nach oben

Biodiversity and Conservation

Erschienen in:

01.12.2014 | Original Paper

The RIU model as an analytical framework for scientific knowledge transfer: the case of the “decision support system forest and climate change”

verfasst von: Michael Böcher, Max Krott

Erschienen in: Biodiversity and Conservation | Ausgabe 14/2014

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Since a direct, so-called “linear” scientific knowledge transfer from science to political practice does not seem to be possible, we suggest an alternative model of the science–policy-interface. This model understands scientific knowledge transfer as the connection between research (R), integration (I), and utilization (U)—the RIU model. Within this RIU-model, scientific knowledge is produced in the science system (research), and science-based problem solutions are utilized within practice by political actors (utilization). Between the two spheres there is no “automatic” connection that leads to a linear application of science in policy making. Rather, the RIU-model highlights the important sphere of “integration”, a step that lies between science and utilization. A case study on a German decision support system for sustainable forest management within climate change is presented. It is shown that this informational instrument failed since no application in practice could be observed. An analysis by using the RIU model demonstrates (1) what are the reasons for the failure in this case and (2) which recommendations can be drawn by the RIU model for scientific advice that matters in forest policy-making.

Vorheriger Artikel Framings of science-policy interactions and their discursive and institutional effects: examples from conservation and environmental policy

Nächster Artikel Managing climate change in conservation practice: an exploration of the science–management interface in beech forest management

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Ascher W, Steelman T, Robert H (2010) Knowledge and environmental policy. Re-imagining the boundaries of science and politics. MIT press, London

Beck U (1986) Risikogesellschaft. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt

Beck S (2011) Moving beyond the linear model of expertise? IPCC and the test of adaptation. Reg Environ Change 11:297–306CrossRef

Beck S (2012) From truth to trust : lessons learned from “climategate”. In: Hogl K, Kvarda E, Nordbeck R, Pregernig M (eds) Environmental governance : the challenge of legitimacy and effectiveness. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 220–241

Böcher M (2012a) A theoretical framework for explaining the choice of instruments in environmental policy. For Policy Econ 16:14–22CrossRef

Böcher M (2012b) Wissenschaftsbasierte Politikberatung auf Abruf–zur Rolle der Ressortforschungseinrichtungen für Ministerien am Beispiel des BMU. der mod Staat 5(2):459–480

Böcher M, Krott M (2010) Umsetzung des Konzepts einer modernen Ressortforschung im Geschäftsbereich des BMU, Texte des Umweltbundesamts vol 39/2010. Umweltbundesamt, Dessau-Roßlau

Böcher M, Krott M (2011) Institutionalisierung multi- und transdisziplinärer Umweltwissenschaften durch Ressortforschungseinrichtungen. In: Fischer K, Laitko H, Parthey H (eds) Interdisziplinarität und Institutionalisierung der Wissenschaft (Wissenschaftsforschung Jahrbuch 2010). Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, Berlin, pp 59–80

Böcher M, Krott M (2012) Professionelle Integration als zentraler Baustein zur Qualitätssicherung von Politikberatung. Z für Politikberatung 1(5):13–22

Böcher M, Krott M (2014) Mit Wissen bewegen! Erfolgsfaktoren für Wissenstransfer in den Umweltwissenschaften. Oekom-Verlag, München

Böcher M, Töller AE (2012) Umweltpolitik in Deutschland. Eine politikfeldanalytische Einführung, Reihe Grundwissen Politik. Springer, Wiesbaden

Bocking S (2004) Nature’s experts. Science, politics and the environment. Rutgers University Press, London

Boehmer-Christiansen S (1995) Reflections on scientific advice and EC transboundary pollution policy. Sci Public Policy 22(3):195–203

Braun D, Benninghoff M (2003) Policy learning in swiss research policy—the case of the national centres of competence in research. Res Policy 32(10):1849–1863. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00063-5 CrossRef

Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson N, Eckley N, and Jäger J (2002) Salience, credibility, legitimacy and boundaries: linking research, assessment and decision making. KSG faculty research working paper 02-046. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

Clark SG (2011) The policy process. A practical guide for natural resource professionals (2nd edn). Yale University Press, London

Edelenbos J, van Buuren A, van Schie N (2011) Co-producing knowledge: joint knowledge production between experts, bureaucrats and stakeholders in Dutch water management projects. Environ Sci Policy 14(6):675–684. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2011.04.004 CrossRef

Forschungszentrum Waldökosysteme der Universität Göttingen (FZW) (2005) Anpassungsstrategien für eine nachhaltige Waldbewirtschaftung unter sich wandelnden Klimabedingungen—decision support system Wald und Klimawandel (DSS-WuK). Göttingen

Grebner DL, Bettinger P, Siry JP (2013) Introduction to forestry and natural resources. Academic (Elsevier), London

Grundmann R (2009) The role of expertise in governance processes. For Pol Econ 11:498–503CrossRef

Gupta A, Andresen S, Siebenhüner B, Biermann F (2013) Science networks. In: Biermann F, Pattberg P (eds) Global environmental governance reconsidered. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 69–93

Guston, DH (2001) Toward a “best practice” of constructing “serviceable truths”. In Hisschemöller M, Hoppe, Robert, Dunn, William N, Ravetz JR (eds) I. Policy studies review annual No. 12. (pp. 97–118). Transaction, New Brunswick

Haas PM (2005) Science and international environmental governance. In: Dauvergne P (ed) Handbook of global environmental politics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 383–401

Hulme M (2009) Why we disagree about climate change: understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef

Janse G (2006) Information search behaviour of European forest policy decision makers. For policy and economics 5:349–359

Jansen M, Döring C, Ahrends B, Bolte A, Czajkowski T, Panferov O, Beese F (2008) Anpassungsstrategien für eine nachhaltige waldbewirtschaftung unter sich wandelnden klimabedingungen—entwicklung eines entscheidungsunterstützungssystems “wald und klimawandel” (DSS-WuK). Forstarchiv 79(4):131–142

Jasanoff S (1990) The fifth branch : science advisers as policy makers. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

Jasanoff S, Wynne B (1998) Science and decisionmaking. In: Rayner S, Malone E (eds) Human choice and climate change volume 1: the societal framework. Batelle, Columbus, Ohio, pp 1–88

Kingdon JW (1984) Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Little, Brown & Company, Boston

Kleinschmit D, Böcher M, Giessen L (2009) Discourse and expertise in forest and environmental governance—an overview. For Policy Econ 11(5–6):309–312CrossRef

Klenk NL, Hickey G (2011) Government science in forestry: characteristics and policy utilization. For Policy Econ 13:37–45CrossRef

Krott M (2005) Forest policy analysis. Kluwer, Dordrecht

Krott M (2012) Value and risks of the use of analytical theory in science for forest policy. For Policy Econ 16:35–42CrossRef

Lavis JN, Robertson Dave, Woodside Jennifer M, McLeod Christopher B, Abelson Julia et al (2003) How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers? Milbank Q 81(2):221–248PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Lawrence A, Marzano M (2014) Is the private forest sector adapting to climate change? A study of forest managers in north Wales. Ann For Sci 71(2):291–300. doi:10.1007/s13595-013-0326-4 CrossRef

Lentsch J, Weingart P (eds) (2011) The politics of scientific advice. Institutional design for quality assurance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Lidskog R, Sundqvist G (2004) From consensus to credibility: policy-relevant science in late modernity. Innovation: Eur J Soc Sci Res 17(3):205–226

Maasen S, Weingart P (2005) What’s new in scientific advice to politics? In Maasen S, Weingart P (ed) Democratization of expertise? Exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision making-sociology of the sciences, vol 24. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 1–19

Maiello A, Viegas CV, Frey M, Ribeiro JLD (2013) Public managers as catalysts of knowledge co-production? Investigating knowledge dynamics in local environmental policy. Environ Sci Policy 27(0):141–150. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.12.007

Milad M, Storch S, Schaich H, Konold W, Winkel G (2012) Wälder und Klimawandel: künftige Strategien für Schutz und nachhaltige Nutzung. Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn

Milad M, Schaich H, Konold W (2013) How is adaptation to climate change reflected in current practice of forest management and conservation? A case study from Germany. Biodivers Conserv 22:1181–1202CrossRef

Miller N (2009) Environmental politics. stakeholders, interests and policy making, 2nd edn. Routledge, New York

Mitchell RB, Clark WC, Cash DW, Alcock F (2004) Science, scientists and the policy process: lessons from global environmental assessments for the northwest forest. In: Arabas K, Bowersox J (eds) Forest futures: science, politics and policy for the next century. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD, pp 95–111

Pregernig M, Böcher M (2012) Normative and analytical perspectives on the role of science and expertise in environmental governance. In: Hogl K, Kvarda E, Nordbeck R, Pregernig M (eds) Environmental governance: the challenge of legitimacy and effectiveness. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 199–219

Radaelli CM (1995) The role of knowledge in the policy process. J Eur Public Policy 2(2):160–183CrossRef

Sarewitz D, Pielke RJ (2007) The neglected heart of science policy: reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environ Sci Policy 10:5–16CrossRef

Schramm E, Litschel J (2014) Stakeholder-dialoge—ein instrument zur bearbeitung von konflikten um biodiversität in mitteleuropäischen wäldern. Natur Landsc (in press)

Stevanov M, Böcher M, Krott M, Orlovic S, Vuletic D, Krajter S (2011) Analitički model resornoga istraživanja kao znanstveno utemeljenoga savjetovanja sudionika u političkom procesu-analiza znanstveno-istraživačke djelatnosti instituta za nizinsko šumarstvo i okoliš iz novog sada (Analytical model of departmental research as science-based advising of actors in political process). Sumarski list (scientific–technical and professional journal of Croatia Forestry Society) 9–10:449–466

Stevanov M, Böcher M, Krott M, Krajter S, Vuletic D, Orlovic S (2013) The research, integration and utilization (RIU) model as analytical framework for the professionalization of departmental research organizations: case studies of publicly funded forest research institutes in Serbia and Croatia. For Policy Econ 37:20–28. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.03.006

Storch S (2012) Forstpraxis und Wissenstransfer: Einflussfaktoren am Beispiel des Themas “Anpassung an den Klimawandel”. Forstarchiv 83:170–182

Storch S, Krott M, Böcher M (2012) Institutionalization of accountability within programme research—the example of the “decision support system forest and climate change”. In: Hogl K, Kvarda E, Nordbeck R, Pregernig M (eds) Environmental governance: the challenge of legitimacy and effectiveness. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 260–279

Warren ME (1999) What is political? J Theor Polit 11(2):207–231. doi:10.1177/0951692899011002004 CrossRef

Titel: The RIU model as an analytical framework for scientific knowledge transfer: the case of the “decision support system forest and climate change”
verfasst von: Michael Böcher
Max Krott
Publikationsdatum: 01.12.2014
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Biodiversity and Conservation / Ausgabe 14/2014
Print ISSN: 0960-3115
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-9710
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0820-5

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 14/2014

Perspectives on forest conservation: building evidence at the frontier between policy and conservation science

Does background matter? Disciplinary perspectives on sustainable forest management

Framings of science-policy interactions and their discursive and institutional effects: examples from conservation and environmental policy

The impact of Natura 2000 on forest management: a socio-ecological analysis in the continental region of the European Union

Discourses of conflict and collaboration and institutional context in the implementation of forest conservation policies in Soria, Spain

REDD+-related activities in Kenya: actors’ views on biodiversity and monitoring in a broader policy context