چالش های ایجاد ارتباط بین دانش علمی به حوضه سیاست مدیریت : آکوا ترا به عنوان یک مطالعه موردی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|15698||2007||8 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Environmental Pollution, , Volume 148, Issue 3, August 2007, Pages 867-874
The EU Project AquaTerra generates knowledge about the river–soil–sediment–groundwater system and delivers scientific information of value for river basin management. In this article, the use and ignorance of scientific knowledge in decision making is explored by a theoretical review. We elaborate on the ‘two-communities theory’, which explains the problems of the policy–science interface by relating and comparing the different cultures, contexts, and languages of researchers and policy makers. Within AquaTerra, the EUPOL subproject examines the policy–science interface with the aim of achieving a good connection between the scientific output of the project and EU policies. We have found two major barriers, namely language and resources, as well as two types of relevant relationships: those between different research communities and those between researchers and policy makers.
The EU Project AquaTerra (http://www.attempto-projects.de/aquaterra) is a multi-disciplinary project in the EU sixth framework research program, which aims to develop and integrate soil and water research to provide a better understanding of the river basin system. The output from AquaTerra must reflect, at least in part, the needs of both policymakers and practitioners. The EUPOL subproject of AquaTerra aims to find a way to link policy demands to the scientific information on processes in river basins at a variety of scales being generated by AquaTerra by using the platform of river basin management. These issues must be considered by AquaTerra and other interdisciplinary science projects as they aim to bring their scientific output to a wider, more influential field. Although being a small subproject within AquaTerra, EUPOL is the main element aiming to link available science with the needs of policy in a constructive way in order for policy makers to gain maximum use from a wide-ranging, integrated group of scientific projects whose remit is to provide information of value to a wide range of policy makers and stakeholders. The linkage between science, policy and stakeholders is particularly focused on five broad policy areas, namely soil, water, agriculture, land use and climate change. In this article, we focus on the interface between science and policy, particularly the role that AquaTerra can play in river basin management. We will present some research findings and provide recommendations as to how uptake by the policy community could be improved. First, however, we will examine the role of scientific knowledge in policy making.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
From our theoretical review we have learnt that there is a clear need for new models describing the factors that influence the uptake of scientific information by policy makers more adequately than the two-communities theory. One factor seems to be clear: good, intensive interaction between scientists, policy makers and stakeholders can promote this uptake. From our analysis we can see that in the AquaTerra communities (both scientists and policy makers), communication and interaction is seen as a key factor for the utilization of scientific information. Better integration of science into policy is an important step forward and the scientific framework aims to demonstrate ways in which this process can be started. The issue of successful linkage between science and policy is a universal one. It applies equally to other policy areas of the EU and to environmental issues worldwide. As the scientific framework methodology is not subject specific it can be adapted to all manner of policy–science interfaces both within the EU and worldwide. If policy–science linkages are undertaken using a similar format across different disciplines, this will aid consistency and understanding at an inter-departmental level within major political institutions such as the EU. As a result the scientific framework has the potential to be a very valuable means of improving understanding and increasing the transparency of local, national and international policy and decision making. The challenge in AquaTerra is not only to let the different communities (policy makers, stakeholders and scientists) interact in order to understand each other better and to promote the uptake of scientific information, but also to bring scientists from very different disciplines together to generate a better understanding of the river basin system. We have observed that the research community in itself encompasses many smaller factions, grouped around separate disciplines. The scientific framework shows that questions could be answered by combining research deliverables, yet no spontaneous action was undertaken to assemble these answers and present them to policy makers. Although the AquaTerra researchers share a scientific background, every discipline has its own practice and language, which frustrates integration. Therefore, in the complex reality of river basin management it would be far more appropriate to speak about multiple communities instead of two communities. A collaborative process approach is needed for an intensive interaction between the scientific community, the policy community and stakeholders who make use of the river basin to come to a common understanding of the societal relevance of results of the scientific work, and vice versa to validate this scientific knowledge with the local and lay knowledge of the stakeholders. In this way the understanding of the river basin system can be improved. Although we cannot derive a new theory to explain the science–policy interface, from the theoretical insights presented here we can infer some key elements of new approaches to knowledge production and use. Knowledge production should acknowledge the multiple rationalities and different viewpoints that are brought in by the variety of stakeholders that are involved. Research methods could therefore contain the following key elements: • Multi- or transdisciplinary research methods: acknowledge the disciplines that should be involved in the research, to give more insight into the policy issue, the problem framing and the solutions. Work together in multidisciplinary teams and emphasize the process of interaction between the disciplines and evaluate these processes. Take time to develop new theoretical multidisciplinary scientific frameworks. • Involvement of stakeholders in the research process: develop methods to involve stakeholders and to deal with their viewpoints and values in the research process. Appreciation of the values, interests and viewpoints of involved stakeholders requires the development of new research methods to develop and share knowledge. The instrument of ‘joint fact finding’ (Ehrmann and Stinson, 1999) is already available, but it should be developed further and tailor made for the complexity of the river basin system, so it can be used in collaborative processes to articulate knowledge questions and share knowledge with a high complexity between all communities involved. Testing of scientific results with stakeholder panels is another option. • Emphasis on learning processes in policy making: learning between stakeholders, between scientists, and between stakeholders and scientists at different levels (individual, team and organization) deserves special arrangements. Organized reflection, feedback and evaluation of the goal achievement of the policy are needed in this frame.