163
policymakers from an earlier stage supports more targeted and timely inputs of
quality knowledge from scientists in policy cycle (Sarkki et al. 2013; Balian et al.
2016), and an adaptive process would enable appropriate response to changing policy needs and to help shape next generation of policy questions (Sarkki et al. 2013).
In policy implementation, an adaptive ‘learning by doing’ framework was considered to enhance the use of research results (Chapple et al. 2011).
8.3.2.5 SPI Output
Common challenges related to the outputs of SPIs included making scientific outputs policy relevant (Mishra et al. 2009; Vohland et al. 2011; Balian et al. 2016;
Donohue et al. 2016; Nesshöver et al. 2016) and an inadequate scientific basis of
outputs for policymaking (Koetz et al. 2008; Donohue et al. 2016). The production
of highly relevant outputs of SPIs was most frequently cited as a solution, with the
relevance of the output being enhanced typically through several rounds of communication between scientists and policymakers. For example, given the impact of conventional intensification of agriculture on biodiversity loss and greenhouse gas
emission, Garibaldi et al. (2017) stated an urgent need to provide quantitative evidence of simultaneous ecological and socioeconomic impacts across the globe by
alternative agriculture approaches to direct science–policy initiatives, such as SDGs
and IPBES. They also proposed a participatory assessment framework as one of the
possible solutions to close this knowledge gap. In Brazil, facing the knowledge gaps
regarding the ecological impacts of agricultural expansion and the general disconnection between ecological science and environmental policy development processes, Joly et al. (2010) stated that the efforts to synthesize data for policymaking
and state-level demand were important for the success of biodiversity conservation.
In terms of how outputs contribute to positive outcomes, most studies focused on
policy impacts (7 of 17 studies) and social learning (3 of 17 studies), where social
learning was described as a process leading to policy impacts. Extended peerreviews and well-defined quality assessment process were found to enhance the
learning of participants and enhance the quality of outputs (Sarkki et al. 2013; Beck
2014). Diverse ways of presenting synthesized knowledge, including policy briefs,
are used as a reliable and handy evidence base for policymaking. For a decision on
marine management rules, policy briefs, pictures, maps, and figures were found to
be efficient translation tools for simplifying message for policymakers (Sarkki et al.
2013). The BIOTA-FAPESP programme on biodiversity conservation research in
the state of São Paulo has provided research underpinning of 4 governmental
decrees and 11 resolutions through its efforts to synthesize data in response to the
public and state’s demand (Ferreira et al. 2012). In the United Kingdom, the National
Ecosystem Assessment report was referred to in the National Environment White
Paper, which was used to develop a national biodiversity strategy (Watson 2012).
IUCN’s Red List is a good example of a credible quality SPI output which has
become frequently referred to in policies as the representation of the state of biodiversity (Gustafsson and Lidskog 2013). Advancing information technologies for
8 Mapping the Current Understanding of Biodiversity Science–Policy Interfaces
policymakers from an earlier stage supports more targeted and timely inputs of
quality knowledge from scientists in policy cycle (Sarkki et al. 2013; Balian et al.
2016), and an adaptive process would enable appropriate response to changing policy needs and to help shape next generation of policy questions (Sarkki et al. 2013).
In policy implementation, an adaptive ‘learning by doing’ framework was considered to enhance the use of research results (Chapple et al. 2011).
8.3.2.5 SPI Output
Common challenges related to the outputs of SPIs included making scientific outputs policy relevant (Mishra et al. 2009; Vohland et al. 2011; Balian et al. 2016;
Donohue et al. 2016; Nesshöver et al. 2016) and an inadequate scientific basis of
outputs for policymaking (Koetz et al. 2008; Donohue et al. 2016). The production
of highly relevant outputs of SPIs was most frequently cited as a solution, with the
relevance of the output being enhanced typically through several rounds of communication between scientists and policymakers. For example, given the impact of conventional intensification of agriculture on biodiversity loss and greenhouse gas
emission, Garibaldi et al. (2017) stated an urgent need to provide quantitative evidence of simultaneous ecological and socioeconomic impacts across the globe by
alternative agriculture approaches to direct science–policy initiatives, such as SDGs
and IPBES. They also proposed a participatory assessment framework as one of the
possible solutions to close this knowledge gap. In Brazil, facing the knowledge gaps
regarding the ecological impacts of agricultural expansion and the general disconnection between ecological science and environmental policy development processes, Joly et al. (2010) stated that the efforts to synthesize data for policymaking
and state-level demand were important for the success of biodiversity conservation.
In terms of how outputs contribute to positive outcomes, most studies focused on
policy impacts (7 of 17 studies) and social learning (3 of 17 studies), where social
learning was described as a process leading to policy impacts. Extended peerreviews and well-defined quality assessment process were found to enhance the
learning of participants and enhance the quality of outputs (Sarkki et al. 2013; Beck
2014). Diverse ways of presenting synthesized knowledge, including policy briefs,
are used as a reliable and handy evidence base for policymaking. For a decision on
marine management rules, policy briefs, pictures, maps, and figures were found to
be efficient translation tools for simplifying message for policymakers (Sarkki et al.
2013). The BIOTA-FAPESP programme on biodiversity conservation research in
the state of São Paulo has provided research underpinning of 4 governmental
decrees and 11 resolutions through its efforts to synthesize data in response to the
public and state’s demand (Ferreira et al. 2012). In the United Kingdom, the National
Ecosystem Assessment report was referred to in the National Environment White
Paper, which was used to develop a national biodiversity strategy (Watson 2012).
IUCN’s Red List is a good example of a credible quality SPI output which has
become frequently referred to in policies as the representation of the state of biodiversity (Gustafsson and Lidskog 2013). Advancing information technologies for
8 Mapping the Current Understanding of Biodiversity Science–Policy Interfaces