The role of environmental statisticians in environmental policy: the case of performance measurement

Environmental statisticians often experience the difficult task to provide clear results for environmental policy objectives on the basis of complex science, limited data, and many sources of uncertainty. This paper highlights the particularly challenging situation of environmental statistics in developing countries before focusing on the role of statisticians working at the nexus of environmental statistics and policy within the context of measuring environmental performance. Three issues create particular tension at the environmental science-policy junction: (1) the general complexity of environmental problems (including scientific uncertainty and insufficient data) and the often negative perceptions associated with their solution, (2) the comparatively recent introduction of quantitative methods and information to the environmental policy process and continued skepticism and ideologically motivated resistance to their routine integration, and (3) the language barriers between policymakers and statisticians as well as between statisticians and other scientists engaged in environmental research. Based on the case study of the 2006 Pilot Environmental Performance Index (EPI) developed by an interdisciplinary team at the universities Yale and Columbia the paper examines how the EPI tackles these tensions while aiming to be a fact-based, statistically sound policy tool that helps countries achieve environmental objectives by tracking progress, identifying environmental “best practices”, and providing strategic peer-group analyses. In conclusion, the paper suggests some remedies for the deficiencies in the co-operation between policymakers and environmental statisticians.     

Scientists as policy actors: A study of the language of biofuel research

Theory suggests that the influence of science on policy will be greater when scientific discourse is aligned with the language and meaning of wider social concerns. Seeking to assess whether scientists may be guided by such propositions in a controversial environmental policy arena, we examine the language and content of public-facing, UK scientific research grant abstracts on biofuels for the period 2007–2011, comparing these to stakeholder position statements and newspaper articles of the same period. We find that UK scientists have indeed broadly reflected societal concerns about biofuels during this period. However we also find that both science and society have paid less attention to procedural issues. We comment on the implications of the findings for the role of science in environmental policy development.     

The neglected heart of science policy: reconciling supply of and demand for science

The funding of scientific research is almost always justified in terms of the potential for achieving beneficial societal outcomes. In pursuing a particular societal outcome, how can we know if one research portfolio is better than another? In this paper we conceptualize: (1) science in terms of a “supply” of knowledge and information, (2) societal outcomes in terms of a “demand” function that seeks to apply knowledge and information to achieve specific societal goals, and (3) science policy decision-making as a process aimed at “reconciling” the dynamic relationship between “supply” and “demand.” The core of our argument is that “better” science portfolios (that is, portfolios viewed as more likely to advance desired societal outcomes, however defined) would be achieved if science policy decisions reflected knowledge about the supply of science, the demand for science, and the relationship between the two. We provide a general method for pursuing such knowledge, using the specific example of climate change science to illustrate how research on science policy could be organized to support improved decisions about the organization of science itself.     

Making science relevant to environmental policy

Implementation of current environmental and natural resource policy has created an era of regulatory discontent, and has prompted calls for new approaches to management that can achieve both long-term ecological sustainability and improved policy performance. These new approaches, such as ecosystem management, emphasize the importance of holistic and integrated science, meaningful public involvement to reflect changing societal goals and objectives, collaborative decisionmaking, and flexible and adaptable institutions. Implementing such approaches will require significant institutional change in all institutions, including the institution of science. Attributes of the scientific culture — including adherence to the myth of objective, value-free science, preference for technical solutions as first-order solutions, and advancement of the scientific method and scientific rationality as preferred logic — have often worked to separate scientists from citizens and science from the policymaking process. They have also fostered undemocratic processes and results. Changes in the institution and culture of science, including embracing more holistic and integrated scientific processes, creating a more civic science, and rethinking the role of scientific advocacy in the policy process, will be required to move toward democratic as well as ecological sustainability.     

中国科学院环境科技发展回顾(Ⅰ)

对中国科学院自1949年建院之初至知识创新工程试点工作启动之前的1997年这段时间内,中科院在环境科学研究和技术创新、队伍建设、科技基础设施建设、规划与管理等方面的工作进行了介绍.从1949年至1997年,中科院的环境科技工作经历了思想萌芽、初步发展、快速发展和稳定发展等四个发展阶段.从1998年开始,中科院的环境科技工作进入创新跨越阶段,更加注重环境污染形成机理、生态毒理等方面的原始创新和清洁生产前沿关键技术的突破与集成.     

Science–policy interface for addressing environmental problems in arid Spain

Science–policy interfaces are avenues for finding solutions for environmental challenges through strengthening collaborations between research disciplines and public administrations. Here we present a methodology for the conduct of science–policy interfaces between scientists and policymakers for addressing day-to-day environmental problems in the southeastern Spanish drylands. A knowledge brokering approach based on six consecutive workshops was used to facilitate mutual understanding and trust between scientists and policymakers. Water policy and biodiversity loss were identified as major environmental concerns in the region, and 12 final environmental problems were agreed as priorities. A graphical tool was used for diagnosing each environmental problem according to the available scientific knowledge, the current regulatory capacity of administrations, and the level of public engagement necessary for addressing the problem. The use of the graphical tool also allowed for (a) the clarification of roles involved in problem solving, and (b) the promotion of a culture of shared responsibility for the implementation of management actions based on collaborative work. We discuss lessons learned and propose recommendations for future experiences.     

Citizen science for policy development: The case of koala management in South Australia

Citizen science involves the engagement of non-scientists in scientific research. Citizen science projects have been reported to be useful in policy development but there is little detail of how projects have contributed. The citizen science project, the Great Koala Count (GKC) collected ecological data about koalas and social data that have been used in the initial stages of the development of a South Australian Government koala management and conservation policy. After the GKC, we conducted an online survey of people who participated in the project and a control group. The survey focussed on opinions towards possible management options for koalas in South Australia. GKC participants were also asked about project-related changes in knowledge and opinions. We received 970 valid surveys and found some differences in opinions between GKC participants and the control group. Therefore, the GKC did not provide a representative sample of the entire South Australian population. However, we contend that the data from the citizen scientists are still valuable for policy development as it has been provided by people who are highly engaged in the topic (koala management in this case). It can be difficult to engage the public in the policy development process, and the citizen science project enabled the collection of a wide range of opinions, helping to discover and define relevant issues. Additionally, many people learnt about koalas and koala-related management issues, and some changed their opinions regarding koala management, also useful outcomes from the project in the policy development context. Our findings suggest that citizen science is useful for policy makers because projects provide the opportunity for dialogue with the people most interested in the topic of the project.     

Matching knowledge brokering strategies to environmental policy problems and settings

The benefits of utilizing intermediaries to broker understanding between environmental scientists and policy makers have become widely touted. Yet little is known about the tasks boundary spanners undertake to develop environmental policy solutions and how these tasks fit into frameworks intended to advance public policy decision making. Such frameworks may be constructed to aid decision makers in differentiating between the types of environmental policy issues that confront them or the policy settings in which they are operating. Consequently, this paper examines how six different knowledge brokering strategies; informing, consulting, matchmaking, engaging, collaborating and building capacity might be employed in responding to different types of environmental policy problems or policy settings identified in decision aiding frameworks. Using real world examples, four frameworks are reviewed. They are; Lindquist's [Lindquist, E.A., 1988. What do decision models tell us about information use? Knowledge in Society 1 (2), 86–111; Lindquist, E.A., 1990. The third community, policy inquiry, and social scientists. In: Stephen Brooks, S., Gagnon, A. (Eds.), Social Scientists, Policy and the State. Praeger, New York; Lindquist, E.A., 2001. Discerning policy influence: framework for a strategic evaluation of IDRC-Supported research] decision regimes, Turnhout et al.’s [Turnhout, E., Hisschemoller, M., Eijsackers, H., 2007. Ecological indicators: between the two fires of science and policy. Ecological Indicators 7 (2), 215–228] science policy typology, Holling's [Holling, C.S., 1995. What barriers? What bridges? In: Gunderson, L.H., Holling, C.S. (Eds.), Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 3–34] adaptive cycle and Kurtz and Snowden's [Kurtz, C.F., Snowden, D.J., 2003. The new dynamics of strategy: sense-making in a complex and complicated world. IBM Systems Journal 42 (3), 462–483] Cynefin domains. For the different problem types or policy settings described in the decision aiding frameworks primary knowledge brokering strategies are identified. While the frameworks differ in their conceptual constructions, the applicability of specific knowledge brokering strategies serve as a commonality across particular problem types and policy settings.     

国内外环境风险评价研究进展

环境风险评价始于20世纪70年代,是环境影响评价与风险评价交叉发展的结果,它的诞生一方面是环境保护的迫切需要,另一方面也是环境科学发展的必然结果,标志着环境保护的一次重要战略转折.随着环境影响评价工作的深入展开,环境风险评价已成为环评工作中的一个重要组成部分.该文简要阐明了环境风险评价的有关概念,并从人体健康风险评价和生态风险评价两方面讨论了国内外环境风险评价的研究进展,最后就我国环境风险评价提出几点展望.     

Ecological knowledge and North Sea environmental policies

In an analysis of North Sea eutrophication science and policies, focusing on the period 1980–2005, it was investigated how scientific information was used in policy-making. The analysis focused on the central assumptions of the rational policy-making model, i.e. that scientific information can be used to formulate decisions, based upon objective scientific information (rational decision-making), and secondly, can support implementing these decisions (rational management). In general terms, the following was concluded:

• •More knowledge has increased rather than reduced uncertainty;
• •In order to handle the problem of dealing with complexity and uncertainty at the political level, a simplification of facts has occurred, in this case focusing on nutrients as the main cause of the problem, at the same time excluding other possible causes;
• •Both the limited scientific view (i.e. the nutrient view) and the exaggeration of the seriousness of the problem (impacts, scope) have been used as an authoritative basis for the justification of political decisions. Both were not supported by the majority of the scientific community;
• •New scientific knowledge, not in support of existing policies, has been excluded from the policy process;
• •The science–policy interface, mainly consisting of “civil-servant scientists”, that emerged and increased its influence over the period of investigation, has been the central element in the simplification and exclusion process.

The main lesson learned is that work at the interface of science and policy must be subject to democratic principles, i.e. be transparent and involving all parties with a stake in the issue under consideration.     

Negotiating future climates for public policy: a critical assessment of the development of climate scenarios for the UK

Climate scenarios serve a number of functions in helping society manage climate change—pedagogic, motivational or practical (for example, in engineering design, spatial planning and policy development). A variety of methodologies for scenario construction have been experimented with, all of them to a greater or lesser extent depending on the use of climate models. Yet the development of climate scenarios involves much more than climate modelling. The process of scenario development is one of negotiation between relevant stakeholders—funding agencies, policy communities, scientists, social actors and decision-makers in a variety of sectors. This process of negotiation is illustrated through an analysis of four generations of UK climate scenarios—published in 1991, 1996, 1998 and 2002. Using ideas from science and technology studies and the sociology of scientific knowledge to guide our analysis, we reveal complex relationships between the interests of UK science, policy and society. Negotiating climate scenarios involves compromise between the needs of policy, science and decision-maker in relation to, for example, the selection of the development pathway(s) and emissions scenario(s), the choice of climate model(s), the assessment and communication of uncertainty and the presentational devices used. These insights have a significant bearing on the way in which climate scenarios should be viewed and used in public discourse, strategic planning and policy development.     

Understanding the use of science in decision-making on cockle fisheries and gas mining in the Dutch Wadden Sea: Putting the science–policy interface in a wider perspective

The use of science to inform and underpin decision-making on natural resources is not self-evident as stakeholders often use science in a selective and strategic way. Scientific analyses of science utilisation often focus on how the science–policy interface is organised and from this perspective provide recommendations to scientists about how they can increase their contribution to decision-making. Yet in this paper we argue that a wider perspective on the science–policy interface, in particular by analysing the roles and interactions of actors other than those directly involved, provides both additional explanations and new points of application for strategies aimed at enhancing science utilisation. We illustrate our claim by means of an analysis of decision-making on cockle fisheries and gas mining in the Dutch Wadden Sea between the 1990s and 2004. For many years, scientific studies addressing the ecological effects of these activities were not used to meaningfully contribute to decision-making. In 2004 this situation changed radically. Explanations include the role of intermediaries between scientists, stakeholders and decision-makers and new legislation. Scientists could enhance the chances of knowledge utilisation both by creating a more open science–policy interface and by reframing the policy problems at issue.     

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.     

On the use of systematic reviews to inform environmental policies

Environmental research varies in its methodological quality, degree of bias, and relevance to policy questions. Using this heterogeneous, and sometimes polarised, research to inform environmental policies can be challenging. Policy-making in the healthcare field sometimes uses systematic reviews (SRs) to tackle these issues and present a comprehensive, policy-neutral, transparent and reproducible synthesis of the evidence. However, there is less familiarity with SRs in the environmental field. The aim of this article is to: (1) summarise the process of conducting SRs, using best practice methods from the healthcare field as an example, (2) explain the rationale behind each stage of conducting a SR, and (3) examine the prospects and challenges of using SRs to inform environmental policy. We conclude that existing SR protocols from healthcare can be, and have been, applied successfully to environmental research but some adaptations could improve the process. The literature search stage could be expedited by standardising the reporting and indexing of environmental studies, equivalent to that in the healthcare field. The consistency of the study appraisal stage of SRs could be augmented by refining the existing quality assessment tools used in the healthcare field, enhancing their ability to discriminate quality and risk of bias in non-randomised studies. Ultimately, the strength of evidence within SRs on environmental topics could be improved through more widespread use of randomised controlled trials as a research method, owing to their inherently lower risk of bias when conducted according to best practice.     

国家自然科学基金“土地科学和自然资源管理”申请代码领域研究格局、热点透视与发展展望

支持基础研究是国家自然科学基金的职责使命。自然资源管理是地理科学交叉融合创新的重要领域。划分国家自然科学基金土地科学和自然资源管理申请代码领域的研究方向,分析该领域申报与资助格局,透视研究热点,提出发展展望。研究发现：2021年以来土地科学和自然资源管理领域的申报格局以交叉且偏向人文要素研究为主,交叉类研究占55%以上,人文要素为主类研究占30%,自然要素为主类研究占15%;以土地资源为对象研究占73%,以生态资源为对象占14%,以其他自然资源为对象的研究占13%。资助格局中土地资源类项目占主导,在75%以上,其他自然资源资助比例不高且资助率不稳定,在土地资源中,农用地、建设用地与土地系统是主要资助领域。为推动自然资源管理领域的健康持续发展,要创新该领域研究范式,增强基础研究属性,树立交叉融合研究典范,坚持申请代码初衷内涵。     

二十一世纪的环境科学——应对复杂环境系统的挑战

综合已有的文献表述,提出了关于环境、复杂环境系统、环境问题和环境科学等基本概念的看法.对国内外环境科学专业教育做了简要的介绍和比较,分析了复杂环境系统背景下环境科学研究面对的挑战,列举了环境科学研究中需要加强并尽快取得实质性进展的几个领域,并阐述了各领域的主要研究内容和关键科学问题.初步比较了环境科学研究在中美两国的基...     

中国环境科学理论研究及发展

主要介绍20年来中国环境科学基本理论研究及其发展。即大气和水环境科学与环境生态学和环境管理学主要理论研究及其发展。20年来中国环境科学发展甚为迅速,根据环境流体力学基本理论,研究污染物在大气和水环境中迁移扩散规律,与国际上同类研究并驾齐驱。大气环境化学研究中,对光化学烟雾和酸雨形成条件和机理;水环境化学中,对重金属形态转化和氮、磷转化规律取得许多基本结论。与国外同类研究尚有一定差距。特别污染有机化学基本理论研究甚为薄弱。环境生态学20年来做了大量研究工作,积累了许多资料,对一些巨大环境生态问题,如富营养化作用、赤潮等问题形成机理尚待突破。环境管理学成就最大,从实践中已探索出中国环境管理学研究的道路。已为1992年在巴西召开的“联合国环境与发展会议”所肯定。中国自然环境复杂,经济迅速在发展,会出现许多新的环境问题,其形成规律和防治途经有待全国环境科学研究者研究。     

From science to policy through transdisciplinary research

Is transdisciplinary research a useful means of bridging science and policy? And does transdisciplinarity go beyond informing public agencies, the private sector, or civil society of the results of research? The interacting policy cultures serve as a framework for studying transdisciplinary projects funded by two environmental research programs, the Swiss Priority Program Environment (SPPE) and the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research (MISTRA). Two types of projects are distinguished. Researchers in projects of the first type reorganize knowledge according to the (perceived) interest of the audience. Transdisciplinary research of this type requires a clearly defined audience culture. Researchers in projects of the second type initiate a co-production of knowledge during which the different policy cultures interact. Transdisciplinary research of type two is appropriate for policies that have to be developed using a collective process involving multiple policy cultures.     

同位素在环境科学研究中的应用

同位素在环境科学研究中的应用已十分广泛，本文介绍了同位素在水文地质，环境保护和监测及古气候，古环境研究中的应用原理及部分研究成果。     

Constructing collaborative communities of researchers in the environmental domain. A case study of interdisciplinary research between legal scholars and policy analysts

The article offers an analysis of the interactions between legal and policy science researchers within a European project on flood risk management using a “Policy Arrangement Approach” (PAA). While interdisciplinary research is increasingly becoming a ‘must’ in environmental governance, under what conditions is cooperation possible and desirable? Our analysis shows that the PAA is not mobilized as an interdisciplinary method, but offers a framework for researchers from different disciplines to learn to work together on a subject such as flooding, requiring interdisciplinary insights. The paper shows the steps that are progressively put in place to reach a common language and reformulate issues by benefitting from each other’s view and approaches. The article concludes by drawing attention to new means of knowledge production relating to so-called “messy” or “wicked” problems, such as environmental issues. Within this framework, interdisciplinary work is not considered to be a pre-condition for the study, but rather the result of the research process itself. The analysis draws attention to the actual (working) conditions established to create an interdisciplinary community of flooding practices by challenging disciplinary borders.