Science–Policy Interfaces in Impact Assessment Procedures

  • Ann-Katrin BäcklundEmail author
  • Jean Paul Bousset
  • Sara Brogaard
  • Catherine Macombe
  • Marie Taverne
  • Martin van Ittersum


Modelling tools used in impact assessment procedures can be regarded as tools for communication between science and policy. In order to create an integrated system for modelling not only the scientific components have to be in place but also the science/policy interfaces in the assessment procedures have to be identified and their social dynamics understood.

To make a system like SEAMLESS Integrated Framework (SEAMLESS-IF) applicable in a European decision-making process interaction with potential users of the system is needed during different stages of development. We are here describing some of the interactive work performed to enable user involvement in the development of the framework and the learning that was triggered by this. The two cases presented are SEAMLESS User Forum with participants from the EU administration and the process of setting up assessments in test situations with regional administrations.

The experience obtained from these interactions form a base for the discussion as to whether the design of SEAMLESS-IF is suited to contribute to an institutionalisation of a deliberative impact assessment process.


Impact Assessment Potential User Policy Option Deliberative Process Impact Indicator 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Alkan Olsson, J., Bockstaller, C., Stapleton, L.M., Ewert, F., Knapen, R., Therond, O., Geniaux, G., Bellon, S., Pinto Correira, T., Turpin, N., & Bezlepkina, I. (2009). A goal oriented indicator framework to support integrated assessment of new policies for agri-environmental systems. Environmental Science and Policy, 12(5), 562-572.Google Scholar
  2. Bäcklund, A.-K. (2009). Impact assessment in the European commission - a system with multiple objectives. Environmental Science and Policy, 12(8), 1077-1087.Google Scholar
  3. Bardach, E. (2000). A practical guide to policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective problem solving. New York: Chatham House.Google Scholar
  4. Brugnach, M., Tagg, A., Keil, F., & de Lange, W. J. (2007). Uncertainty matters: Computer models at the science-policy interface. Water Resources Management, 21, 1075-1090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Callon, M. (1999). The role of lay people in the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge. Science, Technology and Society, 4(1), 81-94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Casey, A. (2005). Enhancing individual and organizational learning: A sociological model. Management Learning, 36(2), 131-147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cash, D., & Buizer, J. (2005). Knowledge-action systems for seasonal to inter-annual climate forecasting: Summary of a workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, J. (1998). Democracy and liberty. In J. Elster (Ed.), Deliberative democracy (pp. 185-231). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. EC. (2002). Communication on impact assessment, COM 2002(276). Retrieved Feb 15, 2007, from
  10. EC. (2005). Impact assessment guidelines, SEC 2005(791). Retrieved Feb 15, 2007, from
  11. EC. (2006). A strategic review of better regulation in the European Union. COM 2006 (689). Retrieved Feb 15, 2008, from
  12. EEAC. (2006). Impact assessment of European commission policies: Achievements and prospects. Statement of the EEAC - Working Group on Governance. Retrieved Feb 15, 2007, from assessment/en/documents/EEAC_WG_Gov_IAstatement_background.pdf
  13. Elster, J. (ed). (1998). Deliberative democracy (pp. 1-18). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Feynmann, R. (1998). The meaning of it all. Reading, MA: Perseus.Google Scholar
  15. Gabbert, S., Van Ittersum, M., Ewert, F., Kroeze, C., Stalpers, S. & Alkan-Olsson, J., (2009). Uncertainty information in Integrated Assessment: The users’ perspective. Regional Environmental Change, in press.Google Scholar
  16. Grunwald, A. (2004). Strategic knowledge for sustainable development: the need for reflexivity and learning at the interface between science and society. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 1(1-2), 150-167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hilborn, R. (1979). Some failure and successes in applying systems analysis to ecological systems. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 6, 25-31.Google Scholar
  19. Hoppe, R. (2005). Rethinking the science-policy nexus: from knowledge utilisation and science technology studies to types of boundary arrangements. Poiesis & Praxis, 3, 199-215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Janssen, S., Andersen, E., Athanasiadis, I.N., & van Ittersum, M.K. (2009). A database for integrated assessment of European agricultural systems. Environmental Science and Policy, 12(5), 573-587. Google Scholar
  21. Lee, K. (1993). Compass and gyroscope. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  22. Lee, N. (2006). Bridging the gap between theory and practice in integrated assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26(1), 57-78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lindblom, Ch E. (1968). The policy-making process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  24. Mandelkern Group on Better Regulation (2001). Final Report. Retrieved Feb 10, 2007, from
  25. Mintzberg, H. (1980). Beyond implementation: An analysis of the resistance to policy analysis. INFOR, 18(2), 100-138.Google Scholar
  26. Morgan, M. G., & Dowlatabadi, H. (1996). Learning from integrated assessment of climate change. Climate Change, 34(4), 337-368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Smith, G. (2000). Toward deliberative institutions. In M. Saward (Ed.), Democratic innovation: Deliberation, representation and association (pp. 29-39). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Stern, P. C. (1986). Blind spots in policy analysis: What economics doesn’t say about energy use. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 5(2), 200-227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Therond, O., Belhouchette, H., Janssen, S., Louhichi, K., Ewert, F., Bergez, J.-E., Wery, J., Heckelei, T., Alkan Olsson, J., Leenhardt, D., & van Ittersum, M. (2009). Methodology to translate policy assessment problems into scenarios: the example of the SEAMLESS Integrated Framework. Environmental Science and Policy, 12(5), 619-630.Google Scholar
  30. Turnpenny, J. (2008). Are we nearly there yet? Lessons for integrated sustainability assessment from EU environmental policy-making. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 3(1/2), 33-47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Van den Hove, S. (2007). A rationale for science-policy interfaces. Futures, 39(7), 807-826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Van Ittersum, M., Ewert, F., Heckelei, T., Wery, J., Alkan Olsson, J., Andersen, E., et al. (2008). Integrated assessment of agricultural systems - A component-based framework for the European Union (SEAMLESS). Agricultural Systems, 96, 150-165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Van Ittersum, M., Gabbert, S., & Ewert, F. (2008b). Uncertainty analysis in model chains for integrated assessment. SEAMLESS deliverable PD1.3.11.2, SEAMLESS Integrated Project, EU 6th Framework Programme, contract no. 010036-2,, 60p.
  34. Van-Camp, L., Bujarrabal, B., Gentile, A.-R., Jones, R.J.A., Montanarella, L., Olazabal, C., & Selvaradjou, S.-K. (2004). Reports of the Technical Working Groups established under the thematic strategy for soil protection. EUR 21319 EN/1, Official Publication of the European Communities, Luxembourg, from

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ann-Katrin Bäcklund
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jean Paul Bousset
    • 2
  • Sara Brogaard
    • 3
  • Catherine Macombe
    • 4
  • Marie Taverne
    • 2
  • Martin van Ittersum
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Social and Economic GeographyLund UniversityLundSweden
  2. 2.Dynamics and Functions of Rural AreasAubière CedexFrance
  3. 3.Centre for Sustainability Studies, Lund UniversityLundSweden
  4. 4.Aubière CedexFrance
  5. 5.Plant Production Systems Group, Wageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations