182
M. Pütz and R. Brassel
References
Bielak, A. T., Campbell, A., Pope, S., Schaefer, K., & Shaxson, L. (2008). From science communication to knowledge brokering: The shift from “science push” to “policy pull.” In D. Cheng, M.
Claessens, N. R. J. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, & S. Shi (Eds.), Communicating Science
in Social Contexts: New Models, New Practices (pp. 201–226). New York: Springer.
Birkland, T. A. (2005). An Introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts and models of
public policy making (2nd ed.). Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.
Böcher, M., & Krott, M. (2014). The RIU model as an analytical framework for scientific knowledge
transfer: the case of the “decision support system forest and climate change.” Biodiversity and
Conservation, 23(14), 3641–3656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0820-5.
Brils, J., Maring, L., Minixhofer, P., Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S., Stangl, R., Baumgarten, A.,
et al. (2016). National reports with a review and synthesis of the collated information.
Final version as of 01.03.2016 of deliverable 2.5 of the HORIZON 2020 project INSPIRATION. (EC Grant agreement no: 642372), Dessau-Roßlau, Germany: Umweltbundesamt
(UBA). Retrieved from https://www.inspiration-h2020.eu/sites/default/files/upload/documents/
20160301_inspiration_d2.5_0.pdf.
Caplan, N. (1979). The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization. American Behavioral
Scientist, 22(3), 459–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/000276427902200308.
Fazey, I., Bunse, L., Msika, J., Pinke, M., Preedy, K., Evely, A. C., et al. (2014). Evaluating
knowledge exchange in interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder research. Global Environmental
Change,25, 204–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.012.
Fazey, I., Evely, A. C., Reed, M. S., Stringer, L. C., Kruijsen, J., White, P. C. L., et al. (2013). Knowledge exchange: A review and research agenda for environmental management. Environmental
Conservation, 40(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/S037689291200029X.
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739–755.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The
new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporaty societies.
London, Thousand Oaks, New Dehli: SAGE Publications.
Hoppe, R. (2005). Rethinking the science-policy nexus: From knowledge utilization and science
technology studies to types of boundary arrangements. Poièsis and Praxis, 3(3), 199–215. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10202-005-0074-0.
Jasanoff, S. (2004). States of knowledge: The Co-production of science and social order.Routledge,
London.
Kamelarczyk, K. B. F., & Gamborg, C. (2014). Spanning boundaries: Science-policy interaction
in developing countries—The Zambian REDD+ process case. Environmental Development, 10,
1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2014.01.001.
Keeley, J., & Scoones, I. (2003). Understanding environmental policy processes: Cases from Africa.
London: Earthscan Publications.
Lasswell, H. D. (1956). The decision process: Seven categories of functional analysis. College Park:
University of Maryland.
Linke, S., Gilek, M., Karlsson, M., & Udovyk, O. (2014). Unravelling science-policy interactions in
environmental risk governance of the Baltic Sea: Comparing fisheries and eutrophication. Journal
of Risk Research, 17(4), 505–523. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2013.794154.
Mauser, W., Klepper, G., Rice, M., Schmalzbauer, B. S., Hackmann, H., Leemans, R., & Moore, H.
(2013). Transdisciplinary global change research: the co-creation of knowledge for sustainability.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(3–4), 420–431.
Mayring, Ph. (2015). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. 12., überarbeitete
Auflage (Qualitative Content Analysis. Basics and techniques). Weinheim, Basel: Beltz Verlag.
Nutley, S. M., Walter, I., & Davies, H. T. O. (2014). Using evidence: How research can inform
public services. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.
M. Pütz and R. Brassel
References
Bielak, A. T., Campbell, A., Pope, S., Schaefer, K., & Shaxson, L. (2008). From science communication to knowledge brokering: The shift from “science push” to “policy pull.” In D. Cheng, M.
Claessens, N. R. J. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, & S. Shi (Eds.), Communicating Science
in Social Contexts: New Models, New Practices (pp. 201–226). New York: Springer.
Birkland, T. A. (2005). An Introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts and models of
public policy making (2nd ed.). Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.
Böcher, M., & Krott, M. (2014). The RIU model as an analytical framework for scientific knowledge
transfer: the case of the “decision support system forest and climate change.” Biodiversity and
Conservation, 23(14), 3641–3656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0820-5.
Brils, J., Maring, L., Minixhofer, P., Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S., Stangl, R., Baumgarten, A.,
et al. (2016). National reports with a review and synthesis of the collated information.
Final version as of 01.03.2016 of deliverable 2.5 of the HORIZON 2020 project INSPIRATION. (EC Grant agreement no: 642372), Dessau-Roßlau, Germany: Umweltbundesamt
(UBA). Retrieved from https://www.inspiration-h2020.eu/sites/default/files/upload/documents/
20160301_inspiration_d2.5_0.pdf.
Caplan, N. (1979). The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization. American Behavioral
Scientist, 22(3), 459–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/000276427902200308.
Fazey, I., Bunse, L., Msika, J., Pinke, M., Preedy, K., Evely, A. C., et al. (2014). Evaluating
knowledge exchange in interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder research. Global Environmental
Change,25, 204–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.012.
Fazey, I., Evely, A. C., Reed, M. S., Stringer, L. C., Kruijsen, J., White, P. C. L., et al. (2013). Knowledge exchange: A review and research agenda for environmental management. Environmental
Conservation, 40(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/S037689291200029X.
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739–755.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The
new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporaty societies.
London, Thousand Oaks, New Dehli: SAGE Publications.
Hoppe, R. (2005). Rethinking the science-policy nexus: From knowledge utilization and science
technology studies to types of boundary arrangements. Poièsis and Praxis, 3(3), 199–215. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10202-005-0074-0.
Jasanoff, S. (2004). States of knowledge: The Co-production of science and social order.Routledge,
London.
Kamelarczyk, K. B. F., & Gamborg, C. (2014). Spanning boundaries: Science-policy interaction
in developing countries—The Zambian REDD+ process case. Environmental Development, 10,
1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2014.01.001.
Keeley, J., & Scoones, I. (2003). Understanding environmental policy processes: Cases from Africa.
London: Earthscan Publications.
Lasswell, H. D. (1956). The decision process: Seven categories of functional analysis. College Park:
University of Maryland.
Linke, S., Gilek, M., Karlsson, M., & Udovyk, O. (2014). Unravelling science-policy interactions in
environmental risk governance of the Baltic Sea: Comparing fisheries and eutrophication. Journal
of Risk Research, 17(4), 505–523. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2013.794154.
Mauser, W., Klepper, G., Rice, M., Schmalzbauer, B. S., Hackmann, H., Leemans, R., & Moore, H.
(2013). Transdisciplinary global change research: the co-creation of knowledge for sustainability.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(3–4), 420–431.
Mayring, Ph. (2015). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. 12., überarbeitete
Auflage (Qualitative Content Analysis. Basics and techniques). Weinheim, Basel: Beltz Verlag.
Nutley, S. M., Walter, I., & Davies, H. T. O. (2014). Using evidence: How research can inform
public services. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.