Public ecology: an environmental science and policy for global society

Public ecology exists at the interface of science and policy. Public ecology is an approach to environmental inquiry and decision making that does not expect scientific knowledge to be perfect or complete. Rather, public ecology requires that science be produced in collaboration with a wide variety of stakeholders in order to construct a body of knowledge that will reflect the pluralist and pragmatic context of its use (decision context), while continuing to maintain the rigor and accountability that earns scientific knowledge its privileged status in contemporary society. As such, public ecology entails both process and content. The process is that of a post-modern scientific method: a process that values the participation of extended peer communities composed of a diversity of research specialists, professional policy-makers, concerned citizens and a variety of other stakeholders. The content of public ecology is a biocultural knowledge of dynamic human ecosystems that directly relates to and results from the participatory, democratic processes that distinguish public ecology as a citizen science. The primary goal of public ecology is to build common ground among competing beliefs and values for the environment. The purpose of this paper is to help unify and establish public ecology as a distinctive approach to environmental science and policy in global society.     

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.     

“熟人社会”农村与“原子化”农村中的生猪养殖废弃物能源化利用——博弈、仿真与现实检验

以生猪粪便制沼气为例,应用博弈论和仿真方法,探究了“熟人社会”农村和“原子化”农村中养猪户的行为演化规律和稳定策略。进而以规模养猪户微观数据为基础,应用计量经济学研究方法,对博弈和仿真结果进行了检验。研究表明：“地方性共识”引致的隐性激励是维系“熟人社会”农村生猪养殖废弃物能源化利用集体行动的重要机制。而在“原子化”农村中,由于人情机制与礼俗机制的衰弱,“地方性共识”近乎消失殆尽,养猪户倾向于成为严格的机会主义者,从而导致生猪养殖废弃物能源化利用集体行动举步维艰。据此,在强化法律法规、政策方针等正式制度建设的同时,还应推动“地方性共识”建设,以乡村文化振兴助推乡村生态振兴。     

Panarchy and community resilience: Sustainability science and policy implications

How does the resilience concept of nested relationships (panarchy) contribute to sustainability science and policy? Resilience at a particular level of organization, the community level in our case, is influenced by internal processes at that level. But it is also impacted by actions at lower levels of organization (individuals, households), and by drivers of change originating at higher levels (national level policies, globalized market forces). We focus on community level social-ecological systems, looking upwards and downwards from there. Our objective is to explore the connections of the community to other levels, the ways in which community resilience is impacted, and the implications of this for sustainability. Conventional disciplines specialize at different levels, a barrier to investigating multi-level interactions. Use of the panarchy concept helps contribute to the interdisciplinary understanding of resilience at the community (and other levels) by drawing attention to cross-scale relationships. From the effect of individual leadership to the implication of pandemics that move swiftly across levels, examples illustrate a diversity of ways in which community resilience is shaped in a multi-level world.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The science and politics of co-benefits in climate policy

The co-benefits concept implies a ‘win–win’ strategy to address two or more goals with a single policy measure. There is much scholarly and policy attention paid to this concept as a way to avoid making trade-offs between developmental and environmental issues. However, there is no review paper that reviews the nature, evolution, strengths and limits of the co-benefits concept in relation to climate change. Hence, this review article addresses the question: What does the literature tell us about the definition, application and use of the co-benefits concept? Using a literature review approach, this article explains the evolution of the co-benefits concept and its strengths and weaknesses. We conclude that while the concept has tremendous advocacy potential in dealing with the problem that the costs and benefits of climate policy are temporally and spatially not aligned, its de facto potential is limited as mostly economists have engaged with this concept, and there is little trans-disciplinary work undertaken that also looks at the politics and institutional aspects of co-benefits. The article thus provides an impetus to rethink current approaches to studying co-benefits and points to the need for inter- and trans-disciplinary research drawing on economic, political and social sciences.     

Integrating science,policy and farmers to reduce soil loss and sediment delivery in Flanders,Belgium

This paper describes the evolution of soil erosion perception with policy makers and farmers in Flanders, and how these changes have resulted in the emergence of a soil conservation policy. Until the mid 1990s, soil erosion and its related problems received little attention in the environmental debate. This has changed through increased interest in environmental issues in general, as well as an increasing number of scientific reports on soil erosion and sediment delivery. New legislation that made the sediment problem a big financial issue in 1995, however, was the main reason for the recognition of soil erosion as an environmental problem with the policy makers. Despite the lack of monitoring soil erosion, a soil conservation policy emerged recently, which is clearly represented in the 2001 “soil erosion decree” by the Flemish government. This policy provides important opportunities for soil conservation as it incorporates both scientists and farmers. The involvement of farmers in demonstration projects is crucial with this respect as they have to be convinced about the usefulness and applicability of soil conservation measures. Farmers also participate in the development of a management plan. However, the success of the new policy could be undermined by its rapid development. There is still a lack of data underpinning the status of the erosion problem, and, the goals of the policy are not clearly defined. Furthermore, the administrative organisation is currently not favourable for an optimal co-operation with the farmers.     

The successful completion of scientific public policy: lessons learned while developing Canada’s Wild Salmon Policy

Canada’s Wild Salmon Policy gives Canadians the opportunity to make informed decisions about the amount of habitat, ecosystem, and salmon diversity to protect, in order to provide salmon with the potential to adapt and survive in a changing environment. Valuable lessons learned during the completion of this recent landmark conservation policy include: (1) there must be an express need for major new policies and decision makers should be receptive to proposed changes; (2) resource and expertise allocation should be realistic to ensure successful and timely policy completion; (3) science-based policies must be based on good science; (4) environmental policies require input from multiple disciplines—biological consequences are only one element that politicians and decision-makers need to consider; (5) since there will always be uncertainty, and different perspectives on the level of risk that various stakeholders are willing to accept, a precautionary approach is appropriate; (6) to be effective, communication should be open and transparent; and finally (7) it is important to think beyond policy completion—how will the policy be implemented? Documenting these lessons should assist others, thereby resulting in more efficient completion of science-based policies.     

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.     

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.     

‘Tolerable’ hillslope soil erosion rates in Australia: Linking science and policy

This paper reviews water-borne soil erosion in Australia in the context of current environmental policy needs. Sustainability has emerged as a central tenet of environmental policy in Australia and water-borne hillslope soil erosion rates are used as one of the indicators of agricultural sustainability in State of the Environment reporting. We review attempts to quantify hillslope erosion rates over Australia and we identify areas at risk of exceeding natural baseline rates. We also review historical definitions of sustainable, or ‘tolerable’ erosion rates, and how to set these rates. There are many ways to estimate hillslope erosion and these can create confusing results. Moreover their application for land management purposes requires nuanced interpretations that ultimately depend on the desired objective of decision-makers. Soil is the earth surficial material that serves as a medium for plant growth and the notion of tolerable soil erosion arose historically to assess the impact of soil loss on agricultural uses. However now that the impact of erosion on aquatic ecosystems been recognized as a major concern for Australia, the concept of tolerable erosion needs to be revised. Here we discuss three definitions of tolerable soil erosion, following recent literature. We derive estimates of long-term agricultural sustainability based on natural soil production rates and discuss this in relation to other defined land-management objectives such as aquatic ecosystem health. We conclude that the desired objectives of land managers must be clearly articulated before questions of ‘where to invest to control erosion’ and ‘how to assess return-on-investment’ can be answered.     

Adoption of the low carbon society policy in locally-governed urban areas: experience from Thai municipalities

Low Carbon Society (LCS) has emerged as a holistic approach to reduce carbon (C) emissions that result from human activities. Although there has been successful implementation of the LCS approach in some cities of developed countries, it is more difficult in developing countries like Thailand. The objectives of this paper are to present drivers and barriers affecting the abilities of three regional cities of Thailand to combine LCS activities with their strategies. Lessons learned from this study will allow for sharing these experiences with municipalities in other developing countries. This research was based on interviews of key informants representing state agencies and local public service associations. It was found that no particular driver significantly influenced local government agencies to implement LCS activities. Conversely, there were financial and managerial barriers to implementing (C) reduction activities. This paper identifies the need for more specific and tailor-made assistance to allow urban municipalities to shift towards LCS activities by considering their individual strengths and weaknesses. Moreover, stakeholders’ understanding of the advantages of implementing LCS activities within locally governed areas was found to be critical for success. The paper concludes that climate change mitigation activities not only reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions but also produce tangible benefits such as improvement the quality of life of people. Such an approach can motivate stakeholders to pursue LCS as a shared goal.