162
Adequate capacity building for both scientists and policymakers to understand
the respective processes in which they work was stated as a key SPI process in 18
reviewed articles. For instance, discussing biodiversity data for decision-making in
Africa, Stephenson et al. (2015) stressed the importance of building capacity for
data collection, using tools, guidelines, and communities on biodiversity planning
and monitoring. In order to promote interaction between scientists and decisionmakers to improve mutual understanding in Africa, they also mentioned the need for
the improvement of national, international, and cross-sectoral collaboration for biodiversity data management, and the production and use of more data-derived products that encourage data use. Ruckelshaus et al. (2015) pointed out the importance
of training local experts in the use of different approaches and tools for building
local capacity, ownership, trust, and long-term success. Neßhöver et al. (2013)
found that, if policy requires a broad foundation and exhaustive interdisciplinary
synthesis, broad assessments such as Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) or
The Economics of Ecosystem and Biodiversity (TEEB) would be more effective in
the engagement of policymakers.
Trust building was also frequently identified (in 16 articles) as being a relevant
solution to address the challenges in SPI processes, and it is closely related to capacity building. For example, to identify and overcome the numerous social, cultural,
and political obstacles to effective transition of policy into action and financial
resources that benefit biodiversity, Seddon et al. (2016) stated that ecologists and
conservation biologists need to engage much more strongly with, and draw on, the
social sciences and the humanities.
In terms of the contributions of SPI processes to outcomes, most studies described
the social learning (23 of 52) and policy impacts (22 of 52) in an inseparable continuum. Tinch et al. (2016) found that long-lasting mutual trust and a learning environment were vital to generate positive SPI outcomes including social learning and
policy impacts, drawing from a review of ten SPIs at national, regional, and global
levels. Clear procedural protocols and higher transparency in SPI process were
found to also enhance mutual trust (Kim et al. 2016). Regular face-to-face interactions between scientists and policymakers (Balian et al. 2016), as well as their
exchange in the upstream of the research project design process (Neßhöver et al.
2013), can enhance mutual understanding between policymakers and researchers
and accelerate the flow of scientific knowledge into policies and practices, and the
inclusion of policy perspectives into research projects. Such a reciprocal and iterative process helps policymakers understand and deal with uncertainties, and
strengthen learning in and policy relevance of SPI (Sarkki et al. 2013; Balian et al.
2016). In doing so, it was recommended to acknowledge and spur the enthusiasm of
various participants to bring different forms of knowledge together and to integrate
knowledge in decision-making (Carmen et al. 2015). Ruckelshaus et al. (2015) suggested the need for focused capacity building for local experts on the approaches
and tools to enhance local capacity, ownership, and trust, which helps integrate local
values in biodiversity planning. Sarkki et al. (2013), on the other hand, were of the
opinion that scientists need to be better aware of the cycle of the policy process that
they intend to influence. All in all, continuous interaction between scientists and
I. Matsumoto et al.
Adequate capacity building for both scientists and policymakers to understand
the respective processes in which they work was stated as a key SPI process in 18
reviewed articles. For instance, discussing biodiversity data for decision-making in
Africa, Stephenson et al. (2015) stressed the importance of building capacity for
data collection, using tools, guidelines, and communities on biodiversity planning
and monitoring. In order to promote interaction between scientists and decisionmakers to improve mutual understanding in Africa, they also mentioned the need for
the improvement of national, international, and cross-sectoral collaboration for biodiversity data management, and the production and use of more data-derived products that encourage data use. Ruckelshaus et al. (2015) pointed out the importance
of training local experts in the use of different approaches and tools for building
local capacity, ownership, trust, and long-term success. Neßhöver et al. (2013)
found that, if policy requires a broad foundation and exhaustive interdisciplinary
synthesis, broad assessments such as Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) or
The Economics of Ecosystem and Biodiversity (TEEB) would be more effective in
the engagement of policymakers.
Trust building was also frequently identified (in 16 articles) as being a relevant
solution to address the challenges in SPI processes, and it is closely related to capacity building. For example, to identify and overcome the numerous social, cultural,
and political obstacles to effective transition of policy into action and financial
resources that benefit biodiversity, Seddon et al. (2016) stated that ecologists and
conservation biologists need to engage much more strongly with, and draw on, the
social sciences and the humanities.
In terms of the contributions of SPI processes to outcomes, most studies described
the social learning (23 of 52) and policy impacts (22 of 52) in an inseparable continuum. Tinch et al. (2016) found that long-lasting mutual trust and a learning environment were vital to generate positive SPI outcomes including social learning and
policy impacts, drawing from a review of ten SPIs at national, regional, and global
levels. Clear procedural protocols and higher transparency in SPI process were
found to also enhance mutual trust (Kim et al. 2016). Regular face-to-face interactions between scientists and policymakers (Balian et al. 2016), as well as their
exchange in the upstream of the research project design process (Neßhöver et al.
2013), can enhance mutual understanding between policymakers and researchers
and accelerate the flow of scientific knowledge into policies and practices, and the
inclusion of policy perspectives into research projects. Such a reciprocal and iterative process helps policymakers understand and deal with uncertainties, and
strengthen learning in and policy relevance of SPI (Sarkki et al. 2013; Balian et al.
2016). In doing so, it was recommended to acknowledge and spur the enthusiasm of
various participants to bring different forms of knowledge together and to integrate
knowledge in decision-making (Carmen et al. 2015). Ruckelshaus et al. (2015) suggested the need for focused capacity building for local experts on the approaches
and tools to enhance local capacity, ownership, and trust, which helps integrate local
values in biodiversity planning. Sarkki et al. (2013), on the other hand, were of the
opinion that scientists need to be better aware of the cycle of the policy process that
they intend to influence. All in all, continuous interaction between scientists and
I. Matsumoto et al.