Making ecological science policy-relevant: issues of scale and disciplinary integration
- 304 Downloads
In this paper, we ask why so much ecological scientific research does not have a greater policy impact in the UK. We argue that there are two potentially important and related reasons for this failing. First, much current ecological science is not being conducted at a scale that is readily meaningful to policy-makers. Second, to make much of this research policy-relevant requires collaborative interdisciplinary research between ecologists and social scientists. However, the challenge of undertaking useful interdisciplinary research only re-emphasises the problems of scale: ecologists and social scientists traditionally frame their research questions at different scales and consider different facets of natural resource management, setting different objectives and using different language. We argue that if applied ecological research is to have greater impact in informing environmental policy, much greater attention needs to be given to the scale of the research efforts as well as to the interaction with social scientists. Such an approach requires an adjustment in existing research and funding infrastructures.
KeywordsEvidence-based research Interdisciplinary Scale
The authors thank RELU for funding this scoping study (Designing and Implementing Large Scale Experiments in Land Use). The content of the paper draws partly on the outputs of an interdisciplinary workshop held at Imperial College London in April 2005. We are very grateful to the participants in the workshop, especially Calvin Dytham, Les Firbank, Rob Fraser, Charles Godfray, Simon Gillings, Andrew Hector, Andreas Kontoleon, Tobias Langanke, David Murrell, Chris Preston, Steve Ormerod, Steve Rushton and Noel Russell.
- Advisory Committee on Pesticides (2003) Alternatives to conventional pest control techniques in the UK: a scoping study of the potential for their wider use. Final Report of the sub-group of the Advisory Committee on PesticidesGoogle Scholar
- Carpenter SR (1998) The need for large-scale experiments to assess and predict the response of ecosystems to perturbation. In: Pace ML, Groffman PM (eds) Successes, limitations and frontiers in ecosystems science. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- CERN (2005) CERN: The worlds largest particle physics laboratory. http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Welcome.html. Cited 13 Oct 2006Google Scholar
- Haines-Young RH, Barr CJ, Black HIJ et al (2000) Accounting for nature: assessing habitats in the UK countryside. DETR, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Holling CS (1978) Adaptive environmental assessment and management. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Hubbard Brook Research Foundation (2007) http://www.hubbardbrookfoundation.org/science_links_public_policy/. Cited January 2007Google Scholar
- Likens GE (2004) Some perspectives on long-term biogeochemical research from the Hubbard brook ecosystem study. Ecology 85:2355–2362Google Scholar
- NERC (2005) Science into policy: taking part in the process. Natural Environment Research Council, SwindonGoogle Scholar
- Pascual U, Russell N, Omer AA (2003) Does loss of biodiversity compromise productivity in intensive agriculture? Discussion paper. http://www.socialsciences.man.ac.uk/publications/economics/sesdiscuss.asp?author_id=286&. Cited Oct 2006Google Scholar
- Urban DL (2005) Modelling ecological processes across scales. Ecology 86:1996–2006Google Scholar
- Wilson PN (2000) Social capital, trust, and the agribusiness of economics. J Agric Resour Econ 25:1–13Google Scholar