Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Researchers must be aware of their roles at the interface of ecosystem services science and policy

  • Perspective
  • Published:
Ambio Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Scientists working on ecosystem service (ES) science are engaged in a mission-driven discipline. They can contribute to science-policy interfaces where knowledge is co-produced and used. How scientists engage with the governance arena to mobilise their knowledge remains a matter of personal choice, influenced by individual values. ES science cannot be considered neutral and a discussion of the values that shape it forms an important part of the sustainability dialogue. We propose a simple decision tree to help ES scientists identify their role and the purpose of the knowledge they produce. We characterise six idealised scientific postures spanning possible roles at the science-policy interface (pure scientist, science arbiter—guarantor, issue advocate—guardian, officer, honest broker and stealth issue advocate) and illustrate them with feedbacks from interviews. We encourage ES scientists to conduct a reflexive exploration of their attitudes regarding knowledge production and use, with the intention of progressing toward a higher recognition of the political and ethical importance of ES assessments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barnaud, C., and M. Antona. 2014. Deconstructing ecosystem services: Uncertainties and controversies around a socially constructed concept. Geoforum 56: 113–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boerema, A., A.J. Rebelo, M.B. Bodi, K.J. Esler, and P. Meire. 2017. Are ecosystem services adequately quantified? Journal of Applied Ecology 54: 358–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, T.M., J.F. Lamoreux, and J. Soberón. 2014. IPBES ≠ IPCC. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 29: 543–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, K.M.A., A.D. Guerry, P. Balvanera, S. Klain, T. Satterfield, X. Basurto, A. Bostrom, R. Chuenpagdee, et al. 2012. Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. BioScience 62: 744–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coreau, A., C. Nowak, and L. Mermet. 2013. L’expertise pour les politiques nationales de biodiversité en France: quelles stratégies face aux mutations en cours? VertigO 13: 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Courchamp, F., J.A. Dunne, Y. Le Maho, R.M. May, C. Thébaud, and M.E. Hochberg. 2015. Fundamental ecology is fundamental. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 30: 9–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crouzat, E., B. Martín-López, F. Turkelboom, and S. Lavorel. 2016. Disentangling trade-offs and synergies around ecosystem services with the Influence Network Framework: Illustration from a consultative process over the French Alps. Ecology & Society 21: 32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, K.K., K.T. Fisher, M.E. Dickson, S.F. Thrush, and R.Le. Heron. 2015. Improving ecosystem service frameworks to address wicked problems. Ecology and Society 20: 37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Díaz, S., S. Demissew, J. Carabias, C. Joly, M. Lonsdale, N. Ash, A. Larigauderie, J.R. Adhikari, et al. 2015. The IPBES Conceptual Framework—connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14: 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donner, S.D. 2014. Finding your place on the science–advocacy continuum: An editorial essay. Climatic Change 124: 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elias, N. 1956. Problems of involvement and detachment. The British Journal of Sociology 7: 226–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernández, R.J. 2016. How to be a more effective environmental scientist in management and policy contexts. Environmental Science & Policy 64: 171–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, J.A., and K. Brown. 2014. Ecosystem services concepts and approaches in conservation: Just a rhetorical tool? Ecological Economics 108: 257–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrard, G.E., F. Fidler, B.C. Wintle, Y.E. Chee, and S.A. Bekessy. 2015. Beyond advocacy: Making space for conservation scientists in public debate. Conservation Letters 9: 208–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gieryn, T.F. 1983. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review 48: 781–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Baggethun, E., and M. Ruiz-Pérez. 2011. Economic valuation and the commodification of ecosystem services. Progress in Physical Geography 35: 613–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorddard, R., M.J. Colloff, R.M. Wise, D. Ware, and M. Dunlop. 2016. Values, rules and knowledge: Adaptation as change in the decision context. Environmental Science & Policy 57: 60–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerry, A.D., S. Polasky, J. Lubchenco, R. Chaplin-Kramer, G.C. Daily, R. Griffin, M. Ruckelshaus, I.J. Bateman, et al. 2015. Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to practice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 112: 7348–7355.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A. 2008. Transparency under scrutiny: Information disclosure in global environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics 8: 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A. 2010. Transparency in global environmental governance: A coming of age? Global Environmental Politics 10: 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haines-Young, R., and M. Potschin. 2010. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In Ecosystem ecology: A new synthesis, ed. D. Raffaelli, and C. Frid, 110–139. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hulme, P.E. 2014. Bridging the knowing-doing gap: Know-who, know-what, know-why, know-how and know-when. Journal of Applied Ecology 51: 1131–1136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. 1990. The fifth branch: Scientific advisors as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jax, K., D.N. Barton, K.M.A. Chan, R. de Groot, U. Doyle, U. Eser, C. Görg, E. Gómez-Baggethun, et al. 2013. Ecosystem services and ethics. Ecological Economics 93: 260–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kull, C.A., X. Arnauld de Sartre, and M. Castro-Larrañaga. 2015. The political ecology of ecosystem services. Geoforum 61: 122–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B., and S. Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavorel, S., K. Grigulis, P. Lamarque, M.-P. Colace, D. Garden, J. Girel, G. Pellet, and R. Douzet. 2011. Using plant functional traits to understand the landscape distribution of multiple ecosystem services. Journal of Ecology 99: 135–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luck, G.W., K.M.A. Chan, U. Eser, E. Gómez-Baggethun, B. Matzdorf, B. Norton, and M.B. Potschin. 2012. Ethical considerations in on-ground applications of the ecosystem services concept. BioScience 62: 1020–1029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mace, G.M. 2014. Whose conservation? Science 345: 1558–1560.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Martín-López, B., E. Gómez-Baggethun, M. García-Llorente, and C. Montes. 2014. Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment. Ecological Indicators 37: 220–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenzie, E., S. Posner, P. Tillmann, J.R. Bernhardt, K. Howard, and A. Rosenthal. 2014. Understanding the use of ecosystem service knowledge in decision making: lessons from international experiences of spatial planning. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 32: 320–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pade-Khene, C., R. Luton, T. Jordaan, S. Hildbrand, C.G. Proches, and A. Sitshaluza. 2013. Complexity of stakeholder interaction in applied research. Ecology and Society 18: 13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pielke, R.A. 2007. The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Primmer, E., and E. Furman. 2012. Operationalising ecosystem service approaches for governance: Do measuring, mapping and valuing integrate sector-specific knowledge systems? Ecosystem Services 1: 85–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raymond, C.M., G. Singh, K. Benessaiah, J.R. Bernhardt, J. Levine, H. Nelson, N.J. Turner, B. Norton, et al. 2013. Ecosystem services and beyond: Using multiple metaphors to understand human–environment relationships. BioScience 63: 536–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandbrook, C., I.R. Scales, B. Vira, and W.M. Adams. 2011. Value plurality among conservation professionals. Conservation Biology 25: 285–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulp, C.J., B. Burkhard, J. Maes, J. Van Vliet, and P.H. Verburg. 2014. Uncertainties in ecosystem service maps: A comparison on the European scale. PLoS ONE 9: e109643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stirling, A. 2010. Keep it complex. Nature 468: 1029–1031.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sukhdev, P. 2009. Costing the earth. Nature 462: 277.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas, H. 1997. The tyranny of light: The temptations and the paradoxes of the information society. Futures 29: 827–843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turnhout, E., S. Van Bommel, and M.N.C. Aarts. 2010. How participation creates citizens: Participatory governance as performative practice. Ecology and Society 15: 26–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turnhout, E., M. Hisschemöller, and H. Eijsackers. 2007. Ecological indicators: Between the two fires of science and policy. Ecological Indicators 7: 215–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turnhout, E., M. Stuiver, J. Klostermann, B. Harms, and C. Leeuwis. 2013. New roles of science in society: Different repertoires of knowledge brokering. Science & Public Policy (SPP) 40: 281–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Hove, S. 2007. A rationale for science-policy interfaces. Futures 39: 807–826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Hel, S. 2016. New science for global sustainability? The institutionalisation of knowledge co-production in Future Earth. Environmental Science & Policy 61: 165–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilhere, G.F. 2012. Inadvertent advocacy. Conservation Biology 26: 39–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, J.C., K.A. Waylen, S. Sarkki, S. Albon, I. Bainbridge, E. Balian, J. Davidson, D. Edwards, et al. 2014. Improving the science-policy dialogue to meet the challenges of biodiversity conservation: Having conversations rather than talking at one-another. Biodiversity and Conservation 23: 387–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by ERAnet BiodivERsA project CONNECT, with support from the French Agence Nationale pour la Recherche, and by the project OPERAs FP7-ENV-2012-two-stage-308393.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine (LECA), UMR 5553, CNRS, Université Grenoble Alpes, BP 53, 2233 rue de la Piscine, 38041, Grenoble Cedex 9, France

    Emilie Crouzat & Sandra Lavorel

  2. Université Grenoble Alpes, Irstea, Grenoble, France

    Isabelle Arpin & Lucas Brunet

  3. Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia

    Matthew J. Colloff

  4. Research Group Nature & Society, Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Brussels, Belgium

    Francis Turkelboom

Authors
  1. Emilie Crouzat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Isabelle Arpin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lucas Brunet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matthew J. Colloff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Francis Turkelboom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sandra Lavorel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emilie Crouzat.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 45 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Crouzat, E., Arpin, I., Brunet, L. et al. Researchers must be aware of their roles at the interface of ecosystem services science and policy. Ambio 47, 97–105 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-0939-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-0939-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation