Communication between forest scientists and forest policy-makers in Europe — A survey on both sides of 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)
Linking science and decision-making: features and experience from environmental river flow setting
Environmental Modelling & Software
(2005)- et al.
When does the medium matter? Knowledge-building experiences and opportunities in decision-making teams
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(2003) Voicing interests and concerns: institutional framework and agencies for forest policy research in Europe
Forest Policy and Economics
(2002)How can policy take into consideration the “full value” of forests?
Land Use Policy
(2000)Making science relevant to environmental policy
Environmental Science & Policy
(2000)- et al.
Using knowledge for decision-making purposes in the context of large projects in The Netherlands
Environmental Impact Assessment Review
(2003) 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)- et al.
The many faces of accessibility: engineers' perception of information sources
Information Processing & Management
(2004) Forest science and forest policy in the Americas: building bridges to a sustainable future
Forest Policy and Economics
(2003)Technoscientific expertise and the significance of policy structures
Technology in Society
(2000)
Objectivity versus narrative coherence: science, environmental policy, and the U.S
Data Quality Act. Environmental Science & Policy
The information-seeking practices of engineers: searching for documents as well as for people
Information Processing and Management
The incorporation of research into attempts to improve forest policy in British Columbia
Forest Policy and Economics
Information search behavior of European forest policy decision-makers
Forest Policy and Economics
Pure science or policy involvement? Ambiguous boundary-work for Swedish carbon cycle science
Environmental Science & Policy
Roles of research scientists in natural resource decision-making
Forest Ecology and Management
Links between science and policy making
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment
Foreword— improving communication across the forest science-policy interface
Forest Policy and Economics
When scientists politicize science: making sense of controversy over The Skeptical Environmentalist
Environmental Science & Policy
Putting science into practice: the diffusion of scientific knowledge exemplified by the Austrian ‘Research Initiative Against Forest Decline’
Forest Policy and Economics
A model for knowledge transfer and adoption: a systemic approach to science communication
Environmental Science & Policy
How science makes environmental controversies worse
Environmental Science & Policy
Working with knowledge at the science/policy interface: a unique example from developing the Tongass Land Management Plan
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture
The role of values and objectives in communicating indicators of sustainability
Ecological Indicators
The political role of scientific co-operation
Technology in Society
Science, technical expertise and the human environment
Progress in Planning
The interface of policy research and the policy development process: challenges posed to the forestry community
Forest Policy and Economics
Science and policy in air pollution abatement strategies
Environmental Science & Policy
Sustainable forest management in the developing world: Science challenges and contributions
Landscape and Urban Planning
Do natural science experiments influence public attitudes towards environmental problems?
Global Environmental Change
Kommunikationswissenschaft: Grundlagen und Problemfelder
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 PolicyUsing the Business Model Canvas to increase the impact of green infrastructure valuation tools
2020, Urban Forestry and Urban GreeningReflective communication to improve problem-solving pathways: Key issues illustrated for an integrated environmental modelling case study
2020, Environmental Modelling and SoftwareCitation 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 politics of an EU forest information system: Unpacking distributive conflicts associated with the use of forest information
2020, Forest Policy and EconomicsOrchestration in political processes: Involvement of experts, citizens, and participatory professionals in forest policy making
2018, Forest Policy and Economics