The Possible Experts: How Epistemic Communities Negotiate Barriers to Knowledge Use in Ecosystems Services Policy

Integration of knowledge systems in urban farming initiatives: insight from Taipei Garden City

There is growing interest globally in the potential of urban farming to respond to a breadth of urban sustainability challenges. Yet it is also recognised that the policy and implementation of this nature-based strategy is influenced by an underlying science-policy-practice community. The aim of this paper is to understand how different actors and knowledges come together to form a science-policy-practice community for a citywide urban farming initiative-Taipei Garden City. The result shows that the science-policy-practice community was formed in a dynamic 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' process. This allows long-term public-private partnership to be developed and enables different knowledges and experiences to co-exist in policies and practices. This study argues that in-between spaces and actors, who can cut across different fora, are vital to make urban farming interventions happen. Nonetheless, we also question the extent to which embodied and experiential knowledge is sufficient to support environmentally and socially appropriate outcomes for attaining urban sustainability.

Identifying the Blue Economy Global Epistemic Community

The following article aims to identify the characteristics of the epistemic community of Blue Economy researchers, through the description of its scientific production, its special organization and clustering. The information was examined using bibliometric techniques on 302 research works using the Web of Science databases (JCR) between 2013 and 2021. At the same time, VOSviewer software was used to represent the relationships metrically and visually between the data and metadata. A set of research works is reviewed which relates environmental conservation and its implication in the development of the territory, and the relationship between technology and the improvement of ocean management, to highlight those state interventions where benefits are generated for the population or where there is an important challenge for improvement.

Climate Policy in a Fragmented World—Transformative Governance Interactions at Multiple Levels

The call for fundamental changes to meet the challenges of climate change is rising across scientific disciplines, communities, and countries [...]

What is the role of epistemic communities in shaping local environmental policy? Managing environmental change through planning and greenspace in Fukuoka City, Japan

This paper evaluates the role of epistemic communities in shaping local environmental policy, through the case of management of environmental change through planning and greenspace in Fukuoka City, Japan. Amidst increasing global interest in the role of evidence-based policy and urban science in responding to environmental issues in cities, Fukuoka is distinctive. Locally-situated scholars in Fukuoka have, for several decades, sought to shape local responses to environmental change by influencing policy for the built environment and greenspace. Through analysis of scholarly outputs produced by scholars working at universities and research institutes within Fukuoka and policy documentation produced by the city government, we characterise the development of Fukuoka's urban environmental change epistemic community. We suggest that built environment and greenspace policy to respond to environmental change in Fukuoka has been shaped by an epistemic community in three ways. These are: (a) a common belief in techno-scientific evidence derived from empirical observation; (b) a shared interest in urban planning and greenspace as a vehicle for realising change; and (c) a common normative concern with citizen wellbeing, rooted in negative historical experiences with pollution. We argue that policy formation driven by scholarly expertise in cities may have a greater chance of taking root if there is a favourable historical context of locally-led environmental science research, personal investment of the epistemic community members in the city, and regular dialogue between the epistemic community and wider society in the city. We conclude that a strong and reflexive epistemic community, working in collaboration with environmental and civil society actors, is important in understanding an appropriate response to current urban environmental challenges.

Not a Security Issue: How Policy Experts De-Politicize the Climate Change–Migration Nexus

Policy experts play an important role in coping with the climate change–human migration nexus. They offer expert solutions to decision makers, and thus, they contribute to de-politicizing the issue. The aim of this paper is to find out how different policy experts envision the climate change–human migration nexus. The Netherlands has been nominated as the seat of a Global Center of Excellence for climate Adaptation and aims to become a Global Center of Excellence in the water safety and security domain. Policy experts were selected based on a structured nominee process. We conducted semistructured interviews with policy experts and analyzed policy expert documentation. Interview transcripts and documents were examined via a coding frame. Unlike policymakers who link climate change and conflict, policy experts stress the economic and political factors of migration in which climate change issues happen. The major difference between the view of policymakers and policy experts on the link between climate change and human migration emerges from the frame of the climate refugee. In the context of the climate change–human migration nexus, policy experts act as a countervailing power that prevents the political exploitation of the nexus into a security issue.

Who knows best? Understanding the use of research-based knowledge in conservation conflicts

The way in which research-based knowledge is used, interpreted and communicated by different actors can influence the dynamics of conservation conflicts. The conflict that occurs between grouse shooting interests and the conservation of birds of prey in Scotland is notoriously complex, involving multiple actors at multiple levels, and shaped by the values and world views of these actors. This paper explores how research-based knowledge is used in the debate by six key organisations, and looks to understand the drivers that may influence knowledge use and interpretation in this, and other, cases of conservation conflict. Research was used to both legitimise and reinforce certain world views, and to support associated political actions that would cause these to become reality. Actors offered divergent interpretations of the same piece of research, emphasising different findings and outcomes. Research-based knowledge was thus employed by actors to support or counter the 'status quo', and challenge other claims that clashed with their own values. Although the intention of such knowledge use is unclear, the selective reconstruction of research by actors could stem from, and reiterate, divergent value systems. This may pose significant challenges to conflict mitigation efforts; whilst some may look to research-based knowledge as the bringer of truth, its interpretation by different actors may exacerbate existing rifts between stakeholders; promoting polarisation of views. Mitigation strategies should be sensitive to this, and aim to improve the inclusiveness and transparency of the knowledge transfer process.

Evidence-based arguments in direct democracy: The case of smoking bans in Switzerland

This article analyses the use of evidence, such as policy evaluation studies, in arguments in direct-democratic campaigns. Set in the context of 16 Swiss direct-democratic campaigns on smoking bans, the article compares evidence-based arguments with arguments that do not refer to evidence. The study adds to the argumentative direction in evaluation and program planning by showing that in direct-democratic campaigns, the political use of evaluation results to substantiate policy preferences is rare. The study shows that around 6% of the arguments refer to evidence and that evaluation results are mostly cited in support of causal arguments referring to the effects of policy interventions. Above all, the results show that policy information is available, at least for causal arguments, and apparently known in the public discourse but only cited explicitly when the speaker wants to raise credibility. This applies especially to researchers, such as evaluators. The results further indicate that the political use of evaluation results fosters an informed discourse and the evidence may eventually become common public knowledge. The credentials of evaluators make them suitable not only for bringing more evaluation results into the direct-democratic discourse but also for acting as teachers in this discourse.

Framing natural assets for advancing sustainability research: translating different perspectives into actions

Sustainability is a key challenge for humanity in the context of complex and unprecedented global changes. Future Earth, an international research initiative aiming to advance global sustainability science, has recently launched knowledge-action networks (KANs) as mechanisms for delivering its research strategy. The research initiative is currently developing a KAN on "natural assets" to facilitate and enable action-oriented research and synthesis towards natural assets sustainability. 'Natural assets' has been adopted by Future Earth as an umbrella term aiming to translate and bridge across different knowledge systems and different perspectives on peoples' relationships with nature. In this paper, we clarify the framing of Future Earth around natural assets emphasizing the recognition on pluralism and identifying the challenges of translating different visions about the role of natural assets, including via policy formulation, for local to global sustainability challenges. This understanding will be useful to develop inter-and transdisciplinary solutions for human-environmental problems by (i) embracing richer collaborative decision processes and building bridges across different perspectives; (ii) giving emphasis on the interactions between biophysical and socioeconomic drivers affecting the future trends of investments and disinvestments in natural assets; and (iii) focusing on social equity, power relationships for effective application of the natural assets approach. This understanding also intends to inform the scope of the natural asset KAN's research agenda to mobilize the translation of research into co-designed action for sustainability.

Does Policy Learning Meet the Standards of an Analytical Framework of the Policy Process?

Reference to policy learning is commonplace in the public policy literature but the question of whether it qualifies as an analytical framework applicable to the policy process has yet to be systematically addressed. We therefore appraise learning as analytical framework in relation to four standards: assumptions and micro-foundations, conceptual apparatus, observable implications, normative applications. We find that policy learning meets the four standards, although its theoretical leverage varies across them. Since we are not aware of theories of the policy process that meet all of these standards all the time, we conclude that policy learning fares reasonably well and it's worth investing intellectual resources in this field.

Who Really Wants an Ambitious Large-Scale Restoration of the Seine Estuary? A Strategic Analysis of a Science-Policy Interface Locked in a Stalemate

The development of ecosystem knowledge is an essential condition for effective environmental management but using available knowledge to solve environmental controversies is still difficult in "real" situations. This paper explores the conditions under which ecological knowledge could contribute to the environmental strategies and actions of stakeholders at science-policy interface. Ecological restoration of the Seine estuary is an example of an environmental issue whose overall management has run into difficulties despite the production of a large amount of knowledge by a dedicated organization, GIP Seine Aval. Thanks to an action-research project, based on a futures study, we analyze the reasons of these difficulties and help the GIP Seine Aval adopt a robust strategy to overcome them. According to our results, most local stakeholders involved in the large-scale restoration project emphasize the need for a clear divide between knowledge production and environmental action. This kind of divide may be strategic in a context where the robustness of environmental decisions is strongly depending on the mobilization of "neutral" scientific knowledge. But in our case study, this rather blocks action because some powerful stakeholders continuously ask for more knowledge before taking action. The construction and analysis of possible future scenarios has led to three alternative strategies being identified to counter this stalemate situation: (1) to circumvent difficulties by creating indirect links between knowledge and actions; (2) to use knowledge to sustain advocacy for the interests of each and every stakeholder; (3) to involve citizens in decisions about knowledge production and use, so that environmental issues weight more on the local political agenda.

Governing Towards 'One Health': Establishing Knowledge Integration in Global Health Security Governance

Recent global threats (e.g. Ebola, avian influenza, the Zika virus) have demonstrated the need for policy makers to focus on the detection of risks at the animal-human interface. Yet epistemic knowledge across these domains is not sufficiently joined-up. The article argues that, despite some progress, in order for the policy agenda for global health security to develop towards a 'One Health' model there is a need for integration across public and animal health domains. This article sets out an evaluation framework for establishing knowledge integration across these sectors. The article concludes that although 'One Health may seem utopian, given there are key challenges when it comes to reaching integration, there are important steps that can be taken the short to medium-term. These include reforms to education and training programmes and interdisciplinary research collaborations. A key determinant of whether One Health becomes a paradigm which frames public policy, and leads to policy and institutional changes to enable public value creation and sustainability, is the presence of an 'epistemic community' that bridges health networks.

Embedding the Concept of Ecosystem Services? The Utilisation of Ecological Knowledge in Different Policy Venues

The concept of ecosystem services is increasingly being promoted by academics and policy makers as a means to protect ecological systems through more informed decision making. A basic premise of this approach is that strengthening the ecological knowledge base will significantly enhance ecosystem health through more sensitive decision making. However, the existing literature on knowledge utilisation, and many previous attempts to improve decision making through better knowledge integration, suggest that producing ‘more knowledge’ is only ever a necessary but insufficient condition for greater policy success. We begin this paper by reviewing what is already known about the relationship between ecological knowledge development and utilisation, before introducing a set of theme issue papers that examine—for the very first time—how this politically and scientifically salient relationship plays out across a number of vital policy venues such as land-use planning, policy-level impact assessment, and cost–benefit analysis. Following a detailed synthesis of the key findings of all the papers, this paper identifies and explores new research and policy challenges in this important and dynamic area of environmental governance.

Cost–Benefit Analysis: A Decision-Support Tool or a Venue for Contesting Ecosystem Knowledge?

Managing ecosystems for multiple benefits and stakeholders is a formidable challenge requiring diverse knowledge to be discovered, transmitted, and aggregated. Cost–benefit analysis (CBA) is advocated as a theoretically grounded decision-support tool, but in practice it frequently appears to exert little influence. To understand this puzzle, I consider ecosystem knowledge and CBA from both the demand and supply sides. I argue that all ecosystem knowledge is contestable, which restricts the influence of technocratic tools like CBA. On the demand side, democratic mechanisms shape decision makers' motivations and incentives, but also provide a substitute for technocratic evidence. Supply-side factors limiting the influence of CBA include the scarcity of decision-pertinent evidence and the uncertain meaning and usefulness of CBA. Demand-side factors are resistant to change; but taking account of them, I suggest some supply-side reforms, arguing that CBA is best regarded not as a tool but as a venue where ecosystem knowledge is aggregated and contested.

Expectations and Experiences of Diverse Forms of Knowledge Use: The Case of the UK National Ecosystem Assessment

Assessments of environmental issues are often expected to tackle the perceived disconnect between scientific knowledge and environmental policy making. However, their actual influence on processes of knowledge communication and use remains understudied. We provide one of the first studies of the UK National Ecosystem Assessment (NEA), itself one of the first national-level assessments of ecosystem services. We explore expectations, early experiences, and implications for its role in promoting knowledge use, drawing on both documentary evidence and qualitative analysis of interviews with NEA authors and potential users. Many interviewees expected instrumental use; that is, facts directly assisting problem solving. This matches the rhetoric surrounding the NEA's creation. However, we found more early evidence of interacting conceptual uses (learning), and strategic uses (sometimes deemed misuse). Such uses depend not only on assessment outputs, such as reports, but also on the processes of communication and interaction by which these are created. Thus, planning and analysis of such assessments should deemphasise instrumental use and instead focus on the complex knowledge ‘coproduction’ processes by which diverse and interacting forms of knowledge use may be realised.

The Ecosystem Approach as a Framework for Understanding Knowledge Utilisation

The ecosystem approach is used to analyse four case studies from England to determine what kind of ecosystem knowledge was used by people, and how it shaped their arguments. The results are reported across decision-making venues concerned with: innovation, conflict management, maintenance of ecosystem function, and recognising the environment as an asset. In each area we identify the sources and uses of conceptual, instrumental, political, and social knowledge. We found that the use of these knowledges can benefit the process as well as the quality of outcomes, and so ‘add value’ to the decision-making process. However, the case studies did not exhibit any simple linear–rational model of knowledge use. Ecosystems thinking took many forms and depended on different institutional settings. As an argument-making device, the ecosystem approach must be seen in the context of a wider set of social and political processes, which involves a range of complex strategies and motives that explain the apparent ‘messiness’ of environmental decision making. The paper demonstrates that as a conceptual framework, the ecosystem approach provides a valuable theoretical template to help us discover how and what knowledge is used in deliberative styles of decision making.

The Challenge of Embedding an Ecosystem Services Approach: Patterns of Knowledge Utilisation in Public Policy Appraisal

The ‘ecosystem services approach’ (ESA) to policy making has refocused attention on how knowledge is embedded in policy. Appraisal has long been identified as an important venue for embedding, but suffers from well-known difficulties. This paper examines the extent to which an ESA appears in UK policy appraisal documents, and how far implementing an ESA via appraisal may encounter the same difficulties. A clear understanding of this is vital for interrogating claims that improving knowledge necessarily leads to more sustainable ecosystem management. The paper reports on the content of seventy-five national-level policy appraisals undertaken in the United Kingdom between 2008 and 2012. Only some elements of an ESA appear, with even the environment ministry failing to systematically pick up the concept, which is indeed subject to many of the familiar barriers to embedding environmental knowledge in appraisals. Policy initiatives attempting to institutionalise ecosystem values need to be conversant with these barriers.