Integrating scientific knowledge into large-scale restoration programs: the CALFED Bay-Delta Program experience

Integrating science into resource management activities is a goal of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, a multi-agency effort to address water supply reliability, ecological condition, drinking water quality, and levees in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta of northern California. Under CALFED, many different strategies were used to integrate science, including interaction between the research and management communities, public dialogues about scientific work, and peer review. This paper explores ways science was (and was not) integrated into CALFED's management actions and decision systems through three narratives describing different patterns of scientific integration and application in CALFED. Though a collaborative process and certain organizational conditions may be necessary for developing new understandings of the system of interest, we find that those factors are not sufficient for translating that knowledge into management actions and decision systems. We suggest that the application of knowledge may be facilitated or hindered by (1) differences in the objectives, approaches, and cultures of scientists operating in the research community and those operating in the management community and (2) other factors external to the collaborative process and organization.     

Collaborative governance and adaptive management: Lessons from California's CALFED Water Program

Both for its technological and institutional innovations and for its history of conflicts, California's water system has been one of the most observed in the world. This article and this Special Issue on the CALFED Bay-Delta Program continue in this tradition. CALFED is likely the most ambitious experiment in collaborative environmental policy and adaptive management the world has seen to date. This Issue moves beyond the celebratory tone of other analyses of collaborative, adaptive management and looks closer into how collaborative networks work to produce innovation, and more importantly to reflect also on their inherent contradictions, limitations and “dark sides”. While collaborative governance enhances mutual understandings and can be a source of innovation, it appears ill-suited to resolve alone the distributive dilemmas at the core of many water – and other environmental – conflicts. A lacuna in existing research concerns the institutional design of effective boundaries and linkages between democratic politics, legitimate authority, and adaptive governance, i.e. the mix of institutions that can provide sufficient responsibility, accountability and democratic legitimacy, without choking off the self-organizing interaction, shared learning, and communication that is at the heart of collaboration. A painful realization in the Delta is that environmental conservation and further growth may be fundamentally at odds; efficient win–win solutions, institutional or technological, seem insufficient to satisfy the competing demands posed upon the system. Radical decisions and changes might be necessary, but they seem unlikely under current institutional arrangements and political conditions.     

CALFED and the quest for optimal institutional fragmentation

Environmental problems are typically addressed by fragmented governance institutions. Fragmentation can present serious barriers to resolving environmental conflicts, but can also offer benefits. The CALFED experience should not be seen as demonstrating that unified governance is necessarily superior. Rather, it is a reminder that a fragmented governance strategy is not likely to succeed without strong leadership and tools for resolving inter-agency conflicts.     

Marginalization by collaboration: Environmental justice as a third party in and beyond CALFED

Governance and planning of ecosystem and water management within the California Bay-Delta, a critical component of California's water economy, have been characterized by a range of innovations in collaboration and conflict resolution. Despite legal mandates to incorporate environmental justice, the California Bay-Delta Authority's (CBDA) policy-development process and the subsequent Delta Vision process have systematically marginalized the role of environmental justice in California's water policy. We suggest that environmental justice in Bay-Delta planning can be understood as a “third party” with a tenuous seat at the CALFED water management table. As such environmental justice is a useful lens through which to assess the state's broader commitments and capacities relative to equity as a planning principal and outcome. We interpret the fate of environmental justice within Bay-Delta planning as indicative of the inherent tensions between systems based on increasing market dominance and state legitimation and the values of environmental justice based on distributive, procedural, and cognitive justice. We construct a model of marginalization and environmental injustice in collaborative planning to illustrate these tensions. We draw upon experiences of members of the Environmental Justice Sub-Committee of CBDA's Bay Delta Public Advisory Committee, as well as interviews with other key environmental justice interests, and a comprehensive review of internal and public CBDA documents relating to the environmental justice program including budgets and program plans, and ethnographic field work. We conclude that by learning from the mistakes of Bay-Delta planning, a positive model of collaborative, environmental justice-based planning for water and ecosystem management is possible.     

Legal constraints, environmental variability, and the limits of innovative environmental governance

Using CALFED as a case study, this article explores problems with a conventional conceptual framework for understanding environmental crises. That framework, which both derives from and influences legal regimes, posits that environmental managers should fulfill the protective requirements of environmental laws, but should discern exactly where the brink of non-compliance lies and should allow or even facilitate resource consumption right up to that perceived edge. In contexts like CALFED, where environmental conditions are uncertain and institutions are unavoidably somewhat rigid and inflexible, that approach will function poorly, and this article therefore articulates an alternative conceptual approach capable of improving the reliability of resource allocation patterns. That alternative approach posits that in conditions of scarcity, environmental uncertainty, and rigidly constraining environmental laws, the intensity and reliability of resource use are likely to be inversely proportional, and reducing the intensity of consumptive use will tend to increase the stability and reliability of consumptive patterns.     

Understanding socio-cultural dimensions of environmental decision-making: A knowledge governance approach

Sociological critiques of scientific research processes and their application have developed nuanced understandings of the social, cultural and political forces shaping relationships between science and decision-making. Simultaneously, environmental researchers have sought to construct more engaged, dynamic modes of conducting research to facilitate the application of science in decision-making and action. To date, however, there are relatively few theoretically-oriented approaches that have been able to draw productive connections between the sociological critique and the practical applications that can aid in navigating this complex and diverse milieu. In this article, we propose that the concept of “knowledge governance” can bring together targeted inquiry into the socio-political context in which environmental science is situated, alongside analysis of specific interventions that change knowledge-to-action relationships. Drawing together Jasanoff’s (2005) concept of civic epistemology with Cash et al.’s (2003) knowledge systems for sustainability approach, this knowledge governance inquiry framework offers an integrative lens through which to critically reflect on knowledge-based processes, and incorporate that deeper understanding into intervention efforts. We briefly illustrate its application with reference to a pilot project examining conservation decision-making in the Western Pacific island nation of Palau.     

Surprising cooperation despite apparently irreconcilable differences: Agricultural water use efficiency and CALFED

Much has been said about the need and benefits of consensus building for resolving disagreements about water and environmental management. Less has been said about how to better convene and facilitate those processes. This paper focuses on the latter, examining the challenges and breakthroughs encountered when decision-makers convene consensus building processes that seek an agreement among stakeholders who believe they have “apparently irreconcilable differences.” The research described here analyzes two multi-stakeholder, collaborative processes convened by the CALFED Bay-Delta Program (CALFED) on the issue of agricultural water use efficiency in the Sacramento and San Joaquin river watersheds of California. The first process made very little progress; however, stakeholder representatives in the second were able to forge an agreement that included significant innovation and surprising risk taking by all sides. Analyzing the two processes, this paper shows that the stakeholders, conveners, and facilitators in these processes had to do much more than make the discrete trades across interests envisioned in consensus building theory or reframing as described in theories about conflict and frames. Looking at the data, this paper shows how several concepts from outside consensus building—including boundary objects and interlanguage—along with less well-known concepts and issues within the consensus building literature—bricolage and representation—can provide insights into how the Steering Committee accomplished what it did. This paper introduces these additional concepts, how they mattered in this CALFED process, and suggests a complex set of interrelated insights into how future collaborative and integrative environmental programs can approach the most difficult environmental policy and management conflicts.     

Conceptualizing and operationalizing human wellbeing for ecosystem assessment and management

There is growing interest in assessing the effects of changing environmental conditions and management actions on human wellbeing. A challenge is to translate social science expertise regarding these relationships into terms usable by environmental scientists, policymakers, and managers. Here, we present a comprehensive, structured, and transparent conceptual framework of human wellbeing designed to guide the development of indicators and a complementary social science research agenda for ecosystem-based management. Our framework grew out of an effort to develop social indicators for an integrated ecosystem assessment (IEA) of the California Current large marine ecosystem. Drawing from scholarship in international development, anthropology, geography, and political science, we define human wellbeing as a state of being with others and the environment, which arises when human needs are met, when individuals and communities can act meaningfully to pursue their goals, and when individuals and communities enjoy a satisfactory quality of life. We propose four major social science-based constituents of wellbeing: connections, capabilities, conditions, and cross-cutting domains. The latter includes the domains of equity and justice, security, resilience, and sustainability, which may be assessed through cross-cutting analyses of other constituents. We outline a process for identifying policy-relevant attributes of wellbeing that can guide ecosystem assessments. To operationalize the framework, we provide a detailed table of attributes and a large database of available indicators, which may be used to develop measures suited to a variety of management needs and social goals. Finally, we discuss four guidelines for operationalizing human wellbeing measures in ecosystem assessments, including considerations for context, feasibility, indicators and research, and social difference. Developed for the U.S. west coast, the framework may be adapted for other regions, management needs, and scales with appropriate modifications.     

Designing a knowledge co-production operating space for urban environmental governance—Lessons from Rotterdam,Netherlands and Berlin,Germany

Challenges for a sustainable urban development are increasingly important in cities because urbanization and related land take come up with negative challenges for the environment and for city residents. Searching for successful solutions to environmental problems requires combined efforts of different scientific disciplines and an active dialogue between stakeholders from policy and society. In this paper, we present a comparative assessment of the way policy-science dialogues have achieved knowledge co-production about strategic urban environmental governance action using the cities of Berlin in Germany and Rotterdam in the Netherlands as case studies. The ecosystem services framework is applied as a lens for policy–science interaction and a ‘knowledge co-production operating space’ is introduced. We show how policy officers, urban planners, practitioners and scientists learned from each other, and highlight the impact of this knowledge co-production for governance practice. We found that the concerted collaboration and co-creation between researchers and policy officers have led to mutual learning and establishment of relationships and trust in both cities. Not only the policy-relevance of research and its policy uptake were achieved but also new insights for research blind spots were created. In our conclusions we reflect on co-production processes with two types of conditions that we introduced to be most influential in the way knowledge can be co-created. These are conditions that relate to the way knowledge co-production processes are set-up and, conditions that relate to the expected value or benefit that the co-produced knowledge will bring across society, policy and practice.     

Technical knowledge,discursive spaces and politics at the science–policy interface

This special issue contributes to a better understanding of science–policy interactions in environmental governance, by assembling studies based on interpretative policy analysis. We introduce the theory and use of interpretative approaches in the analysis of science–policy interactions and draw on Stone's Policy Paradox (2002) to demonstrate how policy discourses are constituted by expertise but also by interests and rhetoric. This enables us to show how policy discourses are shaped by, but also shape their environment, especially when they become dominant and suppress alternative discourses and related knowledge claims and governance practices. In particular, we highlight the role of scientific and other technical expertise in the establishment and interpretation of policy discourses in different settings and argue that current environmental policy discourses afford considerable space for science and expertise to calculate the state of the environment, evaluate the sustainability of policies and forge solutions for green economic growth. In the conclusion we underscore the importance of reflexivity on the part of scientists working at the science–policy interface regarding the political choices implicit in the policy discourses they both work within and help to establish.     

Effective risk governance for environmental policy making: A knowledge management perspective

Effective risk management within environmental policy making requires knowledge on natural, economic and social systems to be integrated; knowledge characterised by complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity. We describe a case study in a (UK) central government department exploring how risk governance supports and hinders this challenging integration of knowledge. Forty-five semi-structured interviews were completed over a two year period. We found that lateral knowledge transfer between teams working on different policy areas was widely viewed as a key source of knowledge. However, the process of lateral knowledge transfer was predominantly informal and unsupported by risk governance structures. We argue this made decision quality vulnerable to a loss of knowledge through staff turnover, and time and resource pressures. Our conclusion is that the predominant form of risk governance framework, with its focus on centralised decision-making and vertical knowledge transfer is insufficient to support risk-based, environmental policy making. We discuss how risk governance can better support environmental policy makers through systematic knowledge management practices.     

Collaborative networks and new ways of knowing

To move beyond legal and regulatory gridlock around water issues in the California Bay-Delta, a new inter-agency initiative, commonly known as CALFED, was created in 1994. CALFED has been an ongoing experiment in policy innovation. Part of the change in management practice has involved constructing new arenas that engage multiple perspectives and transform regulatory impasse into provisional steps forward. We examine the construction of so-called boundary objects, which are forums and policy instruments that cross group boundaries and foster integrative deliberation. We compare the design and action of two boundary objects created by CALFED, namely the Environmental Water Account (EWA) and the Water Use Efficiency (WUE) program. We find that the presence of the boundary object, in itself, does little to explain the success of each policy experiment. Rather, the answer lies in the types of network interactions that result, along with the way meaning is coproduced. In fact, rather than create new patterns of interrelationship (e.g., between fish habitat advocates and pump station operators), the boundary object might further embed institutionalized routines. To more deeply understand what makes the new institution an integrative one, we introduce the concept of Ways of Knowing which explains how new knowledge emerges from the network of new relationships.     

以南通为例分析中国地方环境执政能力建设的问题与对策

环境执政能力建设是环境保护的重要环节.分析了当前中国环境行政执法中普遍存在的法律法规不完善不配套、环境执法氛围不佳、环境执法成本倒挂和环境执法队伍本身存在的问题和原因,有针对性地提出了加强环境执政能力建设的建议与对策.指出必须尽早完善环保法律法规,适应市场经济的新要求;实施环境责任追究制,提高全社会公众参与程度;制定严厉的环境新政策,解决环境执法成本倒挂问题;加强环保机构基层队伍建设,增强地方环境执政能力.     

The means do not justify the ends: A comment on CALFED

The state-federal CALFED process was more successful in transforming the means of thinking about decisions regarding California Bay-Delta resource management than in achieving the desired policy ends. Case studies in this special issue document how CALFED helped change the dynamics between stakeholders and agency managers; between scientists and implementers; and between endangered species managers and water project operators. In most cases, however, the new relationships and agreements failed to achieve the desired policy outcomes. The new tools and approaches that CALFED fostered can complement and support – but not substitute for – the obligation of policy makers to honestly confront and resolve fundamental oppositions of interest over resource management issues.     

浅谈环境审计在环境管理体系中的功能定位研究

在新形势下,环境管理制度体系表现出在一定程度上的不适应性.首先,缺乏制度保障,以经济为主的考核机制弱化了政府的生态职能.其次,各项环保制度和工作独立性较强,衔接力度不足,有些地方出现重复管理的现象,必然增加了政府和企业的环境保护成本,没有达到整体监管的效果.环境审计作为一项新型环境管理制度在环境保护工作中作用突出,主要源于环境审计能够更全面、更高效、更系统的对环境资源管理和经营行为进行科学统计评估,是国家环境治理的重要工具.     

Governance across the land-sea interface: A systematic review

Governance across the land-sea interface is an emerging challenge. The propensity for, and intensity of social-ecological interactions across this interface (e.g., eutrophication, sedimentation) are being exacerbated by cross-system threats (e.g., climate change). We draw on a systematic review of 151 peer-reviewed papers on governance and land-sea connections to (1) outline the current state of the literature, (2) examine the predominance of different approaches to address land-sea interactions, (3) characterize how governance is conceptualized within these approaches, (4) investigate governance challenges, and (5) provide insights into effective governance. The review finds that the number of relevant papers published per year has generally been increasing, and most of these papers are found in interdisciplinary journals. Ecosystem-based management is the most predominant approach found in the literature as a means to address land-sea interactions. Papers referring to ecosystem-based management are more likely than those referring to alternative management approaches (e.g., integrated management) to highlight science-policy integration and the need to account for interactions between ecosystem components as elements of effective governance. The main governance challenges include determining boundaries, addressing cross-scale effects, and accessing knowledge. However, few empirical studies of governance across the land-sea interface have been completed. A richer conceptual framework of governance is required to improve our ability to navigate the rapid social and environmental change occurring across the land-sea interface.     

Integrated assessment of urban environment in China

１　ＩｎｔｒｏｄｕｃｔｉｏｎＩｎｔｅｇｒａｔｅｄｅｎｖｉｒｏｎｍｅｎｔａｌａｓｓｅｓｓｍｅｎｔ（ＩＥＡ）ｉｓａｆｕｎｄａｍｅｎｔａｌｍｅａｎｓｆｏｒｃｏｍｐｒｅｈｅｎｓｉｖｅｅｎｖｉｒｏｎｍｅｎｔａｌｍａｎａｇｅｍｅｎｔａｎｄｆｏｒｃｏｏｒｄｉｎａｔｉｎｇｔｈｅｒｅｌａｔｉｏｎｓｈｉｐｂｅｔｗｅｅｎｅｃｏｎｏｍｉｃｄｅｖｅｌｏｐｍｅｎｔａｎｄｅｎｖｉｒｏｎｍｅｎｔａｌｐｒｏｔｅｃｔｉｏｎ．ＩＥＡａｉｍｓｔｏｉｄｅｎｔｉｆｙｔｈｅｍａｉｎｅｎｖｉｒｏｎｍｅｎｔａｌｐｒｏｂｌｅｍｓｉｎａｒｅｇｉｏｎ…     

环境安全与可持续发展

本文已经提出了如果将环境安全作为人类安全被实现。那就需要较好的环境治理。环境安全可以被理解为一系列的价值观、原则、政策、技术、体制和程序,由此,社区与社会管理环境和自然资源以透明、负责任的参与和公平的方式克服可持续发展的障碍。可持续发展与环境安全是否相互依存、相互促进还需要进一步论证。环境安全和可持续发展之间的关系也常常解释为实际的产出。社会性学习对于应对有关的不安全环境,并导致不可持续发展的挑战至关重要。社会必须利用信息共享、传播和共同的理解改进决策而发展适应改变的能力。这只有通过发展学习型社会才能成为可能。环境安全和可持续发展是社会性学习的产出,而且所有相关方利用创新方法的环境友好政策,是基于环境安全和环境治理的原则为基础的,大大地推动了生态系统的管理、性别公平、尊重人权、解决冲突、建立社区信任为应对未来的意外或潜在风险和新的挑战需要适应性管理,建立社会和生态系统恢复。应集中努力改进人们的生活质量,不要使用超过环境所能承受的自然资源能力。     

The interplay between knowledge and governance: Insights from the governance of recreational boating in the Dutch Wadden Sea area, 1981–2014

Through shifts toward interactive and participatory forms of environmental governance, knowledge dynamics may come into play that differ from those of traditional forms of policy-making. This paper investigates how shifts of environmental governance and knowledge are related. In order to do so, it reconstructs the development of the governance of recreational boating in the Dutch Wadden Sea on the empirical basis of interviews, document analysis, and a focus group. Moreover, it analyzes this development by means of an analytical framework that combines governance modes, knowledge systems and knowledge–governance interfaces. Our results show that in the last decades partly an accumulation and partly a sequence of various governance arrangements concerning recreational boating has occurred; this has entailed a shift from predominantly centralized governance to a combination of governance modes with a stronger emphasis on decentralized, interactive and self-governance. This shift has occurred together with an increasing prominence of qualitative local knowledge, stakeholders’ knowledge, and the integration of various forms of knowledge. Furthermore, a shift has taken place toward more participatory knowledge–governance interfaces. Our analysis suggests that environmental governance and knowledge are interconnected in various ways: the regulatory and epistemic aspects of environmental issues are bound up with each other, and governance and knowledge are coproduced and mutually constitutive. Key lessons from this analysis are that room for experimentation is an important factor in improving environmental governance, and that increasing stakeholder involvement in governance implies that new modes of jointly creating and exchanging knowledge may need to be taken into account.     

Towards better integration of environmental science in society: Lessons from BONUS,the joint Baltic Sea environmental research and development programme

Integration of environmental science in society is impeded by the large gap between science and policy that is characterised by weaknesses in societal relevance and dissemination of science and its practical implementation in policy. We analyse experiences from BONUS, the policy-driven joint Baltic Sea research and development programme (2007–2020), which is part of the European Research Area (ERA) and involves combined research funding by eight EU member states. The ERA process decreased fragmentation of Baltic Sea science and BONUS funding increased the scientific quality and societal relevance of Baltic Sea science and strengthened the science-policy interface. Acknowledging the different drivers for science producers (academic career, need for funding, peer review) and science users (fast results fitting policy windows), and realising that most scientists aim at building conceptual understanding rather than instrumental use, bridges can be built through strategic planning, coordination and integration. This requires strong programme governance stretching far beyond selecting projects for funding, such as coaching, facilitating the sharing of infrastructure and data and iterative networking within and between science producer and user groups in all programme phases. Instruments of critical importance for successful science-society integration were identified as: (1) coordinating a strategic research agenda with strong inputs from science, policy and management, (2) providing platforms where science and policy can meet, (3) requiring cooperation between scientists to decrease fragmentation, increase quality, clarify uncertainties and increase consensus about environmental problems, (4) encouraging and supporting scientists in disseminating their results through audience-tailored channels, and (5) funding not only primary research but also synthesis projects that evaluate the scientific findings and their practical use in society – in close cooperation with science users − to enhance relevance, credibility and legitimacy of environmental science and expand its practical implementation.