9 Knowledge Exchange at Science-Policy Interfaces …
167
(which we refer to as “science/policy interfaces”) in the areas of spatial planning,
land use and soil management, and use our investigations to develop a typology of
knowledge exchange. Furthermore, we examine the barriers to and opportunities for
knowledge exchange in Swiss spatial planning, land use and soil management. The
goal of this article is to better understand how knowledge is exchanged, and to find
out what impedes and enhances knowledge exchange, drawing on Switzerland as
a case study. We assess in what respects the findings from Switzerland have been
represented in previous literature, i.e. which concepts of knowledge exchange our
empirically developed typology refers to. By looking at the concepts that underlie
the types of knowledge exchange actors adopt, it becomes clear why knowledge
exchange is a challenging task: differing concepts of knowledge exchange result in
different expectations on how knowledge is to be exchanged.
We discuss the following research questions
1. Which types of knowledge exchange do actors adopt at science/policy interfaces
in spatial planning, land use and soil management in Switzerland?
2. Which concepts of knowledge exchange do these different types of knowledge
exchange refer to?
3. How do actors at the science/policy interfaces in the fields of spatial planning, land
use and soil management in Switzerland assess the barriers to and opportunities
for knowledge exchange?
In Switzerland, the land and the soil are resources that have come under increasing
pressure. Construction and urban sprawl threaten agricultural land, biodiversity and
the landscape. A growing population, high mobility (and the resulting consumption
of land by transport infrastructure) and growing demand for more per-capita living
space have all helped drive this process (Schweizerischer Bundesrat, KdK, BPUK,
SSV and SGV, 2012: 1, 4, 6). We understand pressure on the land and the soil to
be a typical problem for post-normal science in the sense of Funtowicz and Ravetz
(1993): it is an environmental policy issue with high systems uncertainties and high
decision stakes. While population growth, mobility and the demand for more personal
space have been expressed as reasons for the consumption of land and soil, the role
of other drivers (such as zoning policy, tax policy and capital markets) is not fully
understood, to say nothing of the interdependencies among the various drivers (Brils
et al. 2016: 792; Plieninger et al. 2016; Schweizerischer Bundesrat et al. 2012: 1, 4, 6).
Moreover, spatial planning, land use and soil management all epitomise the presence
of diverse interests, which are introduced into each issue by a variety of actors.
These include the construction industry, real estate companies, private landowners,
farmers and conservationists (high-decision stakes). We therefore presume that, in
their attempts to find solutions in a complex context like this, actors adopt various
types of knowledge exchange, which encompass not only the positivist perspective
of “knowledge transfer”, but also other types of knowledge exchange that go beyond
that.
167
(which we refer to as “science/policy interfaces”) in the areas of spatial planning,
land use and soil management, and use our investigations to develop a typology of
knowledge exchange. Furthermore, we examine the barriers to and opportunities for
knowledge exchange in Swiss spatial planning, land use and soil management. The
goal of this article is to better understand how knowledge is exchanged, and to find
out what impedes and enhances knowledge exchange, drawing on Switzerland as
a case study. We assess in what respects the findings from Switzerland have been
represented in previous literature, i.e. which concepts of knowledge exchange our
empirically developed typology refers to. By looking at the concepts that underlie
the types of knowledge exchange actors adopt, it becomes clear why knowledge
exchange is a challenging task: differing concepts of knowledge exchange result in
different expectations on how knowledge is to be exchanged.
We discuss the following research questions
1. Which types of knowledge exchange do actors adopt at science/policy interfaces
in spatial planning, land use and soil management in Switzerland?
2. Which concepts of knowledge exchange do these different types of knowledge
exchange refer to?
3. How do actors at the science/policy interfaces in the fields of spatial planning, land
use and soil management in Switzerland assess the barriers to and opportunities
for knowledge exchange?
In Switzerland, the land and the soil are resources that have come under increasing
pressure. Construction and urban sprawl threaten agricultural land, biodiversity and
the landscape. A growing population, high mobility (and the resulting consumption
of land by transport infrastructure) and growing demand for more per-capita living
space have all helped drive this process (Schweizerischer Bundesrat, KdK, BPUK,
SSV and SGV, 2012: 1, 4, 6). We understand pressure on the land and the soil to
be a typical problem for post-normal science in the sense of Funtowicz and Ravetz
(1993): it is an environmental policy issue with high systems uncertainties and high
decision stakes. While population growth, mobility and the demand for more personal
space have been expressed as reasons for the consumption of land and soil, the role
of other drivers (such as zoning policy, tax policy and capital markets) is not fully
understood, to say nothing of the interdependencies among the various drivers (Brils
et al. 2016: 792; Plieninger et al. 2016; Schweizerischer Bundesrat et al. 2012: 1, 4, 6).
Moreover, spatial planning, land use and soil management all epitomise the presence
of diverse interests, which are introduced into each issue by a variety of actors.
These include the construction industry, real estate companies, private landowners,
farmers and conservationists (high-decision stakes). We therefore presume that, in
their attempts to find solutions in a complex context like this, actors adopt various
types of knowledge exchange, which encompass not only the positivist perspective
of “knowledge transfer”, but also other types of knowledge exchange that go beyond
that.