161
ticipation allows for bridging of knowledge and skills between experts and public
beyond traditional boundaries (Carmen et al. 2015; Andaloro et al. 2016).
Transdisciplinary SPIs at regional, national, and local levels saw several cases of
success in policy uptake. These included the use of scientific results to define the
limits of emission values, best available techniques, and economic instruments
under the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP)
(Spranger et al. 2014); the development of England’s national biodiversity strategy
building on the national ecosystem assessment report delivered by a team of multidisciplinary experts and policymakers (Watson 2012); and the integration of science–policy activities under the International Commission for the Protection of the
Danube River (ICPDR) (Sommerwerk et al. 2010a). Problem-oriented and
interdisciplinary research and partnership were found to drive transitional change of
academic culture (Kueffer et al. 2012).
8.3.2.4 SPI Process
Overcoming silos between decision-makers and scientists (Tinch et al. 2016;
Carmen et al. 2015; Lidskog 2014; Sanguinetti et al. 2014; Sarkki et al. 2013;
Ruckelshaus et al. 2015; Aslaksen et al. 2012; Koetz et al. 2012; Naylor et al. 2012;
Noss et al. 2009; Srebotnjak 2007) and timely provisioning of consolidated views
for decision-making (Larigauderie and Mooney 2010b; Thomas et al. 2012; Carmen
et al. 2015; Nesshöver et al. 2016) were identified as key challenges to the process
of developing and maintaining SPIs. Many articles also emphasized the need for
interdisciplinary SPIs to develop policies that can take into account the complexity
and interconnectedness of social and ecological systems (Arts and Buizer 2009;
Mishra et al. 2009; Pullin et al. 2009; Van Haastrecht and Toonen 2011; Blythe and
Dadi 2012; Kueffer et al. 2012; Paloniemi et al. 2012; Keune et al. 2013; Young
et al. 2014; Hauck et al. 2014; Sarkki et al. 2015; Raina and Dey 2015; Seddon et al.
2016; Chazdon et al. 2017).
One potential solution to these challenges, which was identified in several past
studies on individual SPIs, could be to put in place incentives for scientists and policymakers to support their long-term, interactive dialogue as well as the collaboration of diverse stakeholders and knowledge holders. Some authors noted that
contribution to better decision-making required better communication between
policymakers and scientists and addressing or communicating the uncertainty of
science (Opdam et al. 2009; Rodela et al. 2015; Balian et al. 2016). At the same
time, the need was recognized to strike an appropriate balance between scientific
complexity on the one hand and over-simplification on the other (Sarkki et al. 2013;
Balian et al. 2016). Improvement of data collection and use (Ruckelshaus et al.
2015; Stephenson et al. 2015) and lack of common language or philosophies
between scientists and policymakers (Borie and Hulme 2015; Rodriguez et al. 2015;
Sarkki et al. 2015; Gigante et al. 2016; Tremblay et al. 2016) were also singled out
as means for a better decision-making process between these two groups.
8 Mapping the Current Understanding of Biodiversity Science–Policy Interfaces
ticipation allows for bridging of knowledge and skills between experts and public
beyond traditional boundaries (Carmen et al. 2015; Andaloro et al. 2016).
Transdisciplinary SPIs at regional, national, and local levels saw several cases of
success in policy uptake. These included the use of scientific results to define the
limits of emission values, best available techniques, and economic instruments
under the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP)
(Spranger et al. 2014); the development of England’s national biodiversity strategy
building on the national ecosystem assessment report delivered by a team of multidisciplinary experts and policymakers (Watson 2012); and the integration of science–policy activities under the International Commission for the Protection of the
Danube River (ICPDR) (Sommerwerk et al. 2010a). Problem-oriented and
interdisciplinary research and partnership were found to drive transitional change of
academic culture (Kueffer et al. 2012).
8.3.2.4 SPI Process
Overcoming silos between decision-makers and scientists (Tinch et al. 2016;
Carmen et al. 2015; Lidskog 2014; Sanguinetti et al. 2014; Sarkki et al. 2013;
Ruckelshaus et al. 2015; Aslaksen et al. 2012; Koetz et al. 2012; Naylor et al. 2012;
Noss et al. 2009; Srebotnjak 2007) and timely provisioning of consolidated views
for decision-making (Larigauderie and Mooney 2010b; Thomas et al. 2012; Carmen
et al. 2015; Nesshöver et al. 2016) were identified as key challenges to the process
of developing and maintaining SPIs. Many articles also emphasized the need for
interdisciplinary SPIs to develop policies that can take into account the complexity
and interconnectedness of social and ecological systems (Arts and Buizer 2009;
Mishra et al. 2009; Pullin et al. 2009; Van Haastrecht and Toonen 2011; Blythe and
Dadi 2012; Kueffer et al. 2012; Paloniemi et al. 2012; Keune et al. 2013; Young
et al. 2014; Hauck et al. 2014; Sarkki et al. 2015; Raina and Dey 2015; Seddon et al.
2016; Chazdon et al. 2017).
One potential solution to these challenges, which was identified in several past
studies on individual SPIs, could be to put in place incentives for scientists and policymakers to support their long-term, interactive dialogue as well as the collaboration of diverse stakeholders and knowledge holders. Some authors noted that
contribution to better decision-making required better communication between
policymakers and scientists and addressing or communicating the uncertainty of
science (Opdam et al. 2009; Rodela et al. 2015; Balian et al. 2016). At the same
time, the need was recognized to strike an appropriate balance between scientific
complexity on the one hand and over-simplification on the other (Sarkki et al. 2013;
Balian et al. 2016). Improvement of data collection and use (Ruckelshaus et al.
2015; Stephenson et al. 2015) and lack of common language or philosophies
between scientists and policymakers (Borie and Hulme 2015; Rodriguez et al. 2015;
Sarkki et al. 2015; Gigante et al. 2016; Tremblay et al. 2016) were also singled out
as means for a better decision-making process between these two groups.
8 Mapping the Current Understanding of Biodiversity Science–Policy Interfaces