Negotiating Indigenous knowledge at the science-policy interface: Insights from the Xáxli’p Community Forest

Despite increasing interest in learning from Indigenous communities, efforts to involve Indigenous knowledge in environmental policy-making are often fraught with contestations over knowledge, values, and interests. Using the co-production of knowledge and social order (Jasanoff, 2004), this case study seeks to understand how some Indigenous communities are engaging in science-policy negotiations by linking traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), western science, and other knowledge systems. The analysis follows twenty years of Indigenous forest management negotiations between the Xáxli’p community and the Ministry of Forests in British Columbia (B.C.), Canada, which resulted in the Xáxli’p Community Forest (XCF). The XCF is an eco-cultural restoration initiative that established an exclusive forest tenure for Xáxli’p over the majority of their aboriginal territory—a political shift that was co-produced with new articulations of Xáxli’p knowledge. This research seeks to understand knowledge co-production with Indigenous communities, and suggests that existing knowledge integration concepts are insufficient to address ongoing challenges with power asymmetries and Indigenous knowledge. Rather, this work proposes interpreting XCF knowledge production strategies through the framework of “Indigenous articulations,” where Indigenous peoples self-determine representations of their identities and interests in a contemporary socio-political context. This work has broader implications for considering how Indigenous knowledge is shaping science-policy negotiations, and vice versa.     

Knowledge users’ perspectives and advice on how to improve knowledge exchange and mobilization in the case of a co-managed fishery

Environmental scientists have long been frustrated by the difficulties involved in transferring their research findings into policy-making, management, and public spheres. Despite increases in scientific knowledge about social-ecological systems, research has consistently shown that regulators and stakeholders draw on tacit, informal, and experiential knowledge far more than scientific knowledge in their decision-making. Social science research in the fields of knowledge exchange (KE) and knowledge mobilization (KMb) suggest that one of the major barriers to moving knowledge into practice is that scientists fail to align their communication strategies with the information-seeking behaviours and preferences of potential knowledge users. This article presents findings from in-depth qualitative research with government employees and stakeholders involved in co-managing Pacific salmon fisheries in Canada’s Fraser River. We investigate how members of these groups access, view, and use scientific information, finding both similarities and differences. Members of both groups express a strong interest in academic science, and self-report using scientific information regularly in their work and advocacy. However, the two groups engage in different information-seeking behaviours, and provide notably different advice to academic scientists about how to make research and communication more relevant to potential users. For example, government employees focus on the immediate applications of research to known problems, while stakeholders express greater concern for the political context and implications of scientific findings. We argue that scientists need to “go where the users are” in the behavioural and intellectual sense, and tailor their communications and engagement activities to match the habits, preferences, and expectations of multiple potential user groups. We conclude with recommendations on how this may be done.     

A material and energy flow model for co-production of heat and power

Co-production of electricity, district heat and industrial heat/process steam (heat and power, CHP) has been applied to a large, national scale, in only a few countries in the world, Denmark, The Netherlands and Finland. In this production method, the waste energy from electricity production is used in two quality levels. First, industrial process steam requirements can be met with this residual energy. Second, the waste energy is used in local district heating networks for households and other buildings in a city. In this integrated production method, a total fuel efficiency of 85% can be achieved. Through the technique of fluidized bed combustion, modern CHP plants can use coal and oil, and in addition, heterogeneous fuels such as biomass, industrial wastes and recycled fuels from households. In this paper, the CHP method is considered in terms of four categories of material and energy flows. For the purpose of considering the potential environmental gains and the difficulties of this production method when applied to integrated waste management and energy production, the four suggested categories are: matter (biomass) (1), nutrients (2), energy (3) and carbon (4). Corporate environmental management inventory tools, decision-making tools, management, organisational and administrative tools as well as information management tools that could be used in CHP-related material and energy flow management are shortly discussed. It is argued that for CHP energy and environmental management, it can be important to adopt an approach to networks of firms, rather than to an individual firm. The presented material and energy flow model may contribute to assessing, planning and implementing of CHP-based waste management and cleaner energy production.     

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.     

Stakeholder involvement in strategic adaptation planning: Transdisciplinarity and co-production at stake?

To address increasing climatic variability and extremes, cities are gradually forced to develop climate change adaptation strategies that can ensure a continuous and transformative adaptation process. There is widespread consensus that the sustainable establishment of such strategies requires transdisciplinary approaches, that is, the involvement of internal and external stakeholders (state, civil society and market actors) to become part of the change and find innovative ways to unite their efforts and capacities. However, there is little research and hardly any empirical evidence on the process of stakeholder involvement and co-production in the development of municipal adaptation strategies. Against this background, this paper examines the factors that influence how and why different stakeholders are involved (or excluded) during the processes of developing adaptation strategies, and how this gets reflected in process outcomes. Based on applied participatory analysis of two pioneering municipalities in Germany and Sweden, the paper identifies and contrasts existing patterns to feed back into both theory and practice. Synergies, mismatches, barriers and driving forces for adaptation co-production are identified and contrasted with current adaptation discourses. The results highlight how the level of internal and external stakeholder involvement is conditional on (changes in) the broader governance context, and the associated power constellations in which stakeholders act (e.g., standing of departments, proximity to the decision-making body, changes in [or constellations of] political parties, contractual arrangements for staff, individual champions, progress in mainstreaming). On this basis, conclusions are drawn regarding how to foster sustainable and transformative adaptation through increased stakeholder involvement. The results and conclusions are crucial to advance theory on adaptation co-production, providing a basis for further analyses, research and action. They inform how existing theory, policies and/or guidelines for strategic adaptation planning need to be revisited to support change across current risk governance.     

Motivations underpinning honeybee management practices: A Q methodology study with UK beekeepers

Beekeepers are central to pollinator health. For policymakers and beekeeping organisations to develop widely accepted strategies to sustain honeybee populations alongside wild pollinators, a structured understanding of beekeeper motivations is essential. UK beekeepers are increasing in number, with diverse management styles despite calls for coordinated practice to manage honeybee health. Our Q methodology study in Cornwall, UK, indicated five beekeeping perspectives; conventional hobbyists, natural beekeepers, black bee farmers, new-conventional hobbyists and pragmatic bee farmers. Motivations can be shared across perspectives but trade-offs (notably between economic, social responsibility and ideological motivations) result in differing practices, some of which counter ‘official’ UK advice and may have implications for pollinator health and competition. Honeybee conservation emerged as a key motivator behind non-conventional practices, but wild pollinator conservation was not prioritised by most beekeepers in practice. Q methodology has the potential to facilitate non-hierarchical collaboration and conceptualisation of sustainable beekeeping, moving towards co-production of knowledge to influence policy.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13280-022-01736-w.     

Co-production of heat and power: an anchor tenant of a regional industrial ecosystem

The resource basis of industrial energy production is still, to a large extent, in non-renewable fossil fuels, the use of which creates emissions that the ecosystem has difficulty in tolerating. The goal of industrial ecology is to substitute the non-renewable stocks with renewable flows. In this paper, a regional industrial ecosystem that relies on a power plant as its key organisation, as an anchor tenant, is considered in the context of energy production and consumption. The co-production method of heat and electricity (CHP, co-production of heat and power) is implemented in the local power plant. This method uses the waste energy from electricity production for district heat and industrial heat/steam. The fuel basis in a CHP plant can include heterogeneous waste fuels. The method has been applied, to a large extent, in only three countries in the world; Denmark, The Netherlands and Finland. Examples of CHP-based industrial ecosystems from Finland are considered. CHP is reflected upon from the viewpoint of industrial ecosystem principles.     

Connecting Diverse Knowledge Systems for Enhanced Ecosystem Governance: The Multiple Evidence Base Approach

Indigenous and local knowledge systems as well as practitioners’ knowledge can provide valid and useful knowledge to enhance our understanding of governance of biodiversity and ecosystems for human well-being. There is, therefore, a great need within emerging global assessment programs, such as the IPBES and other international efforts, to develop functioning mechanisms for legitimate, transparent, and constructive ways of creating synergies across knowledge systems. We present the multiple evidence base (MEB) as an approach that proposes parallels whereby indigenous, local and scientific knowledge systems are viewed to generate different manifestations of knowledge, which can generate new insights and innovations through complementarities. MEB emphasizes that evaluation of knowledge occurs primarily within rather than across knowledge systems. MEB on a particular issue creates an enriched picture of understanding, for triangulation and joint assessment of knowledge, and a starting point for further knowledge generation.     

Solutions-oriented research for sustainability: Turning knowledge into action: This article belongs to Ambio’s 50th Anniversary Collection. Theme: Solutions-oriented research

In this perspective, we reflect upon the question: what processes may help transition scientific insights on sustainability issues into practice and thus contribute to tackling the complex, systemic sustainability problems of today? We use five forerunners in the field of providing and brokering knowledge for science informed real world solutions, all published in Ambio and highlighted in this Anniversary collection, as our starting point. We discuss how the authors present solutions, whom they tried to reach, and what was suggested—implicitly or explicitly—as the potential uptake processes for turning scientific knowledge into practice. With this as the starting point, we discuss how sustainability science, as a field vowed to action, has evolved in its views of actors, pathways for impacts, and the potential roles of research and researchers to promote sustainability transformations.