Governance options for science–policy interfaces on biodiversity and ecosystem services: comparing a network versus a platform approach

Biodiversity and Conservation

Volumn 25, Issue 7, 2016, Pages 1235-1252

  Görg, Christoph ^a   Wittmer, Heidi ^b   Carter, Caitriona ^c   Turnhout, Esther ^d   Vandewalle, Marie ^b   Schindler, Stefan ^e,f   Livorell, Barbara ^g,h   Lux, Alexandra ^i,j  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KLAGENFURT   (Austria)

^b HELMHOLTZ CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH UFZ   (Germany)

^c UR ETBX   (France)

^d WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^e UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

^f ENVIRONMENT AGENCY AUSTRIA   (Austria)

^g BANGOR UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^h Domain du Petit Arbois   (France)

ⁱ Institute for Social Ecological Research ISOE   (Germany)

^j BIODIVERSITY AND CLIMATE RESEARCH CENTRE BIK F   (Germany)

more..

Author keywords

Biodiversity; Ecosystem services; European environmental policy; Research networking; Science policy interface

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; DECISION MAKING; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; KNOWLEDGE; NETWORK ANALYSIS; POLICY ANALYSIS;

EUROPE;

EID: 84973131034     PISSN: 09603115     EISSN: 15729710     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10531-016-1132-8     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Beck S (2011) Moving beyond the linear model of expertise? IPCC and the test of adaptation. Reg Environ Change 11(2):297–306
2. Beck S, Borie M, Esguerra A, Chilvers J, Heubach K, Hulme M, Lidskog R, Lövbrand E, Marquard E, Miller C, Nadim T, Nesshöver C, Settele J, Turnhout E, Vasileiadou E, Görg C (2014) Towards a reflexive turn in the governance of global environmental expertise. The cases of the IPCC and the IPBES. GAIA 23/2:80–87. doi:10.14512/gaia.23.2.4
3. Bulkeley H (2005) Reconfiguring environmental governance: towards a politics of scales and networks. Polit Geogr 24(8):875–902
4. Burris SC, Drahos P, Shearing C (2005) Nodal governance. Aust J Legal Philos 30:1–43
5. Carmen E, Nesshöver C, Saarikoski H, Vandewalle M, Watt A, Wittmer H, Young J (2015) Creating a biodiversity science community: experiences from a European Network of Knowledge. Environ Sci Policy 54:497–504
6. Carter C (2013) Constructing sustainability in EU fisheries: Re-drawing the boundary between science and politics? Environ Sci Policy 30:26–35
7. Castells M (1996) The rise of the network society. The information age: economy, society and culture. Wiley, Blackwell, Cambridge
8. de Koning J, Turnhout E, Winkel G, Blondet M, Borras L, Ferranti F, Geitzenauer M, Sotirov M, Jump A (2014) Managing climate change in conservation practice: an exploration of the science management interface in beech forest management. Biodivers Conserv 23:3657–3671
9. Dedeurwaerdere T (2005) The contribution of network governance to sustainable development. Les séminaires de l’Iddri, n° 13
10. EPBRS (2009) Concept note: network of knowledge for biodiversity governance. European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy, Brussels
11. Görg C, Beck S, Berghöfer A, Van den Hove S, Koetz T, Korn H, Leiner S, Nesshöver C, Rauschmayer F, Sharman M, Wittmer H, Zaunberger K (2007) International science-policy interfaces for biodiversity governance—needs, challenges, experiences a contribution to the IMoSEB consultative process. UFZ, Leipzig
12. Görg C, Nesshöver C, Paulsch A (2010) A new link between biodiversity science and policy. GAIA 3:183–186
13. Hajer M (2012) A media storm in the world risk society: enacting scientific authority in the IPCC controversy (2009-10). Crit Policy Stud 6(4):452–464
14. Hoppe R (2005) Rethinking the science–policy nexus: from knowledge utilization and science technology studies to types of boundary arrangements. Poiesis Prax 3:199–215
15. Keck M, Sikkink K (1998) Activists beyond borders: advocacy networks in international and regional politics. Cornell University Press, Ithaca
16. KNEU Team (2014) A recommended design for “Biodiversity Knowledge”, a network of knowledge to support decision making on biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe. KNEU Team, Leipzig
17. Livoreil B, Geijzendorffer IR, Pullin AS, Schindler S, Vandewalle M, Nesshöver C (2016) Biodiversity knowledge synthesis at the European scale: actors and steps. Biodivers Conserv. doi:10.1007/s10531-016-1143-5
18. Mitchell RB, Clark WC, Cash DW, Dickson NM (2006) Global environmental assessments: information, institutions, and influence. MIT Press, Cambridge
19. Nesshöver C et al. (2016) The Network of Knowledge approach—improving the science and society dialogue on biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe. Biodivers Conserv. doi:10.1007/s10531-016-1127-5
20. Nesshöver C et al. (2014) Summary report and recommendations on improving the science–policy interface for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Europe (contract: Ref No 07-0307/2013/661961/SER/B2)
21. Palmer MA (2012) Socioenvironmental sustainability and actionable science. Bioscience 62:5–6
22. Parker R (2007) Networked governance or just networks? Local governance of the knowledge economy in Limerick (Ireland) and Karlskrona (Sweden). Polit Stud 55(1):113–132
23. Schindler S et al (2016) The network biodiversity knowledge in practice: insights from three trial assessments. Biodivers Conserv. doi:10.1007/s10531-016-1128-4
24. Schwach V, Bailly D, Christensen AS, Delaney A, Degnbol P, van Densen W, Holm P, McLay HA, Nielsen K, Martin A, Pastoors S, Reeves A, Wilson D (2007) Policy and knowledge in fisheries management: a policy brief. ICES J Mar Sci 64(4):798–803
25. Turnhout E, Bloomfield B, Hulme M, Vogel J, Wynne B (2012) Conservation policy: listen to the voices of experience. Nature 488:454–455
26. Turnhout E, Waterton C, Neves K, Buizer M (2013) Rethinking biodiversity: from goods and services to ‘living with’. Conserv Lett 6:154–161
27. Turnhout E, Neves KDE, Luster E (2014) ‘Measurementality’ in biodiversity governance: knowledge, transparency, and the intergovernmental science–policy platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Environ Plan A 46:581–597
28. Turnhout E, Dewulf A, Hulme M (2016) What does policy-relevant global environmental knowledge do? The cases of climate and biodiversity. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 18:66–72
29. Vadrot A (2014) Understanding the establishment of the Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES): epistemic selectivities in international biodiversity politics, PhD dissertation at the Institute of Political Science, University of Vienna
30. van den Hove S (2007) A rationale for science–policy interfaces. Futures 39:807–826. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2006.12.004
31. van den Hove S, Sharman M (2006) Interfaces between science and policy for environmental governance: lessons and open questions from the European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy. In: Guimaraes Pereira A, Guedes Vaz S, Tognetti S (eds) Interfaces between science and society. Greenleaf, Sheffield
32. Wilson DC (2009) The paradoxes of transparency: science and the ecosystem approach to fisheries management in Europe. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam
33. Young JC, Watt AD, van den Hove S (2013) Effective interfaces between science, policy and society: the SPIRAL project handbook. http://www.spiral-project.eu/sites/default/files/The-SPIRAL-handbook-website.pdf. Accessed Jan 2016
34. Young JC, Waylen KA, Sarkki S 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 23:387–404