The authority of science in sustainability governance: A structured comparison of six science institutions engaged with the Sustainable Development Goals

Environmental Science and Policy

Volumn 77, Issue , 2017, Pages 211-220

  van der Hel, Sandra ^a   Biermann, Frank ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Authority of science; Credibility; Governance; Legitimacy; Salience; Sustainable development goals (SDGs)

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUTHORITY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY; GOVERNMENT; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PERCEPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECOGNITION; SCIENCE; SCIENTIST; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

EID: 85018372281     PISSN: 14629011     EISSN: 18736416     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2017.03.008     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Biermann, F., Earth System Governance: World Politics in the Anthropocene. 2014, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
2. Biermann, F., Institutions for scientific advice: global environmental assessments and their influence in developing countries. Glob. Gov. 8 (2002), 195–219.
3. Biermann, F., Kanie, N., Kim, R.E., Global governance by goal-setting: the novel approach of the UN sustainable development goals. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 26–27 (2017), 26–31, 10.1016/j.cosust.2017.01.010.
4. Cash, D.W., Clark, W.C., Alcock, F., et al. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 100 (2003), 8086–8091, 10.1073/pnas.1231332100.
5. Earth Negotiations Bulletin. Summary of the 2016 Meeting of the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development: 11–20 july 2016, International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) 2016.
6. Edenhofer, O., Kowarsch, M., Cartography of pathways: A new model for environmental policy assessments. Environ. Sci. Policy 51 (2015), 56–64, 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.03.017.
7. Esguerra, A., Beck, S., Lidskog, R., Stakeholder engagement in the making: IPBES legitimization politics. Glob. Environ. Polit. 17 (2017), 59–76, 10.1162/GLEP.
8. Future Earth, Knowledge Action Networks. Framing and Operationalisation. Working Paper Version 1.0.1 29. 2016.
9. Future Earth, Sustainable Development Goals: scientists worldwide mobilised around transformative agenda [WWW Document]. 2015 http://www.futureearth.org/news/sustainable-development-goals-scientists-worldwide-mobilised-around-transformative-agenda (accessed 27.2.16).
10. Future Earth, Future Earth Initial Design: Report of the Transition Team., 2013, International Council for Science (ICSU), Paris, France.
11. Griggs, D., Stafford-Smith, M., Gaffney, O., Rockström, J., Ohman, M.C., Shyamsundar, P., Steffen, W., Glaser, G., Kanie, N., Noble, I., Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature 495 (2013), 305–307, 10.1038/495305a.
12. Gupta, A., Andresen, S., Siebenhüner, B., Biermann, F., Science networks. Biermann, F., Pattberg, P., (eds.) Global Environmental Governance Reconsidered, 2012, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 69–93.
13. ICSU, ISSC, Review of Targets for the Sustainable Development Goals: The Science Perspective. 2015, International Council for Science (ICSU), Paris, France.
14. ICSU, ISSC, Future Earth, Key messages proposed by the Science and Technology community for the Post-2015 Outcome Document. Means of Implementation and Global Partnerships for Sustainable Development. 2015 New York, NY. 21–24 April 2015.
15. Jasanoff, S., Judgement under siege: the three-body problem of expert legitimacy. Maasen, S., Weingart, P., (eds.) Democratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-Making, 2005, Springer, Netherlands, 209–224.
16. Keller, A., Science in Environmental Policy: The Politics of Objective Advice. 2009, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
17. Kunseler, E.-M., Tuinstra, W., Navigating the authority paradox: Practising objectivity in environmental expertise. Environ. Sci. Policy 67 (2017), 1–7, 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.10.001.
18. Kunseler, E.-M., Tuinstra, W., Vasileiadou, E., Petersen, A.C., The reflective futures practitioner: Balancing salience, credibility and legitimacy in generating foresight knowledge with stakeholders. Futures 66 (2015), 1–12, 10.1016/j.futures.2014.10.006.
19. Lee, H., Turning the focus to solutions. Science, 350, 2015, 1007, 10.1126/science.aad8954.
20. Lidskog, R., Löfmarck, E., Managing uncertainty: forest professionals’ claim and epistemic authority in the face of societal and climate change. Risk Manag. 17 (2015), 145–164, 10.1057/rm.2015.10.
21. Lövbrand, E., Beck, S., Chilvers, J., Forsyth, T., Hedrén, J., Hulme, M., Lidskog, R., Vasileiadou, E., Who speaks for the future of Earth? How critical social science can extend the conversation on the Anthropocene. Glob. Environ. Chang. 32 (2015), 211–218, 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.012.
22. Lu, Y., Nakicenovic, N., Visbeck, M., Stevance, A.S., Five priorities for the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Nature 520 (2015), 432–433, 10.1038/520432a.
23. Lubchenco, J., Barner, A.K., Cerny-chipman, E.B., Reimer, J.N., Sustainability rooted in science. Nature 8 (2015), 741–745, 10.1038/ngeo2552.
24. Miller, C.A., Edwards, P.N., Changing the Atmosphere: Expert Knowledge and Environmental Governance. 2001, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
25. Mitchell, R.B., Clark, W.C., Cash, D.W., Dickson, N.M., (eds.) Global Environmental Assessments: Information and Influence, 2006, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
26. Padma, T.V., Future Earth's “Global” Secretariat Under Fire. 2014, SciDevNet Retrieved from: http://www.scidev.net/global/sustainability/news/future-earth-global-secretariat.html.
27. Reinecke, S., Knowledge brokerage designs and practices in four european climate services: a role model for biodiversity policies?. Environ. Sci. Policy 54 (2015), 513–521, 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.08.007.
28. Rowe, A., Ng'eny, N., Carbon, M., Terminal Evaluation of the Project. Fifth Global Environmental Outlook: Integrated Environmental Assessment. 2014, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi, Kenia.
29. Sarkki, S., Niemelä, J., Tinch, R., van den Hove, S., Watt, A., Young, J., Balancing credibility, relevance and legitimacy: a critical assessment of trade-offs in science-policy interfaces. Sci. Public Policy 41 (2014), 194–206, 10.1093/scipol/sct046.
30. Sarkki, S., Tinch, R., Niemelä, J., Heink, U., Waylen, K., Timaeus, J., Young, J., Watt, A., Neßhöver, C., van den Hove, S., Adding “iterativity” to the credibility, relevance, legitimacy: a novel scheme to highlight dynamic aspects of science–policy interfaces. Environ. Sci. Policy, 2015, 1–10, 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.02.016.
31. Scientific Advisory Board, Press kit: United Nations Secretary General's Scientific Advisory Board, 5th meeting Trieste, Italy, 24–25 May 2016. 2016, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Paris, France.
32. Scientific Advisory Board, Report of the Inaugural meeting. 30–31 January 2014, Berlin, Germany. Scientific Advisory Board of the UN Secretary-General., 2014, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Paris, France.
33. Scientific Advisory Board, The Crucial Role of Science for Sustainable Development and the Post-2015 Development Agenda. Preliminary Reflection and Comments by the Scientific Advisory Board of the UN Secretary-General. 2014, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Paris, France.
34. Stafford-Smith, M., UN sustainability goals need quantified targets. Nature, 513, 2014, 281, 10.1038/513281a.
35. Sustainable Development Solutions Network, Future Earth and the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network to mobilize the best of science for the Sustainable Development Goals. 2016 [WWW Document]. http://unsdsn.org/news/2016/06/03/future-earth-and-sdsn-to-mobilize-the-best-of-science-for-the-sustainable-development-goals/ (accessed 26.1.17).
36. Sustainable Development Solutions Network, Getting Started with the Sustainable Development Goals. A Guide for Stakeholders. 2015, Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), New York, NY.
37. Sustainable Development Solutions Network, Join the Sustainable Development Solutions Network. The Benefits of Membership. 2013, Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), New York, NY.
38. Sustainable Development Solutions Network, n.d. Vision and Organization [WWW Document]. http://unsdsn.org/about-us/vision-and-organization/ (accessed 26.1.17).
39. Turnhout, E., Hisschemöller, M., Eijsackers, H., Ecological indicators: Between the two fires of science and policy. Ecol. Indic. 7 (2007), 215–228, 10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.12.003.
40. van der Hel, S., New science for global sustainability? The institutionalization of knowledge co-production in Future Earth. Environ. Sci. Policy 61 (2016), 165–175, 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.03.012.
41. van Enst, W.I., Runhaar, H.A.C., Driessen, P.P.J., Boundary organisations and their strategies: three cases in the Wadden Sea. Environ. Sci. Policy 55 (2016), 416–423, 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.08.01.
42. UN DESA, Call for Contributions to the UN Global Sustainable Development Report 2016., 2016, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development (UN DESA), New York, NY.
43. UN DESA, Prototype Global Sustainable Development Report., 2014, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development (UN DESA), New York, NY.
44. UN DESA, n.d. Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform. Crowdsourced Briefs. [WWW Document]. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics/science/crowdsourcedbriefs (accessed 27.7.15).
45. UNEP, GEO Matters. Newsletter September 2015. 2015, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi, Kenya.
46. UNEP, Nomination Criteria for GEO-6 experts. 2014, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi, Kenya.
47. UNEP, Global Environmental Outlook (GEO-5). 2012, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi, Kenya.
48. UNEP, n.d. The GEO-6 Process. [WWW Document]. http://web.unep.org/geo/assessments/geo-6-process (accessed 27.7.15).
49. UNESCO, n.d. Scientific Advisory Board of the UN Secretary-General [WWW Document]. http://en.unesco.org/un-sab/content/scientific-advisory-board (accessed 27.7.15).
50. Zondervan, R., Fine Tuning the Science and Technology Major Group. 2015, SciDevNet Retrieved from: http://www.scidev.net/asia-pacific/mdgs/opinion/fine-tuning-the-science-and-technology-major-group.html.