/1-4020-5079-8_3.
38. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1007/1-4020-5079-8_3.
39. McNie, E. C. 2007. Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environmental Science and Policy 10 (1): 17-38. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/j. envsci. 2006. 10. 004.
40. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/j. envsci. 2006. 10. 004.
41. Miller, C. 2001. Hybrid management: boundary organizations, science policy, and environmental governance in the climate regime. Science, Technology and Human Values 26: 478-500. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1177/016224390102600405.
42. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1177/016224390102600405.
43. Nowotny, H., P. Scott, and M. Gibbons. 2001. Re-thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK.
44. Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
45. Pielke, R. A., Jr. 2007. The honest broker: making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1017/CBO9780511818110.
46. Pohl, C., S. Rist, A. Zimmermann, P. Fry, G. S. Gurung, F. Schneider, C. I. Speranza, B. Kiteme, S. Boillat, E. Serrano, G. H. Hadorn, and U. Wiesmann. 2010. Researchers' roles in knowledge co-production: experience from sustainability research in Kenya, Switzerland, Bolivia and Nepal. Science and Public Policy 37(4): 267-281.
47. Regeer, B. J., and J. G. F. Bunders. 2009. Knowledge co-creation: interaction between science and society: a transdisciplinary approach to complex societal issues. VU University and Athena Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
48. Sarewitz, D., and R. A. Pielke, Jr. 2007. The neglected heart of science policy: reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environmental Science and Policy 10(1): 5-16. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/j. envsci. 2006. 10. 001.
49. Shaw, A., S. Sheppard, S. Burch, D. Flanders, A. Wiek, J. Carmichael, J. Robinson, and S. Cohen. 2009. Making local futures tangible-synthesizing, downscaling, and visualizing climate change scenarios for participatory capacity building. Global Environmental Change 19(4): 447-463. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/j. gloenvcha. 2009. 04. 002.
50. Smith, J. 2009. Science and technology for development. Zed Books, London, UK.
51. Talwar, S., A. Wiek, and J. Robinson. 2011. User engagement in sustainability research. Science and Public Policy 38(5): 379-390.
52. Van Buuren, A., and J. Edelenbos. 2004. Why is joint knowledge production such a problem? Science and Public Policy 31 (4): 289-299.
53. Van den Hoonaard, W. C. 1997. Working with sensitizing concepts: analytical field research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.
54. Van den Hove, S. 2007. A rationale for science-policy interfaces. Futures 39(7): 807-826. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/j. futures. 2006. 12. 004.
55. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/j. futures. 2006. 12. 004.
56. Van Opstal, M., and J. Hugé. 2013. Knowledge for sustainable development: a worldviews perspective. Environment, Development and Sustainability 15(3): 687-709. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1007/s10668-012-9401-5.
57. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1007/s10668-012-9401-5.
58. Van Tatenhove, J. P. M., B. Arts, and P. Leroy, editors. 2000. Political modernisation and the environment: the renewal of environmental policy arrangements. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
59. Weichselgartner, J., and R. Kasperson. 2010. Barriers in the science-policy-practice interface: toward a knowledge-actionsystem in global environmental change research. Global Environmental Change 20(2): 266-277. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/j. gloenvcha. 2009. 11. 006.
60. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/j. gloenvcha. 2009. 11. 006.