Communication between forest scientists and forest policy-makers in Europe — A survey on both sides of the science/policy interface

doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2007.10.001

Forest Policy and Economics

Volume 10, Issue 3, January 2008, Pages 183-194

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2007.10.001 Get rights and content

Abstract

Improving communication in the science/policy interface has received increased attention from scientists and policy-makers in recent years. This paper discusses recent science/policy interface literature and reports on the results of two surveys, sent out to forest scientists and forest policy-makers, asking them to evaluate communication in the forest science/policy interface in Europe. The questionnaires are based on a model of the communication process between scientists and policy-makers which was developed for this study, comprising information sources, channels, types and topics of information. The results indicate that policy-makers and scientists largely share the same ideas on how they should communicate with each other. However, the results also show that policy-makers' expectations from science differ from scientists' estimations on what policy-makers consider relevant topics of scientific information. Another result of the study is that scientists and policy-makers give largely the same suggestions for improving communication in the science/policy interface.

Introduction

[Forest policy] decision-makers and other users of research results tend to see that the problem of the insufficient use of existing information is mainly the fault of the research community. The users blame researchers for not working on relevant projects, which would supply the information they need right now...

…As for the researchers, we tend to criticize the user community: our clients do not understand and do not even want to understand what we say and are not basing their decisions on the best available scientific information (Seppälä, 2004).

Over the past few years there has been a strong increase in politician's attention for overcoming these differences and thus improving communication between forest scientists and forest policy decision-makers. In the United Nations Forum on Forests 4th Session (United Nations Economic and Social Council, 2004: Resolution 4/1), in the program of work of the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE, 2005: 23), and in Key Action 2 of the EU Forest Action Plan (COM, 2006) policy-makers have called for a strengthening of the science/policy interface.

From the science side, attention has also increased during the past decade with a considerable number of scientific publications addressing the need to improve communication between scientists and policy-makers on environmental issues (e.g., Cortner, 2000, Ellefson, 2000, Norse and Tschirley, 2000, Shaw et al., 2000, Mills and Clark, 2001, Skolnikoff, 2001, Shields et al., 2002, Guldin, 2003, Innes, 2003, Smith and Kelly, 2003, Konijnendijk, 2004, Mayer and Rametsteiner, 2004, Spilsbury and Nasi, 2006).

A large part of studies on the science/policy interface, including the studies mentioned above, take a case-study approach and provide suggestions for improving communication in the science/policy interface. A few studies have attempted to gather quantitative data on communication in forest policy-making through surveys (e.g., Pregernig, 2000, Janse, 2006). The purpose of the study presented in this paper is to gain insight into the communication and flow of information between forest scientists and policy-makers (in this context, government and forest administration). In this paper the results of two surveys — sent to selected forest scientists and policy-makers — are presented. Scientists and policy-makers were asked to give their expert opinion on the characteristics of communication processes in the science/policy interface.

Section snippets

Science/policy interface

The Cassell Concise Dictionary (1997) defines the word interface as: “the point at which independent systems, processes etc. meet and act on each other”. Simple extrapolation would then result in the following definition of the science/policy: “the point at which science and policy meet and act on each other”. In his introduction to his paper on the forest science/policy interface in the Americas, Guldin (2003) writes:

The fundamental concept of an interface is a boundary between two systems.

Method

The method of assessment comprised two surveys, one aimed at forest scientists and one aimed at forest policy-makers. Both groups were sent a questionnaire in MS Word format (using the Form Field option) by email. The questionnaires contained questions in which the respondents had to ascribe a number (1 = lowest importance, 5 = highest importance) to various information sources, types, topics, and channels.

Forest policy-makers were also asked a question on the frequency of their contact with

Frequency of communication

On a 0 (never) to 4 (weekly or more) scale 37% of scientists state that policy-makers from their own country ask them to provide information weekly (Table 1). 21% of the policy-makers state that they ask scientists to provide information weekly (against 33% “monthly” and 46% “a couple of times/year”).

Topic of information

Policy-makers were asked to evaluate the relevance of four general topics in forest science on a 1 (least relevant) to 5 (most relevant) scale. Scientists were asked what they thought to be the

Discussion

One might argue that the response population is not optimally representative for the total population of forest policy decision-makers and forest scientists in Europe. That being said, in the author's opinion the MCPFE Round Table and Expert Level meetings were good opportunities to reach decision-makers, especially because science/policy interface communication is mentioned specifically in the program of work of the MCPFE (MCPFE, 2005: 23). For the MCPFE, it is very likely that all attending

Conclusions

Policy-makers and scientists largely share the same ideas on how they should communicate with each other. The only clear difference in opinion concerns the topic of scientific information. Policy-makers find information on forest policy and forest resources most important, whereas scientists believe policy-makers find information on forest ecology and management and forest products and socio-economics most important. Policy-makers' preference for turning to their colleagues when looking for

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank the European Forest Institute for making this study possible, Dr. Laura Bouriaud, Ms. Minna Korhonen, Dr. Risto Päivinen and Ms. Anu Ruusila for their valuable advice, and all the people that took the time to respond to the questionnaires. The author is also grateful for the valuable comments of two anonymous reviewers on this manuscript.

References (63)

AcremanM.
Linking science and decision-making: features and experience from environmental river flow setting
Environmental Modelling & Software
(2005)
AlgeB.J. et al.
When does the medium matter? Knowledge-building experiences and opportunities in decision-making teams
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(2003)
BirotY.
Voicing interests and concerns: institutional framework and agencies for forest policy research in Europe
Forest Policy and Economics
(2002)
ButtoudG.
How can policy take into consideration the “full value” of forests?
Land Use Policy
(2000)
CortnerH.J.
Making science relevant to environmental policy
Environmental Science & Policy
(2000)
DeelstraY. et al.
Using knowledge for decision-making purposes in the context of large projects in The Netherlands
Environmental Impact Assessment Review
(2003)
EllefsonP.V.
Integrating science and policy development: Case of the national research council and US national policy focused on non-federal forests
Forest Policy and Economics
(2000)
FidelR. et al.
The many faces of accessibility: engineers' perception of information sources
Information Processing & Management
(2004)
GuldinR.W.
Forest science and forest policy in the Americas: building bridges to a sustainable future
Forest Policy and Economics
(2003)
HellströmT.
Technoscientific expertise and the significance of policy structures
Technology in Society
(2000)

SzaroR.C. et al.

Sustainable forest management in the developing world: Science challenges and contributions

Landscape and Urban Planning

(2000)

WallnerA. et al.

Do natural science experiments influence public attitudes towards environmental problems?

Global Environmental Change

(2003)

BurkartR.

Kommunikationswissenschaft: Grundlagen und Problemfelder

(1995)

Cited by (60)

The science-policy interfaces of the European network for observing our changing planet: From Earth Observation data to policy-oriented decisions
2022, Environmental Science and Policy
This paper reports on major outcomes of the ERA-PLANET (The European network for observing our changing planet) project, which was funded under Horizon 2020 ERA-net co-funding scheme. ERA-PLANET strengthened the European Research Area in the domain of Earth Observation (EO) in coherence with the European participation to Group on Earth Observation and the Copernicus European Union’s Earth Observation programme. ERA-PLANET was implemented through four projects focused on smart cities and resilient societies (SMURBS), resource efficiency and environmental management (GEOEssential), global changes and environmental treaties (iGOSP) and polar areas and natural resources (iCUPE). These projects developed specific science-policy workflows and interfaces to address selected environmental policy issues and design cost-effective strategies aiming to achieve targeted objectives. Key Enabling Technologies were implemented to enhancing ‘data to knowledge’ transition for supporting environmental policy making. Data cube technologies, the Virtual Earth Laboratory, Earth Observation ontologies and Knowledge Platforms were developed and used for such applications.
SMURBS brought a substantial contribution to resilient cities and human settlements topics that were adopted by GEO as its 4th engagement priority, bringing the urban resilience topic in the GEO agenda on par with climate change, sustainable development and disaster risk reduction linked to environmental policies.
GEOEssential is contributing to the development of Essential Variables (EVs) concept, which is encouraging and should allow the EO community to complete the description of the Earth System with EVs in a close future. This will clearly improve our capacity to address intertwined environmental and development policies as a Nexus.
iGOSP supports the implementation of the GEO Flagship on Mercury (GOS⁴M) and the GEO Initiative on POPs (GOS⁴POPs) by developing a new integrated approach for global real-time monitoring of environmental quality with respect to air, water and human matrices contamination by toxic substances, like mercury and persistent organic pollutants. iGOSP developed end-user-oriented Knowledge Hubs that provide data repository systems integrated with data management consoles and knowledge information systems.
The main outcomes from iCUPE are the novel and comprehensive data sets and a modelling activity that contributed to delivering science-based insights for the Arctic region. Applications enable defining and monitoring of Arctic Essential Variables and sets up processes towards UN2030 SDGs that include health (SDG 3), clean water resources and sanitation (SDGs 6 and 14).
Tropical deforestation: Does researchers' direct engagement with decision makers yield more policy impact and what are trade-offs with scientific independence?
2022, Forest Policy and Economics
Recent publications are critical about the impact that forest governance research has on halting tropical deforestation. They suggest more engagement of scientists with decision-makers in order to increase research impact. But current theories of science communication point out that engagement with decision-makers and independence of researchers occur at the expense of each other, which is an impediment to analytical science. In our commentary we compile how the authors of recent publications deal with this dilemma and pose the question if possibly enhanced impact can justify or necessitate more engagement. We show that the assumption whereas more impact can be generated through more direct engagement is mostly based on essays, comments, or reviews and hardly on empirical findings. In a Special Focus we therefore use the existing data set of (Karcher et al., 2021) for a first quantitative empirical evaluation on the subject and show that more direct engagement is not necessarily related to more impact. We conclude that more specific empirical research is needed that comparatively assesses researchers' independence for different modes of engagement. This needs to consider different policy contexts and levels as well as stages of research projects and should rely on standardized measures to evaluate their success. For the moment, we provide a number of recommendations that can help to navigate the dilemma between engagement and independence. They include awareness raising within the scientific community, clear and transparent specification of the different roles that researchers can play, links with independent scientific reviewers, diversification of funding sources, and consideration of power and interests of policy-makers which can be study objects and research partners at the same time.
Using the Business Model Canvas to increase the impact of green infrastructure valuation tools
2020, Urban Forestry and Urban Greening
There is a range of tools available to value the ecosystem services provided by urban green infrastructure including i-Tree Eco, CAVAT, GI-Val, and more. These valuation tools quantify the natural environment in order to incorporate it within urban decision-making processes. In the UK, valuation tools have been used successfully to calculate commensurate replacement values for trees (e.g. Southwark, London), enhance the value of green infrastructure at the design stage (e.g. Wirral), and secure resource for future planting and maintenance (e.g. Wrexham). However, these valuation tools have not consistently had the desired positive impact on decision-making. In response, we have adapted the Business Model Canvas for use in green infrastructure valuation (BMC₄GI) to create a framework that focuses the valuation process on the Change Objective, i.e. the decision that valuation intends to influence. The BMC₄GI outlines nine building blocks to consider prior to valuation, namely; (i) Change Objective, (ii) Target Audience, (iii) Key Activities, (iv) Key Resources, (v) Key Partners, (vi) Channels, (vii) Audience Message, (viii) Cost Structure, and (ix) Revenue Streams. We link the BMC₄GI to four general scenarios where valuation has proven to be successful, and provide a working example of the template based on green infrastructure valuation on a redevelopment site. BMC₄GI can support any approach to green infrastructure valuation, globally, and we invite others to apply BMC₄GI to create a shared case study library of good practice in green infrastructure valuation.
Reflective communication to improve problem-solving pathways: Key issues illustrated for an integrated environmental modelling case study
2020, Environmental Modelling and Software
Citation Excerpt :
In particular, it is likely to be useful to explicitly address resourcing and scheduling of reflective documentation, while providing sufficient flexibility for team members and stakeholders to discuss the issues likely to be important to them at the time discussion is needed. It should be emphasised that communication is an interactive and reciprocal activity which includes an action and a reaction (Janse, 2008), so the receiver of the information should not be passive and should be actively engaged (Janse, 2006; O'Connor et al., 2019) to make sure that real feedback is obtained and the message is clearly received. Through two-way communication, the project is more likely to achieve mutual understanding and trust between stakeholders and the research team.
The pathway of a modelling project is commonly described as an adaptively adjusted chain of steps at which various decisions are made. Communication and documentation about these decisions are crucial to enabling reflection and adapting the pathway to changing circumstances, such that well-informed planning is required. Project decision making, however, often remains a black box; it is rare to find reporting of dead ends, alternative decisions, and changes in decisions during the project. This paper uses an integrated environmental management case study in Iran to demonstrate the importance of reflective documentation and communication within the pathway. We show how a pathway diagram, incorporating some 14 symbols depicting steps, decision forks, options (selected and alternatives), actions, communication and documentation, can illustrate the role of communication within the project and identify lessons learnt. We also encourage further work on application of agile project management and social science techniques to improve modelling practices.
The politics of an EU forest information system: Unpacking distributive conflicts associated with the use of forest information
2020, Forest Policy and Economics
The development of a forest information system on forest resources has been on the European Union (EU) policy agenda for the past 20 years. Yet, despite agenda setting and various supporting initiatives, an operational EU forest information system has not been built yet. We build upon the analytical concept of positive coordination in political sciences, and aim to explore whether and how distributive conflicts associated with the use of forest information are a factor hindering the development of a European forest information system. Empirically, the study builds upon a qualitative research approach and aims to explore and identify perceived gains and losses associated with the use of forest information. For this, we conduct a series of in-depth interviews with key actors relevant to the development of the information system. Two closely interlinked distributive conflicts emerged from our analysis. The first one shapes around the potential use of forest information as a tool for maintaining political authority or expanding competences over forest resources. The second one entails conflicting issues about the potential strategic use of forest information to serve wood production at the expense of forest protection interests, and vice versa. The study concludes that forest information is much more than a neutral and objective form of scientific and technical expertise. It is politicized and used as a political asset that can be framed or utilized strategically for political gains. This leads to distributive conflicts, which in turn hinder the establishment of collaborative relationships and the development of an operational EU forest information system.
Orchestration in political processes: Involvement of experts, citizens, and participatory professionals in forest policy making
2018, Forest Policy and Economics
The overarching aim of this review paper is to investigate the involvement of experts, citizens, and participatory professionals in forest policy decision-making processes. Three interpretations of governance are distinguished to translate the idea of an orchestra to European (forest) policy making processes, referring to Frank Fischer's differentiation between a centralised state guided by administrative and policy experts on the one hand and deliberative governance driven by citizen participation on the other and a form of governance by participation professionals. The review included in total 81 research articles published between 1998 and 2015 addressing participation and expert involvement in forest policy. The results show that governance by participatory professionals is clearly visible in forest policy making processes in Europe mainly involving traditional groups as forest owners. Whether these participation professionals are engaged in a deliberative process with citizens remains unanswered. The results furthermore show a strong involvement of experts though the literature is rather silent as to how this steering of experts evolves in participatory forest processes. Finally the analysis shows that governance by citizen participation is rather neglected in forest policy processes in Europe. It is perceived as difficult to pursue, even at the local level. Therefore this article found nearly no empirical evidence for a so-called citizen's orchestra with the competence to self-align by deliberation. Instead citizens seem to be no part of the orchestra itself, but remain outside as part of the audience.

View all citing articles on Scopus

View full text

Communication between forest scientists and forest policy-makers in Europe — A survey on both sides of the science/policy interface

Abstract

Introduction

Section snippets

Science/policy interface

Method

Frequency of communication

Topic of information

Discussion

Conclusions

Acknowledgements

Environmental Modelling & Software

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

Forest Policy and Economics

Land Use Policy

Environmental Science & Policy

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

Forest Policy and Economics

Information Processing & Management

Forest Policy and Economics

Technology in Society

Data Quality Act. Environmental Science & Policy

Information Processing and Management

Forest Policy and Economics

Forest Policy and Economics

Environmental Science & Policy

Forest Ecology and Management

Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment

Forest Policy and Economics

Environmental Science & Policy

Forest Policy and Economics

Environmental Science & Policy

Environmental Science & Policy

Computers and Electronics in Agriculture

Ecological Indicators

Technology in Society

Progress in Planning

Forest Policy and Economics

Environmental Science & Policy

Landscape and Urban Planning

Global Environmental Change

Kommunikationswissenschaft: Grundlagen und Problemfelder