Scientist and stakeholder perspectives of transdisciplinary research: Early attitudes,expectations, and tensions

Transdisciplinary approaches are becoming increasingly adopted as a way to research complex socio-environmental problems. Conceptually, transdisciplinarity aims to foster meaningful knowledge co-production through integrative and participatory processes that bring together diverse actors, disciplines, and knowledge bases. In practice, transdisciplinarity is more ambiguous. While there is a growing body of literature on such approaches, there remains no widely-accepted definition, concrete framework, or empirical strategy for how to carry out a transdisciplinary project. We propose that this lack of explicit structure and entrenched meaning leaves space for transdisciplinary approaches to be shaped by the evolving network of participating scientists and stakeholders, according to their perspectives of the approach and what it embodies. Here, we examine the perspectives of a diverse group of actors (n = 42) embarking on a 10-year transdisciplinary research project focused on building resilience to natural hazards and disasters in New Zealand. We present the findings of qualitative surveys and group interviews that investigate stakeholders’ and scientists’ early perspectives of transdisciplinary, or co-created, research. The study represents the first stage of longitudinal research that will continue over the course of the project. Results show that early actors in the project share an overall consistent understanding of co-created research. Participants described a process that integrated diverse people and knowledge; created benefits on both a social and personal level; fostered clear, two-way dialogue; and overcame pragmatic and intrinsic challenges. Collectively, participants agreed with adopting transdisciplinary approaches to natural hazard, risk, and resilience research, with stakeholders showing a stronger degree of agreement than scientists. While attitudes towards transdisciplinarity were overall positive, a number of underlying conflicts emerged in regards to carrying out new modes of knowledge production within traditional social and institutional structures. These conflicts result in a tension that is felt by actors involved in transdisciplinary projects early on, and in some cases, influences perception of their ability to fully participate in such an approach. Evaluating actor perspectives and expectations early in the transdisciplinary process can give insight into how attitudes, expectations, and conflicts might shape transdisciplinary efforts, and can provide relevant parameters for assessing change over time.     

Transdisciplinary sustainability research beyond engagement models: Toward adventures in relevance

Transdisciplinary models of research are increasingly upheld as the gold standard of collaborative science to solve complex social and environmental problems, promising to ‘close the gap’ between knowledge and action, inject science with greater accountability, democratic participation, and include stakeholders as practitioners of research. Absent in transdisciplinary models are more ‘risky’ questions of relevance, subject positionality, and the lived encounters between researchers and stakeholders. Who are the ‘holders’ and who determines the ‘stakes’? This article examines how notions of roles, typologies, and effectiveness constrain relationships between researchers and stakeholders; and document the ways in which research teams, shot through with these tensions, in turn develop new roles, typologies, and markers of ‘success’. In drawing on recent philosophical scholarship on social science practices, we argue that relevance in transdisciplinary research cannot rest on typologies, logics, and templates of collaboration in which effectiveness is determined in advance. The growing business of team science and its predictive aspirations risk rendering transdisciplinary research irrelevant if its practitioners do not loosen the grip on realist perspectives on stakeholder roles, research outcomes, and metrics of success. Instead, we argue for the development of skills for paying attention to the categories, friction, and tensions that are provoked by collaborative interactions, discourses, and techniques with stakeholders. Environmental researchers must learn to be responsive to the durable existence of stakeholders and seek to develop the means to reveal what matters, and therefore is relevant, to them.     

Framework for participative reflection on the accomplishment of transdisciplinary research programs

In response to the increasingly complex social–ecological issues facing society, there is a growing trend to conduct environmental research in large collaborative programs. This approach is described as transdisciplinary research as it transcends formal disciplinary boundaries, explicitly acknowledges that many different perspectives are relevant to the resolution of complex problems, and actively involves the users of research. This poses challenges for the evaluation of “impact” as any evaluation process must take into consideration the different expectations, values, culture, language and reward structures of the main participating groups, the funders, researchers and end users. How can these participating groups learn about the progress of a transdisciplinary research program in a way that is purposeful and structured, continues through the life of the program, and includes explicit feedback mechanisms that facilitate adaptation during the course of the program? This paper presents a framework for co-reflecting on the accomplishment of transdisciplinary research programs. The framework incorporates the perspectives of funders, researchers and users, and recognizes that while they place different emphasis on measures of achievement such as efficiency, rigor and relevance, ultimate accomplishment in terms of translating knowledge into practice requires that the needs and expectations of all three groups are adequately addressed. What emerges from the framework is the importance of early investment in processes, behaviors and relationships that foster social learning and the co-production of the knowledge and understanding that are required to ensure relevance; while maintaining emphasis in the traditional areas of formally testing evidence and mentoring young researchers to ensure rigor and build confidence and capacity in transdisciplinary approaches.     

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.     

Tidal river management in the south west Ganges-Brahmaputra delta in Bangladesh: Moving towards a transdisciplinary approach?

Due to both natural and anthropogenic forces, the south west part of the Ganges-Brahmaputra coastal area is facing diverse problems such as waterlogging, salinity, and loss of biodiversity. In order to address these challenges, local people have identified ‘tidal river management (TRM)’ as a comprehensive approach for sustainably managing this part of the Ganges-Brahmaputra Basin. However, due to institutional limitations, mismanagement and social conflicts, application of the TRM approach is not straightforward. In order to identify existing implementation barriers and to effectively apply the TRM approach, a transdisciplinary approach is examined for its potential to inform the re-shaping of TRM governing values and actions. It is argued that a thorough application of a transdisciplinary framework is essential, supported by the active involvement of key agencies and local stakeholders. The proposed transdisciplinary framework can potentially be applied to TRM projects for solving waterlogging and associated problems in order to achieve greater sustainability of the area.     

How the DPSIR framework can be used for structuring problems and facilitating empirical research in coastal systems

As pressures on coastal zones mount, there is a growing need for frameworks that can be used to conceptualize complex sustainability challenges and help organize research that increases understand about interacting ecological and societal processes, predicts change, and supports the management, persistence, and resilience of coastal systems. The Driver–Pressure–State–Impact–Response (DPSIR) framework is one such approach that has been adopted in some coastal zones around the world. Although the application of the DPSIR framework has considerable potential to bridge the gap between scientific disciplines and link science to coastal policy and management, current applications of DPSIR in coastal environments have been limited and new innovations in the application of the DPSIR model are needed. We conducted a structured review of literature on the DPSIR framework as applied to the function, process and components of complex coastal systems. Our specific focus was on how the DPSIR framework has been used as a tool to organize sophisticated empirical scientific research, support transdisciplinary knowledge at a level appropriate for building understanding about coastal systems, and how adopting a DPSIR approach can help stakeholders to articulate and structure challenges in coastal systems and use the framework to support policy and management outcomes. The review revealed that DPSIR models of coastal systems have been largely used to support and develop conceptual understanding of coastal social–ecological systems and to identify drivers and pressures in the coastal realm. A limited number of studies have used DPSIR as a starting point for semi-quantitative or quantitative analyses, although our review highlights the continued need for, and potential of, transformative quantitative analyses and transdisciplinary applications of the DPSIR framework. The DPSIR models we reviewed were predominantly single sector, encompassing ecological or biophysical factors or focusing primarily on socio-cultural dimensions rather than full integration of both types of information. Only in eight of 24 shortlisted articles did researchers actively engage decision-makers or citizens in their research: given the potential opportunity for using DPSIR as a tool to successfully engage policy-makers and stakeholders, it appears that the DPSIR framework has been under-utilized in this regard.     

Climate change and transdisciplinary science: Problematizing the integration imperative

In this article we critically examine the ‘integration imperative’ in transdisciplinary environmental science and build on social constructivist and political theories to suggest alternative approaches of knowledge co-production in transdisciplinary settings. Our argument builds upon a body of literature in social studies of science to cull insights about knowledge co-production, social learning, and the ecology of team science, particularly as it relates to climate change adaptation. Couched in this transdisciplinary literature, we demonstrate, is the assumption that integration necessarily can and should be a regulative ideal. We critique this assumption by examining the ‘messy’ politics of achieving consensus among radically different, and sometimes irreconcilable, ways of knowing. We argue that the integration imperative conceals the friction, antagonism, and power inherent in knowledge co-production, which in turn can exclude innovative and experimental ways of understanding and adapting to climate change. By way of conclusion, the final section explores three alternative models of knowledge co-production – triangulation, the multiple evidence-based approach, and scenario building – and illustrates their application in the context of transdisciplinary research in climate change adaptation in the arctic, focusing on alternative means of cross-boundary engagement with indigenous ways of knowing.     

Informal knowledge processes: the underpinning for sustainability outcomes in EIA?

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was originally tailored for restructuring rules and values regarding environmental protection, through interdisciplinary work. EIA has developed as a tool for decision-making for the implementation of projects which potentially pose significant environmental impacts. This paper reviews the sustainability and interdisciplinarity assumptions inherent in EIA. It illustrates through a case study of a proposed landfill extension in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, that these principles can arise more from informal knowledge processes than from legal ones. It can be shown that interdisciplinarity is often misunderstood as multidisciplinarity or simple knowledge clustering, and sustainability has no common definition amongst EIA practitioners, but that there predominates an understanding which delivers weak sustainability, driven primarily by social and economic goals. The conclusion is that EIA cannot achieve the original vision set out in the world's first legislation adopted in 1970 unless a learning-organization approach is taken whereby: the critical role of informal knowledge is recognized; informal knowledge is properly managed by EIA teams to engender a common understanding of sustainable development goals; interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary working practices are adopted.     

Implementation-oriented and transformative research—Lessons from a project on conservation and sustainable use of forest resources in Ethiopia

This article draws lessons from a seven-year project on conservation and use of remaining coffee forests in the highlands of South-west Ethiopia. The project investigated the genetic diversity of Coffea arabica in its place of origin as well as economic perspectives of quality coffee marketing. With initially broad multidisciplinary natural and social sciences research a basis was laid for a second phase of praxis and implementation-oriented research in the same region.As a key innovative approach an NGO was established to take over all project management and implementation-oriented work in Ethiopia at the beginning of the second phase. This initiative helped decisively to solve the kind of problems identified in RESCUE (2012): ownership of results developed within R&D, the often missing mandate for science to actively contribute to solutions ‘on the ground’, and problems of cultural and social unsuitability and misunderstanding, which often are at the core of the problem when solutions from scientists are expected.The NGO operated as an intermediary between the involved scientists and other stakeholders from the coffee industry as well as from public administration and the Ethiopian polity. Its overall target was to contribute toward establishment of a biosphere reserve following the UNESCO MAB scheme and to use this scheme for the conservation and use of the remaining Ethiopian coffee forests. This target was achieved: the biosphere reserve has been accepted and accredited by UNESCO and is in operation. In addition, quality coffee from the development zones of the biosphere reserve is being sold on local markets in Yayu, SW Ethiopia.There are important lessons for the future of transdisciplinary and transformative sustainability science that can be drawn from this experience. These lessons concern concrete challenges and chances of research and development geared toward sustainable development:

• •Working with implementation-targets as project organizing elements,
• •communication and transfer of responsibility to involved stakeholders,
• •challenges for praxis-oriented syntheses from research results,
• •practical challenges of management and coordination for transdisciplinary projects, as well as.
• •chances for long-term sustainability and use of research and implementation work.

These lessons are described in this article with the overall intention to draw conclusions and to make them more widely available for scientists and project coordinators working in transdisciplinary projects that aim to contribute toward (more) sustainable development.     

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.     

Understanding interactive knowledge development in coastal projects

Various concepts have been developed that refer to interactive modes of knowledge production. Examples such as Mode 2 knowledge and post-normal science highlight the involvement of researchers, decision makers and other societal actors, in order to develop relevant knowledge for decision making. Existing research into such modes of knowledge development focuses on the interfaces between science, policy, and society. This paper introduces a conceptual framework for the connection between interactive knowledge development and a project environment. The aim of this paper is to improve the understanding of interactive knowledge development in a project environment, by presenting a case study of interactive knowledge development in a coastal project. Coastal projects intend to develop solutions in the coastal zone: a dynamic and fast changing environment. This paper adapts the policy arrangement approach to study interactive knowledge development longitudinally in the Texel dike reinforcement project. Eight mechanisms are derived that affect and explain the process of interactive knowledge development in this case. The mechanisms indicate how interactive knowledge development may result in more relevant knowledge and broadly accepted solutions.     

Governing cities reflexively—The biocultural diversity concept as an alternative to ecosystem services

With the aim to embed ecology more forcefully into decision-making, the concept of Ecosystems Services (ES) has gained significant ground among policy-makers and researchers. The increasing recognition of the importance of urban green areas for the quality of life in growing cities has led proponents of ES approaches to argue for an uptake of the approach in urban environmental decision-making. However, the ES approach has been criticized for standing too much at a distance from local communities and their day-to-day practices and for insufficiently taking into account the potential trade-offs between different qualities or preferences. In this paper we argue that other concepts, doing other work, need to be added to the debate about futures of urban governance and research. Biocultural diversity is suggested as one such alternative concept. By its emphasis on diversity, biocultural diversity can account for the many ways in which people live with green areas in the urban landscape, acknowledges the different knowledges this involves, and can reveal conflicts and ambivalence that may be at stake. This sets up for a reflexive, transdisciplinary research process that questions and contextualizes knowledge and worldviews including those of researchers. A reflexive, transdisciplinary research, then, is a productive catalyst for forms of reflexive urban governance that recognise and respond to this diversity and provide platforms for contestation.     

Social capital accumulation and the role of the researcher: An example of a transdisciplinary visioning process for the future of agriculture in Europe

Transdisciplinarity is a demanding paradigm, considered by many in the literature as the way to move forward in terms of science and policy integration. In this paper we present the example of a tailored transdisciplinary (TD) process to tackle a key topic of European policy – the future of agriculture at the regional level. This phased process was followed in seven regions across Europe and involved the co-construction of future visions, engaging both researchers and a range of relevant stakeholders. This paper presents results based on a critical reflection made by researchers and stakeholders in Portugal and Scotland, throughout the participatory process. These results provide insights into the roles and responsibilities of researchers and stakeholders in TD processes. One main conclusion is that accumulated social capital can be essential to initiate and maintain a TD process, and requires a commitment between the research community and the surrounding society. Our analysis demonstrates the challenges of implementing a TD process within the temporal frame/boundaries of a research project and the added value of having transdisciplinarity as part of the long term strategy of a research group, not just one part of a specific project. Not acknowledging this may lead to disappointment and fatigue amongst those connecting with researchers. We also found that researchers position themselves differently in a TD process depending on their soft skills, experience and knowledge about transdisciplinarity; hence we call attention to the need to work more explicitly with these skills in the research environment and to present this concept in an early stage of researcher training, if better transdisciplinarity is to be achieved.     

Concept of technical support to science–policy interfacing with respect to the implementation of the European water framework directive

In the implementation of water policies, such as the European water framework directive (WFD), good interaction between policy development and implementation, and the science is of crucial importance. This requires new knowledge and insights to be taken into account in the policy design and development. It also requires the results of Research and Technology Development (RTD) projects, including ICT decision supporting instruments such as tools and models, to be transferred towards policy implementation. These science–policy interrelationships are, however, at this moment not as efficient as it should/could be. This is due to limited operational links with water managers in many water-related RTD projects, such that the needs of policy makers are not taken into account at a sufficient level. Due to this and other reasons, newly developed tools from the research community most often insufficiently transfer to operational use by water managers. Better research integration consequently is required at the various stages of policy developments (identification, design, implementation and review).Within the framework of the Harmoni-CA project for the European Commission, the development of a science–policy interfacing instrument is initiated in order to meet the above-mentioned science–policy gap problems [Quevauviller, Ph., Balabanis, P., Fragakis, C., Weydert, M., Oliver, M., Kaschl, A., Arnold, G., Kroll, A., Galbiati, L., Zaldivar, J.M., Bidoglio, G., 2005. Science–policy integration needs in support of the implementation of the EU water framework directive. Env. Sci. Policy 8 (3), 203–211; Arnold G.E., de Lange, W.J., Blind, M.W., 2005. The Conserted Action Harmoni-CA facilitating the dialogue and bridging the gap between research and WFD implementation. Env. Sci. Policy 8 (3), 213–218]. This paper describes a concept developed by the authors, on how the science–policy interfacing technically can be supported through the bi-directional linking of various types of information sources identified as potential means for enhancing the interfacing mechanism. The information sources identified are policy implementation tasks (at the policy side), and ICT tools, methodologies and guidances (as results of RTD projects). Experiences on the application of RTD results in policy implementation tasks are one of the glue elements between these information sources in combination with activity-related and contextual keywords.     

Governance of complex environmental situations through social learning: a synthesis of SLIM's lessons for research,policy and practice

This synthesis of the SLIM project findings deals with the development and deployment of knowledge and research that is useful for actions that transform at socially and ecologically meaningful scales. A diagnostic framework (DF) is elaborated that aims to transform the findings into a tool that could bring stakeholders, in other contexts, to understand better their own roles in complex natural resource management situations. The DF invites the user to engage in successive stages of comprehension by exploring: what are complex situations of change about? What are the main components involved? Why are these components important? How do they influence what we know and how we act? What could be our role in changing the situation? We identify five ‘variables’ that together can account systemically for transformation processes that are constituted in social learning and concerted actions. We show how the DF may be used in situations of complexity and uncertainty by researchers, acting variously as observer, facilitator or co-researcher, and how it may help to guide research practice. We conclude by consolidating key messages about the relationship between knowledge, research, and policy and the main implications for water managers of being open to social learning processes.     

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.     

Strengthening the science–policy interface: experiences from a European Thematic Network on Air Pollution and Health (AIRNET)

Thematic Network projects are increasingly viewed as promising mechanisms for improving the link between science and policy, particularly in light of further improving air quality that will require substantial financial investments. As the literature identifying principles or guidelines for planning and implementing such network projects is limited, this paper describes the experience of the European Commission (Directorate General Research) funded Thematic Network on Air Pollution and Health (AIRNET). In its 3-year duration (2002–2004), AIRNET used a variety of activities (international conferences, national network days, website, air pollution project inventory, database of air pollution research, newsletters, multi-disciplinary work groups) to increase the range of stakeholders involved so that research findings could be better integrated, communicated and interpreted to support policy. Despite the limitations of this type of project and the challenge of improving the communication between scientists and policy makers, the activities of the network have contributed to the development of a multi-disciplinary air pollution and health network in Europe with wide stakeholder involvement. The AIRNET experience indicates that Thematic Networks do not develop spontaneously and that a variety of impulses are needed to link the different players. Communication is key and should be considered as a joint responsibility of all parties involved—including scientists, policymakers, health care professionals and representatives from industry and non-governmental organisations.     

The water-energy-food nexus: Trade-offs,thresholds and transdisciplinary approaches to sustainable development

Global challenges have exacerbated a search for solutions to poverty and environmental degradation. Integration it was argued would help address the twin challenge. Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) was supposed to be that magic bullet and was embraced by scientists because of the clinical efficiency with which it argued for integrated analysis of sectors and resources and of systems and scale conditions. This paper argues that effective implementation of the Water-Energy-Food (WEF) Nexus can be supported by robust science. The corollary that robust science automatically leads to effective implementation is not always known to be true. The nexus approach sheds light on the challenges of implementation by introducing concepts of trade-offs and thresholds and consequently emphasizes the importance of transdisciplinary approaches to sustainable development. This paper reviews the results of recent research to offer tentative answers to the following questions: (a) Why is the governance dimension important to undertake an integrated analysis of water-energy-food challenges? (b) What does the nexus approach connote in normative and institutional terms? (c) What does implementation mean in nexus terms? (d) How can we establish if the nexus approach is an improvement over business as usual? and (e) What tools are available that would enable translation of results of scientific research to create an evidence base that would enable decision makers to act in support of sustainable development?     

Evidence,politics and power in public policy for the environment

Despite a recent emphasis on ‘evidence based policy’ accompanied by an abundance of ‘green’ policy instruments, experience from the European Union and OECD countries shows that decisions which truly aim to balance environmental considerations with social and economic ones remain thin on the ground. Moreover, many policies seem to fall short of, or directly contradict what the available ‘evidence’ suggests is required. This is a synthesis paper bringing together literature from the fields of political science, geography, sociology and science and technology studies to outline some of the obscurities relating to the use of scientific evidence in environmental decision-making. In this paper, we suggest that an exploration of three key inter-related issues is necessary to develop a richer understanding of why evidence and policy interact as they do. These are the nature of evidence itself; the normative, moral or ethical ‘politics’ of policy-making; and the operation of power in the policy process. Our primary goal is to bring various literatures together to better conceptualise the evidence–policy relationship. In so doing, we outline specific challenges for knowledge producers who set research priorities, and design and direct research projects. We also highlight significant implications for policy decision-making processes.     

Heterogeneity of experts’ opinion regarding opportunities and challenges of tackling deforestation in the tropics: a Q methodology application

Making the concept of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) ready to be a mechanism to combat tropical deforestation and associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by compensating developing countries for income foregone in reducing their rates of deforestation, requires solutions for outstanding controversies. Existing opinions on REDD+ vary greatly. By using the Q-method as part of an action research approach, this paper investigates experts’ attitudes towards REDD+. Based on their responses to 41 statements, four attitudinal groups were identified, characterized as pragmatists, sceptics, conventionalists and optimists. Opinions between groups differed as to the level of application, credibility, eligibility, economic effectiveness, and public acceptability of REDD+ policy instruments. Three of the four groups were supportive of international REDD+ type policy interventions, but there was disagreement on the more concrete design issues of REDD+ projects, such as the allocation of responsibilities, the distribution of burdens and benefits, and whether or not co-benefits could be expected, or should be required. As the potential of REDD+ is shaped not only by international climate policy but also by national and regional policies and stakeholder perceptions, this paper suggests that participatory forms of decision-making may help to develop tailor-made solutions that are supported by the many different actors that are necessarily involved in REDD+ projects.