600
21.3.7 Communication
There is rarely a linear flow of science to decision-making. Decision-makers utilize
science to a lesser or greater degree but are influenced by their own experiences and
values, as well as the objectives of any community or constituency that they represent, before making choices and judgments. Thus, the relationship between science
and decisions is a complex one. Where the products of science are more aligned
with the processes and needs of decision-makers, they are more influential. Where
science is more effectively communicated to and understood by decision-makers, it
is more influential. How risk and uncertainty are understood and perceived can
strongly influence the impact of science. Thus, two-way communication is a critical
part of the application of science to practice.
Communication is a serious challenge to successful work in communities of science (i.e., scientists from different disciplines working together) and in communities of practice (both scientist/non-scientist communication, and communication
between non-science stakeholders representing different communities). The core
challenge of communication is to achieve two process goals: First, establish a common language and understanding of nexus issues that support communication and
collaborative problem solving and solution development by diverse stakeholders,
and second, implement processes that facilitate communication between different
stakeholders. Fortunately, there are several examples of how to address this challenge, such as a research question, a metric, a modeling outcome, or a decisionmaking support tool.
Throughout this book, we have seen many examples of communication processes;
1. University-based research initiatives frequently hold stakeholder workshops. For
example, The Texas A&M University System Water–energy–food Nexus
Initiative, which focuses on Decision Support for Water Stressed FEW Nexus
Decisions, held a 2018 “Stakeholder Information Sharing and Engagement
Workshop” involving “over 70 stakeholders drawn from the water, energy, and
food sectors in San Antonio and surrounding region.” Facilitated small-group
sessions were held to obtain stakeholder input on research questions to be asked,
and on limitations and opportunities for stakeholder engagement on WEF nexusrelated work (Rosen et al. 2018).
2. The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) operates
multi-stakeholder processes at the level of countries to “decide what issues to
focus on and what actions to take” and is “fundamentally about participatory
decision-making and information sharing at the country level.” One rationale is,
“If local people take ownership of all stages and levels of decision-making, development activities are more likely to build on local strengths, meet local needs and
priorities, and foster self-determination and sustainability.” (FAO website).
3. The International Joint Commission (see Sect. 19.2.3) which oversees issue
related to shared waters on the border between the USA and Canada has a Great
Lakes Science Advisory Board which engages a diverse set of scientists to
provide advice on research and scientific matters, including science priorities
B. Kinne et al.
21.3.7 Communication
There is rarely a linear flow of science to decision-making. Decision-makers utilize
science to a lesser or greater degree but are influenced by their own experiences and
values, as well as the objectives of any community or constituency that they represent, before making choices and judgments. Thus, the relationship between science
and decisions is a complex one. Where the products of science are more aligned
with the processes and needs of decision-makers, they are more influential. Where
science is more effectively communicated to and understood by decision-makers, it
is more influential. How risk and uncertainty are understood and perceived can
strongly influence the impact of science. Thus, two-way communication is a critical
part of the application of science to practice.
Communication is a serious challenge to successful work in communities of science (i.e., scientists from different disciplines working together) and in communities of practice (both scientist/non-scientist communication, and communication
between non-science stakeholders representing different communities). The core
challenge of communication is to achieve two process goals: First, establish a common language and understanding of nexus issues that support communication and
collaborative problem solving and solution development by diverse stakeholders,
and second, implement processes that facilitate communication between different
stakeholders. Fortunately, there are several examples of how to address this challenge, such as a research question, a metric, a modeling outcome, or a decisionmaking support tool.
Throughout this book, we have seen many examples of communication processes;
1. University-based research initiatives frequently hold stakeholder workshops. For
example, The Texas A&M University System Water–energy–food Nexus
Initiative, which focuses on Decision Support for Water Stressed FEW Nexus
Decisions, held a 2018 “Stakeholder Information Sharing and Engagement
Workshop” involving “over 70 stakeholders drawn from the water, energy, and
food sectors in San Antonio and surrounding region.” Facilitated small-group
sessions were held to obtain stakeholder input on research questions to be asked,
and on limitations and opportunities for stakeholder engagement on WEF nexusrelated work (Rosen et al. 2018).
2. The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) operates
multi-stakeholder processes at the level of countries to “decide what issues to
focus on and what actions to take” and is “fundamentally about participatory
decision-making and information sharing at the country level.” One rationale is,
“If local people take ownership of all stages and levels of decision-making, development activities are more likely to build on local strengths, meet local needs and
priorities, and foster self-determination and sustainability.” (FAO website).
3. The International Joint Commission (see Sect. 19.2.3) which oversees issue
related to shared waters on the border between the USA and Canada has a Great
Lakes Science Advisory Board which engages a diverse set of scientists to
provide advice on research and scientific matters, including science priorities
B. Kinne et al.