150
the SPIRAL project (Science-Policy Interfaces for Biodiversity: Research, Action
and Learning), an interdisciplinary research project that studied biodiversity SPIs in
an attempt to improve the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity funded
under the EU 7th Framework Programme. SPI goals are central to understanding
how and why an SPI operates, why people participate, and play a strong role in
setting the foundations of credibility, relevance, and legitimacy. SPI structure
describes how SPIs are set up and the constraints within which the processes are
defined. SPI processes define the way in which the key functions are actually carried out. SPI outputs can be characterized by a set of features describing how they
are prepared and presented. SPI outcomes are the learning, behavioural, and policy
changes that SPIs foster. Table 8.1 provides more a further breakdown of these categories. SPIRAL evaluated SPIs based on their perceived credibility, relevance, and
legitimacy (CRELE) (Young et al. 2013a; Nesshöver et al. 2016). In this context,
credibility is defined as ‘the perceived quality, validity and scientific adequacy of
people, processes and knowledge exchange at the interface’; relevance is ‘the perception of the usefulness of the knowledge brokered in the SPI, how closely it
related to the needs of policy and society, and how responsive the SPI processes are
to these changing needs’; and legitimacy is ‘the perceived fairness and balance of
the SPI process’ (Young et al. 2013a).
8.2 Methodology
We searched the peer-reviewed literature on biodiversity-relevant SPIs using a
search string of ‘(science-policy OR policy-science) AND biodiversity’ on Scopus
(https://www.scopus.com/home.uri), one of the largest databases of peer-reviewed
literature. The resulting papers’ titles, keywords, and abstracts were screened to
identify those on creating or analysing SPIs. From these, we extracted information
on the relevant SPI study including its location, its spatial scale (subnational,
national, regional, or global), the associated key challenges and possible solutions
identified in the SPI process, and its outcomes.
We assessed each article’s analysis of the relevant SPI according to the SPI features identified by the SPIRAL framework on goals, structure, processes, outputs,
and outcomes, as listed in Table 8.1. Our assumption is that the outcomes of an SPI
are affected by the other four SPI features, but also by external factors (e.g., political
climate and pure chance). For this reason, SPI outcomes may not directly reflect the
SPI design/operation choices in the same way as other features (Young et al. 2013b).
Most studies evaluated the other four features in terms of their perceived credibility,
relevance, and legitimacy (CRELE) as a proxy for evaluating the SPI outcomes.
The literature review under this study focused therefore on identifying the major
challenges faced by each of the SPI features (goal, structure, process, and output),
as well as the possible solutions to these challenges for each of the features. We also
assessed how goal, structure, process, and output contribute to better SPI outcomes,
through a systematic review of the studies that analysed their causal link. This was
I. Matsumoto et al.
the SPIRAL project (Science-Policy Interfaces for Biodiversity: Research, Action
and Learning), an interdisciplinary research project that studied biodiversity SPIs in
an attempt to improve the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity funded
under the EU 7th Framework Programme. SPI goals are central to understanding
how and why an SPI operates, why people participate, and play a strong role in
setting the foundations of credibility, relevance, and legitimacy. SPI structure
describes how SPIs are set up and the constraints within which the processes are
defined. SPI processes define the way in which the key functions are actually carried out. SPI outputs can be characterized by a set of features describing how they
are prepared and presented. SPI outcomes are the learning, behavioural, and policy
changes that SPIs foster. Table 8.1 provides more a further breakdown of these categories. SPIRAL evaluated SPIs based on their perceived credibility, relevance, and
legitimacy (CRELE) (Young et al. 2013a; Nesshöver et al. 2016). In this context,
credibility is defined as ‘the perceived quality, validity and scientific adequacy of
people, processes and knowledge exchange at the interface’; relevance is ‘the perception of the usefulness of the knowledge brokered in the SPI, how closely it
related to the needs of policy and society, and how responsive the SPI processes are
to these changing needs’; and legitimacy is ‘the perceived fairness and balance of
the SPI process’ (Young et al. 2013a).
8.2 Methodology
We searched the peer-reviewed literature on biodiversity-relevant SPIs using a
search string of ‘(science-policy OR policy-science) AND biodiversity’ on Scopus
(https://www.scopus.com/home.uri), one of the largest databases of peer-reviewed
literature. The resulting papers’ titles, keywords, and abstracts were screened to
identify those on creating or analysing SPIs. From these, we extracted information
on the relevant SPI study including its location, its spatial scale (subnational,
national, regional, or global), the associated key challenges and possible solutions
identified in the SPI process, and its outcomes.
We assessed each article’s analysis of the relevant SPI according to the SPI features identified by the SPIRAL framework on goals, structure, processes, outputs,
and outcomes, as listed in Table 8.1. Our assumption is that the outcomes of an SPI
are affected by the other four SPI features, but also by external factors (e.g., political
climate and pure chance). For this reason, SPI outcomes may not directly reflect the
SPI design/operation choices in the same way as other features (Young et al. 2013b).
Most studies evaluated the other four features in terms of their perceived credibility,
relevance, and legitimacy (CRELE) as a proxy for evaluating the SPI outcomes.
The literature review under this study focused therefore on identifying the major
challenges faced by each of the SPI features (goal, structure, process, and output),
as well as the possible solutions to these challenges for each of the features. We also
assessed how goal, structure, process, and output contribute to better SPI outcomes,
through a systematic review of the studies that analysed their causal link. This was
I. Matsumoto et al.