Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 63, Issue 2, pp 215–232 | Cite as

Incorporating social dimensions in planning, managing and evaluating environmental projects

  • C. Louise GogginEmail author
  • Thomas Barrett
  • John Leys
  • Gregory Summerell
  • Emma Gorrod
  • Stuart Waters
  • Mark Littleboy
  • Tony D. Auld
  • Michael J. Drielsma
  • Brian R. Jenkins
Article
  • 151 Downloads

Abstract

Most conservation research aims to inform management of environmental challenges, but scientific evidence is used inconsistently in environmental programmes and practice. We used semi-structured retrospective interviews to ask 12 environmental scientists and 14 practitioners (land managers, park rangers, project managers and planners from natural resource management agencies) about factors that facilitated and hindered the use of scientific input during 15 environmental projects. We used the common factors from interviews to develop a process model describing how scientific input informs programmes and practice. The model emphasised the social dimensions of environmental projects which are often overlooked when these projects are planned, managed and evaluated. It highlighted the pivotal role of relationships in achieving outcomes which include creating practical, useful products and tools, and robust, credible and trusted evidence. By clarifying the process of how scientific knowledge informs environmental programmes and practice, the model enabled us to provide guidance about how to undertake transdisciplinary work and suggest indicators to track progress. Although derived from environmental projects, the guidance is likely to apply to other fields, particularly where different disciplines work together.

Keywords

Knowledge exchange Environment Scientists Practitioners Capability Transdisciplinary 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank practitioners and scientists who discussed projects so honestly, and Alastair Grieve (Scientific and Environmental Services) for observing interviews. We also thank two anonymous reviewers who provided constructive comments that greatly improved this manuscript. The work was funded by the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage. The research was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of New England, Australia (approval number HE16-261).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Armitage DR, Plummer R, Berkes F, Arthur RI, Charles AT, Davidson-Hunt IJ, Diduck AP, Doubleday NC, Johnson DS, Marschke M, McCooney P, Pinkerton EW, Wollenberg EK (2009) Adaptive co-management for social-ecological complexity. Front Ecol Environ 7(2):95–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Belcher BM, Rasmussen KE, Kemshaw MR, Zornes DA (2015) Defining and assessing research quality in a transdisciplinary context. Res Eval 15:1–17Google Scholar
  3. Bertuol-Garcia D, Morsello C, El-Hani CN, Pardini R (2017) A conceptual framework for understanding the perspectives on the causes of the science-practice gap in ecology and conservation. Biol Rev  https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12385
  4. Bielak AT, Campbell A, Pope S, Schaefer K, Shaxson L (2008) Chapter 12. From science communication to knowledge brokering: the shift from ‘science push’ to 'policy pull’. In: Cheng D, Claessens M, Gascoigne T, Metcalfe J, Schiele B, Shi S (eds) Communicating Science in Social Contexts, p 201–208. Springer, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowen S, Erickson T, Martens PJ, Crockett S (2009) More than ‘using research’: the real challenges in promoting evidence-informed decision making. Healthc Policy 4(3):87–102Google Scholar
  6. Briggs S (2006) Integrating policy and science in natural resources: why so difficult? Ecol Manag Restor 7:37–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bromiley P, Cummings LL (1995) Organizations with trust. In: Bies R, Lemicki R, Sheppard B (eds) Research in Negotiations, 5th edn. JAI Press, Greenwich, CNGoogle Scholar
  8. Choi BCK, Pang T, Lin V, Puska P, Sherman G, Goddard M, Ackland MJ, Sainsbury P, Stachenko S, Morrison H, Clottey C (2005) Can scientists and policy makers work together? J Epidemiol Community Health 59:632–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cook CN, Mascia MB, Schwartz MW, Possingham HP, Fuller RA (2013) Achieving conservation that bridges the knowledge-action boundary. Conserv Biol 27:669–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crona BI, Bodin O (2006) What you know is who you know? Communication patterns around resource users as a prerequisite for co-management. Ecol Soc 11:7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cullen P (1990) The turbulent boundary between water scientists and water managers. Freshw Biol 24:201–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cummings LL, Bromiley P (1996) The Organizational Trust Inventory (OTI): Development and validation. In: Kramer RM, Tyler TR (eds) Trust in organizations: frontiers of theory and research, p 302–330, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, USAGoogle Scholar
  13. Cvitanovic C, Hobday AJ, van Kerkhoff L, Wilson SK, Dodds K, Marshall NA (2015) Improving knowledge exchange among scientists and decision-makers to facilitate the adaptive governance of marine resources: a review of knowledge and research needs. Ocean Coast Manag 112:25–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dicks LV, Walsh JC, Sutherland WJ (2014) Organising evidence for environmental management decisions: a ‘4S’ hierarchy. Trends Ecol Evol 29(11):607–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fazey J, Evely AC, Reed MS, Stringer LC, Kruijsen J, White PCL, Newsham A, Jin L, Cortazzi M, Phillipson J, Blackstock K, Entwistle N, Sheate W, Armstrong F, Blackmore C, Fazey J, Ingram J, Gregson J, Lowe P, Morton S, Trevitt C (2012) Knowledge exchange: a review and research agenda for environmental management. Environ Conserv 40:19–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M (1994) The new production of knowledge – the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Gibbons P, Zammit C, Youngentob K, Possingham H, Lindenmayer D, Bekessy S, Burgman M, Colyvan M, Considine M, Felton A, Hobbs R, Hurley K, McAlpine C, McCarthy M, Moore J, Robinson D, Salt D, Wintle B (2008) Some practical suggestions for improving engagement between researchers and policy-makers in natural resource management. Ecol Manag Restor 9:182–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goggin CL, Cunningham R, Summerell G, Leys J, Barrett T, Auld TD, Oliver I, Littleboy M (2015) Exploring the networks of government scientists using Social Network Analysis: a scoping study. 21st International Congress on Modelling and Simulation (MODSIM2015), Gold Coast, Australia, p 1937–1943Google Scholar
  19. Gulbrandsen LH (2008) The role of science in environmental governance: competing knowledge producers in Swedish and Norwegian forestry. Glob Environ Polit 8:99–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hardaker JB, Fleming E, Lien G (2009) How should governments make risky policy decisions? Aust J Public Admin 68:256–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Haynes AS, Gillespie JA, Derick GE, Hall WD, Redman S, Chapman S, Sturk H (2011) Galvanizers, guides, champions, and shields: the many ways policymakers use public health researchers. Milbank Q 89(4):564–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Head BW (2013) Evidence-based policy making - speaking the truth to power? Aust J Public Admin 72:397–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hegger D, Dieperink C (2014) Toward successful joint knowledge production for climate change adaptation: lessons from six regional projects in the Netherlands. Ecol Soc 19(2):34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hegger D, Lamers M, Van Zeijl-Rozema A, Dieperink C (2012) Conceptualising joint knowledge production in regional climate change adaptation projects: success conditions and levers for action. Environ Sci Policy 18:52–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hegger D, Van Zeijl-Rozema A, Dieperink C (2014) Toward design principles for joint knowledge production projects: lessons from the deepest polder of The Netherlands. Reg Environ Change 14:1049–1062Google Scholar
  26. Innvaer S, Vist G, Trommald M, Oxman A (2002) Health policy-makers’ perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy 7:239–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. IAP2 International Federation (2014) IAP2’s Public ParticipationSpectrum. http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.iap2.org/resource/resmgr/foundations_course/IAP2_P2_Spectrum_FINAL.pdf Accessed on 19 March 2018
  28. Law EA, Bennett NJ, Ives CD, Friedman R, Davis K, Archibald C, Wilson KA (2017) Equity trade-offs in conservation decision making. Conserv Biol.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13008
  29. Long J, Cunningham FC, Braithwaite J (2013) Bridges, brokers and boundary spanners in collaborative networks: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 13:158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nguyen VM, Young N, Cooke SJ (2017) A roadmap for knowledge exchange and mobilization research in conservation and natural resource management. Conserv Biol 31:789–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J (2014) A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC (BioMed Central). Health Serv Res 14:2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pahl-Wostl C, Sendzimir J, Jeffrey P, Aerts J, Berkamp G, Cross K (2007) Managing change toward adaptive water management through social learning. Ecol Soc 12(2):30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pressey RL, Weeks R, Gurney GG (2017) From displacement activities to evidence-informed decisions in conservation. Biol Conserv 212:337–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Raymond CM, Fazey I, Reed MS, Stringer LC (2010) Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. J Environ Manag 91:1766–1777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Roux DJ, Rogers KH, Biggs HC, Ashton PJ, Sergeant A (2006) Bridging the science-management divide: moving from unidirectional knowledge transfer to knowledge interfacing and sharing. Ecol Soc 11:4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ryder DS, Tomlinson M, Gawne B, Likens G (2010) Defining and using ‘best available science’: a policy conundrum for the management of aquatic ecosystems. Mar Freshw Res 61:821–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sarewitz D, Pielke Jr RA (2007) The neglected heart of science policy: reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environ Sci Policy 10:5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Scholz RW, Steiner G (2015) Transdisciplinarity at the crossroads. Sustain Sci 10:521–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shanley P, Lopez C (2009) Out of the loop: why research rarely reaches policy makers and the public and what can be done. Biotropica 41:535–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sutherland WJ, Pullin AS, Dolman PM, Knight TM (2004) The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 19(6):305–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Taylor M (2005) Bridging research and policy: a UK perspective. J Int Dev 17:747–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Temby O, Sandall J, Cooksey R, Hickey GM (2017) Examining the role of trust and informal communication on mutual learning in government: the case of climate change policy in New York. Organ Environ 30(1):71–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Thompson J (2009) Building collective communication competence in interdisciplinary research teams. J Appl Commun Res 37:278–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Toomey AH (2016) What happens in the gap between knowledge and practice? Spaces of encounter and misencounter between environmental scientists and local people. Ecol Soc 21(2):28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Van Kammen J, de Savigny D, Sewankambo N (2006) Using knowledge brokering to promote evidence-based policy-making: the need for support structures. Bull World Health Organ 84:608–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Von Winterfeldt D (2013) Bridging the gap between science and decision making. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:14055–14061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wall TU, Meadow AM, Horganic A (2017) Developing evaluation indicators to improve the process of coproducing usable climate science. Weather Clim Soc 9:95–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Walter AI, Helgenberger S, Wiek A, Scholz RW (2007) Measuring societal effects of transdisciplinary research projects: design and application of an evaluation method. Eval Program Plan 30:325–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Weichselgartner J, Kasperson R (2010) Barriers in science-policy-practice interface: toward a knowledge-action-system in global environmental change research. Glob Environ Change 20:266–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Young N, Corriveau M, Nguyen VM, Cooke SJ, Hinch SG (2016) How do potential knowledge users evaluate new claims about a contested resource? Problems of power and politics in knowledge exchange and mobilization. J Environ Manag 184:380–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Crown 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Louise Goggin
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Thomas Barrett
    • 1
    • 2
  • John Leys
    • 3
  • Gregory Summerell
    • 4
  • Emma Gorrod
    • 5
    • 6
  • Stuart Waters
    • 7
  • Mark Littleboy
    • 1
  • Tony D. Auld
    • 6
    • 8
    • 9
  • Michael J. Drielsma
    • 1
    • 2
  • Brian R. Jenkins
    • 10
  1. 1.Office of Environment and Heritage New South Wales (OEH), W001University of New EnglandArmidaleAustralia
  2. 2.School of Environmental and Rural ScienceUniversity of New EnglandArmidaleAustralia
  3. 3.OEHGunnedahAustralia
  4. 4.OEHMerimbulaAustralia
  5. 5.OEHNewcastleAustralia
  6. 6.Centre for Ecosystem ScienceUniversity of New South WalesKensingtonAustralia
  7. 7.Twyfords ConsultingWollongongAustralia
  8. 8.OEHHurstvilleAustralia
  9. 9.School of Biological ScienceUniversity of WollongongWollongongAustralia
  10. 10.OEHQueanbeyanAustralia

Personalised recommendations