Reconciling the supply of and demand for carbon cycle science in the U.S. agricultural sector

When asking the question, “How can institutions design science policies for the benefit of decision makers?” Sarewitz and Pielke [Sarewitz, D., Pielke Jr., R.A., this issue. The neglected heart of science policy: reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environ. Sci. Policy 10] posit the idea of “reconciling supply and demand of science” as a conceptual tool for assessment of science programs. We apply the concept to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) carbon cycle science program. By evaluating the information needs of decision makers, or the “demand”, along with the supply of information by the USDA, we can ascertain where matches between supply and demand exist, and where science policies might miss opportunities. We report the results of contextual mapping and of interviews with scientists at the USDA to evaluate the production and use of current agricultural global change research, which has the stated goal of providing “optimal benefit” to decision makers on all levels. We conclude that the USDA possesses formal and informal mechanisms by which scientists evaluate the needs of users, ranging from individual producers to Congress and the President. National-level demands for carbon cycle science evolve as national and international policies are explored. Current carbon cycle science is largely derived from those discussions and thus anticipates the information needs of producers. However, without firm agricultural carbon policies, such information is currently unimportant to producers.     

Towards science in support of decision making: characterizing the supply of carbon cycle science

As concern about climate change grows, so does interest in deliberately managing the carbon cycle to reduce atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. Given the scientific and technical nature of knowledge of the carbon cycle, one would expect that carbon science would be directly of use to society in considering this objective. However, carbon science is not currently organized or conducted in such a way that it can be usable to the wide diversity of decision makers who might potentially be involved in managing the carbon cycle. This paper reviews the science policies and actors governing the production or “supply” of carbon cycle science, and suggests alternatives for enabling the supply to better meet demand.     

The opportunities and responsibility for carbon cycle science in the U.S.

Strategies to address climate change increasingly include options to manage the terrestrial and oceanic portions of the carbon cycle, whether as part of national commitments to international treaties, or as elements of entrepreneurial business plans. Carbon cycle science has much to contribute to informing these strategies, but must consider how to organize so as to best provide more “usable science.” Experience in other areas of earth systems science demonstrates that for knowledge to be more useful to decision makers and others outside the scientific community, deliberate mechanisms must be created to prioritize, conduct and disseminate research that are informed by the needs of the target audience. Carbon cycle science has not yet explored operating in this more deliberate mode. Carbon management thus presents an opportunity for some portion of carbon cycle research to become more directly relevant to societal decision-making through innovative ways of organizing research and operating programs.     

Community knowledge in environmental health science: co-producing policy expertise

As lay publics demand a greater role in the environmental and health decision-making that impacts their lives, policy makers are being forced to find new ways of understanding and incorporating the expertise of professionals with the contextual intelligence that community residents possess. This paper highlights how co-producing science policy, where technical issues are not divorced from their social setting and a plurality of participants engage in everything from problem setting to decision-making, can contribute to more scientifically legitimate and publicly accountable decisions. Through a detailed case study utilizing participant observation, ethnographic field work, semi-structured interviews, and reviews of original documents, this paper highlights how residents in a low income, Latino immigrant neighborhood in New York City organized their knowledge to participate in and significantly alter a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency exposure assessment. This paper reveals both the contributions and limits of local knowledge in environmental health governance and how the co-production framework can contribute to more technically credible science and democratically accountable policy.     

Salmon policy: science,society, restoration,and reality

Salmon policy in the Pacific Northwest illustrates a class of contentious, socially wrenching issues that are becoming increasingly common in the western United States as demands increase for limited ecological resources. Many Pacific salmon “stocks” (a term used in fisheries management for a group of interbreeding individuals that is roughly equivalent to “population”) have declined and some have been extirpated. The salmon “problem” is one of the most vexing public policy challenges in natural resource management. Even with complete scientific knowledge — and scientific knowledge is far from complete or certain — it would be a challenging policy problem. The salmon decline issue is often defined simplistically as a watershed management problem, in part because changes in watersheds are highly visible and often occur on public or corporate lands where individuals and organizations often have direct input to decision making. Yet, changes in climate and ocean conditions, for example, occur frequently and such changes have a major influence on salmon abundance. The scientific challenges are great, but the more difficult — and critical — aspect of the debate concerns policies and decisions affecting everyone, including those involved in rural enterprises (especially farming and logging); manufacturing and construction; electricity generation (including hydro, fossil fuel, and nuclear); national defense; urban development; transportation (including road, rail, air, and water). The debate also involves competing personal rights and freedoms; the prerogatives and roles of local, state, and federal government and Indian tribes; policies on human population level, reproduction, emigration, and immigration; and the future of fishing (commercial, recreational, and Indian). The salmon policy conundrum is characterized by: (1) nearly everyone claims to support maintaining wild salmon runs; (2) many competing societal priorities exist, many of which are partially or wholly mutually exclusive; (3) the region’s rapidly growing human population creates increasing pressures on all natural resources (including salmon and their habitats); (4) policy stances in the salmon debate are solidly entrenched; (5) society expects salmon experts to help solve the salmon problem; (6) each of the many sides of the political debate over the future of salmon use salmon experts and scientific “facts” to bolster its argument; (7) it has proved to be nearly impossible for salmon scientists to avoid being categorized as supporting a particular policy position; and (8) many advocates of policy positions couch their positions in scientific terms rather than value-based preferences. Although far from indisputable, I conclude that over the next century and allowing for considerable year-to-year and decade-to-decade variation, many, perhaps most, stocks of wild salmon in the Pacific Northwest likely will remain at their current low levels or continue to decline in spite of costly protection and restoration efforts.     

New science for global sustainability? The institutionalisation of knowledge co-production in Future Earth

In the context of complex and unprecedented issues of global change, calls for new modes of knowledge production that are better equipped to address urgent challenges of global sustainability are increasingly frequent. This paper presents a case study of the new major research programme “Future Earth”, which aims to bring ‘research for global sustainability’ to the mainstream of global change research. A core principle of Future Earth is the co-production of knowledge with extra-scientific actors. In studying how the principle of co-production becomes institutionalised in the emerging structure of Future Earth, this paper points to the existence of three distinct rationales (logics) on the purpose and practice of co-production. Co-production is understood as a way to enhance scientific accountability to society (‘logic of accountability’), to ensure the implementation of scientific knowledge in society (‘logic of impact’), and to include the knowledge, perspectives and experiences of extra-scientific actors in scientific knowledge production (‘logic of humility’). This heterogeneous conception of knowledge co-production provides helpful ambiguity allowing actors with different perspectives on science and its role in society to engage in Future Earth. However, in the process of designing an institutional structure for Future Earth tensions between the different logics of co-production become apparent. This research shows how logics of accountability and impact are prominent in shaping the development of Future Earth. The paper concludes by pointing to an essential tension between being inclusive and transformative when it comes to institutionalising new modes of knowledge production in large research programmes.     

Pure science or policy involvement? Ambiguous boundary-work for Swedish carbon cycle science

In theory, the interaction between the worlds of environmental science and policy may seem straightforward. From a realm outside politics and power, scientists provide relevant knowledge about nature upon which informed policy decisions could be based. However, in reality this linear model tends to be replaced by a much more complex relationship where the distinction between facts and values, knowledge and interests is less clear cut. In this paper, I explore links between science, policy and power through an interview study conducted with Swedish carbon cycle scientists and government negotiators to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Drawing on a co-production model of science–policy interplay this paper addresses the implications of a mutually constitutive relationship between carbon cycle science and climate policy.     

Evaluating the impact of ecosystem service assessments on decision-makers

Ecosystem services support human livelihoods and economies but are declining in many places. Ecosystem service assessments estimate the benefits that nature provides to people and can be used to evaluate trade-offs in impacts and changes resulting from land use decisions. Such assessments can affect the capacity of decision-makers to make sustainable land use decisions, but the actual impact of such projects on decision-maker attitudes is almost entirely unstudied. We addressed this knowledge gap by evaluating the impact of an ecosystem service assessment on decision-makers in California. We asked how decision-makers’ understanding of and attitudes about ecosystem services changed “pre-” and “post-” assessments and between treatment groups where ecosystem services were assessed and a comparison group where ecosystem services were not assessed. Mixed methods included regression models to estimate the treatment effect of the assessment (using a difference-in-differences approach), as well as interviews and direct observations to further understand how decision-makers responded to the assessment. Regression results showed small increases relative to the comparison group in decision-maker understanding of ecosystem services and perceived relevance of ecosystem services to their work. Interviews confirmed that decision-makers learned specific ways that they could use ecosystem services in conservation and development decisions and believed that doing so would improve outcomes. These results demonstrate how ecosystem services assessments can facilitate a conceptual shift in the minds of decision-makers, which is a necessary ingredient for subsequent policy impact. Impact evaluation studies of this type − that estimate a counterfactual and explore rival explanations for observed outcomes − are needed to truly understand whether ecosystem service projects impact decision-makers and, ultimately, produce outcomes for environmental and human well-being.     

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.     

Evaluating the best available social science for natural resource management decision-making

Increasing recognition of the human dimensions of natural resource management issues, and of social and ecological sustainability and resilience as being inter-related, highlights the importance of applying social science to natural resource management decision-making. Moreover, a number of laws and regulations require natural resource management agencies to consider the “best available science” (BAS) when making decisions, including social science. Yet rarely do these laws and regulations define or identify standards for BAS, and those who have tried to fill the gap have done so from the standpoint of best available natural science. This paper proposes evaluative criteria for best available social science (BASS), explaining why a broader set of criteria than those used for natural science is needed. Although the natural and social sciences share many of the same evaluative criteria for BAS, they also exhibit some differences, especially where qualitative social science is concerned. Thus we argue that the evaluative criteria for BAS should expand to include those associated with diverse social science disciplines, particularly the qualitative social sciences. We provide one example from the USA of how a federal agency − the U.S. Forest Service − has attempted to incorporate BASS in responding to its BAS mandate associated with the national forest planning process, drawing on different types of scientific information and in light of these criteria. Greater attention to including BASS in natural resource management decision-making can contribute to better, more equitable, and more defensible management decisions and policies.     

The Norwegian Red List between science and policy

This article explores how science and policy interact using the Norwegian Red List 2006 as a case example. The paper draws on concepts from the sociology of science, interviews with key informants, as well as analysis of a Norwegian newspaper debate about a controversial conservation issue.The paper highlights how the relationship between science and policy can best be described as an interaction rather than simply a transmission of knowledge from one to the other. In addition, the study focuses on the active construction and communication of the science–policy relationship. Regulators, scientists and NGOs, it is argued, strategically define the relationship between science and policy as more straightforward than it really is.The paper suggests that the shaping, simplification and communication of scientific knowledge is best understood as a social process that occurs in three stages, which may overlap to varying degrees. The shaping of scientific knowledge for policy occurs first within the scientific domain. The shaping, we suggest, is the result of both the broader institutional context and a more specific micro-level social context, but it is also the outcome of requirements inherent in the genre of science communication. In the second stage, regulators and actors in the public debate redefine and simplify scientific knowledge to make it better suited to the policy arena. In the final stage, scientists, regulators and NGOs actively seek to define science as objectively true, and independent of the policy arena. By doing so, they are able to strengthen their arguments, regardless of their position on particular issues. But they also contribute to shrouding the social nature of scientific production.     

Preparing for the European Thematic Strategy on air pollution: at the interface between science and policy

In 2005 the European Commission launched a Thematic Strategy on air pollution for the European Union. We use an analytical framework that relates credibility, legitimacy and relevance of assessments to “boundary work” between science and policy to address the following questions: (1) how did experts, stakeholders and policy makers in the process distribute roles and tasks between them and how did they work together and (2) to what extent and in what way did this constitute credibility, legitimacy and relevance of the assessment? We conclude that the European Commission took great effort to organise a transparent assessment process based on scientific knowledge and with extensive involvement of stakeholders and Member States. Bilateral consultations, review of integrated assessment models, and transparency and documentation of integrated assessment work played an important role in enhancing credibility, legitimacy and relevance for the Member States. On the other hand, some industry groups were not satisfied with their role as stakeholders instead of experts. However the assessment established a sufficient degree of credibility, legitimacy and relevance with the majority of the actors involved to have an impact on the actual policy process.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Adaptive management intentions with a reality of evaluation: Getting science back into policy

In Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin water reform has been contentious as government attempts to reconcile historical over allocation of water to irrigation with the use of water for environmental outcomes. However, in many aspects, scientific knowledge of the environment is either imperfect, incomplete or environmental responses are unpredictable, with this uncertainty preventing definitive policy and closure of political arguments. In response to uncertainty and knowledge gaps, adaptive management has been written into the legislation, along with provisions for periodic evaluation.This research ascertains how adaptive management is understood by policy makers, with this indicative of future implementation of adaptive management. The way in which adaptive management is constructed by policy makers is determined through legislation, public speeches, government reports and semi-structured interviews. The findings demonstrate that adaptive management has been subsumed by evaluation. The loss of adaptive management as a distinct concept is seen as a loss of science and discovery from the policy process, with the dominance of evaluation discussed as limiting innovation and reinforcing a ‘muddling through’ of policy.     

Policy options in a worst case climate change world

Climatic changes more rapid and extreme than assessed by the IPCC cannot be excluded, because of the possibility of positive earth system feedbacks and thresholds. Do today’s policy makers have to take these into account, and if so, are the options different from those considered today? The paper briefly summarizes the types of extreme climatic changes noted in the literature and then evaluates the options to address them in a what-if manner. Different from other studies, which usually look at only one type of measure, we consider a broader portfolio of options: drastic emissions reduction programmes, drawing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere (“carbon dioxide removal”), “emergency cooling” through influencing the radiative balance of the atmosphere (“solar radiation management”), and finally adaptation beyond the options considered seriously today. Politics will have to decide on the choice or mix of “emergency” measures, but research can ensure that such decisions are based on the best scientific information. If through concerted international efforts to mitigate greenhouse emissions low stabilization levels could be reached, such decisions may never have to be made. However, research in support of some form of a “plan B” is now warranted, focusing on those options that have the most positive ratio between potential effectiveness and feasibility on the one hand, and environmental and political risks on the other hand. Such plan should not be limited to one set of options such as geo-engineering and should explicitly take into account not only the relationships between the options but also the wide variety in characteristics of the individual options in terms of effectiveness, feasibility, environmental risks, and political implications.     

Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature

Policy makers around the world are calling for the production and diffusion of more useful information for environmental decision-making. Ideally, useful information expands alternatives, clarifies choice and enables policy makers to achieve desired outcomes. Decision makers, however, often lack the useful information needed for good decision-making. By concentrating efforts on increasing the supply of scientific information, scientists may not be producing information considered relevant and useful by decision makers, and may simply be producing too much of the wrong kind of information. Users may have specific information needs that go unmet, or may not be aware of the existence of potentially useful information. This paper defines the practical problem of reconciling the supply of scientific information with users’ demands so that scientists produce information that decision makers need and use in policy decisions. Literature from a variety of disciplines and topics is reviewed to: explain the goals of reconciling the supply and demand of scientific information; define what constitutes useful information; explore lessons learned from experience and describe the characteristics and conditioning factors that shaped those experiences; and identify various alternative strategies and processes that forge stronger science policy linkages. The paper concludes with recommendations for future research.     

The influence of science on Canada's foreign policy on persistent organic pollutants (1985–2001)

The role of science in environmental foreign policymaking has received little attention in the international environmental politics literature, and systematic, in-depth case studies of the influence of science on environmental foreign policy with respect to persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are entirely missing. We present a case study of the influence of science on Canada's foreign policy on POPs from the discovery of the transboundary nature of the POPs problem around 1985 to the signing of the United Nations Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants in 2001. Influence was analyzed in terms of a knowledge–action methodology that focused on the types of scientific knowledge and the actions taken by scientists that were influential. Data were collected through interviews and extensive document analysis. We conclude that, while individual knowledge types and actions were influential during various periods (single-factor explanations), it was an increasingly layered and integrated “package” of knowledge types and actions, with human health impacts as its touchstone and partnering between scientists and non-scientists as its watchword, that propelled and sustained Canada's foreign policy on the POPs issue.