A framework to bridge science and policy in complex decision making arenas

Abstract We argue that science concerned with natural resource policy analysis is entering a new phase. In response to policy demands for triple-bottom-line assessments, developing transdisciplinary endeavours has been a primary focus, catalysing methodological innovations. However, the period of innovation has increased the divergence between a science domain characterised by increasing complexity of communicated analytical outputs and a policy domain that generally remains impelled towards single metric outcomes. We argue that this new phase will see the focus shift from method innovation towards the design of research processes to correct the discrepancy. This paper describes the Challenge-and-Reconstruct Learning framework (ChaRL) for designing sustainability-focused research processes to better align science contributions and policy aspirations in complex decision making arenas. This paper provides evidence for how the ChaRL framework can (1) establish and maintain an effective science–policy interface despite high levels of complexity and high levels of contested values and (2) challenge and reconstruct existing knowledge, providing a robust foundation to evidence-based decision making. Critical for these achievements is that the design of the engagement process starts with the cognitive elements critical to the decision making processes, that is individuals’ causal beliefs and values.

[1]  A. Amin,et al.  Organisational Learning and Governance Through Embedded Practices , 2000 .

[2]  Pieter W. G. Bots,et al.  A Framework for Clarifying “Participation” in Participatory Research to Prevent its Rejection for the Wrong Reasons , 2010 .

[3]  Natalie A. Jones,et al.  Evaluating Participatory Modeling: Developing a Framework for Cross-Case Analysis , 2009, Environmental management.

[4]  A. Smajgl,et al.  Visions, beliefs and transformation: Methods for understanding cross-scale and trans-boundary dynamics in the wider Mekong Region , 2011 .

[5]  Steve Bankes,et al.  Exploratory Modeling for Policy Analysis , 1993, Oper. Res..

[6]  Taking a position: A reinterpretation of the theory of planned behaviour , 2005 .

[7]  P. Cilliers,et al.  Complexity and transdisciplinarity – Discontinuity, levels of Reality and the Hidden Third , 2012 .

[8]  Matthijs Hisschemöller,et al.  Coping with intractable controversies: The case for problem structuring in policy design and analysis , 1995 .

[9]  Holger Meinke,et al.  The interface between land use systems research and policy: multiple arrangements and leverages. , 2009 .

[10]  Arun Agrawal,et al.  Trade-offs and synergies between carbon storage and livelihood benefits from forest commons , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[11]  I. Ajzen Attitudes, Personality and Behavior , 1988 .

[12]  M. Conner,et al.  Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: a meta-analytic review. , 2001, The British journal of social psychology.

[13]  J. Habermas Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action , 1990 .

[14]  J. Pielke The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics , 2007 .

[15]  Gregor Dürrenberger,et al.  Integrated assessment focus groups: Bridging the gap between science and policy? , 1999 .

[16]  Thomas Dietz,et al.  A Brief Inventory of Values , 1998 .

[17]  Technological Planning and Social Futures , 1972 .

[18]  Pascal Perez,et al.  Assessment and Monitoring of the Effects of the ComMod Approach , 2014 .

[19]  Jürgen Habermas,et al.  Concluding Comments on Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Politics , 2005 .

[20]  Edgar Morin,et al.  Restricted Complexity, General Complexity , 2006, ArXiv.

[21]  Troy D. Abel,et al.  A Value-Belief-Norm Theory of Support for Social Movements: The Case of Environmentalism , 1999 .

[22]  I. Ajzen The theory of planned behavior , 1991 .

[23]  P. Todd,et al.  Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart , 1999 .

[24]  J. Sterman Risk Communication on Climate: Mental Models and Mass Balance , 2008, Science.

[25]  J. Pedersen,et al.  Habermas' Method: Rational Reconstruction , 2008 .

[26]  Arnim Wiek,et al.  Transdisciplinary case studies as a means of sustainability learning: Historical framework and theory , 2006 .

[27]  Julie Thompson Klein,et al.  Prospects for transdisciplinarity , 2004 .

[28]  Alex Smajgl,et al.  Water policy impact assessment – combining modelling techniques in the Great Barrier Reef region , 2009 .

[29]  S. Funtowicz,et al.  EMERGENT COMPLEX SYSTEMS , 1994 .

[30]  M. Conner,et al.  The Theory of Planned Behaviour , 2004 .

[31]  David W. Cash,et al.  Knowledge systems for sustainable development , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[32]  K. Beratan A Cognition-based View of Decision Processes in Complex Social–Ecological Systems , 2007 .

[33]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research , 1977 .

[34]  Thomas Dietz,et al.  Values and vegetarianism : an exploratory analysis , 2010 .

[35]  Roger A. Pielke,et al.  Prediction in science and policy , 1999 .

[36]  David Alvargonzález,et al.  Multidisciplinarity, Interdisciplinarity, Transdisciplinarity, and the Sciences , 2011 .

[37]  A. Agrawal,et al.  Against mono-consequentialism: Multiple outcomes and their drivers in social–ecological systems , 2011 .

[38]  Garry D. Peterson,et al.  Making Investments in Dryland Development Work: Participatory Scenario Planning in the Makanya Catchment, Tanzania , 2008 .

[39]  Garry D. Brewer,et al.  The challenges of interdisciplinarity , 1999 .

[40]  S. Schwartz Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries , 1992 .

[41]  Lee Roy Beach,et al.  Image theory: an Alternative to Normative Decision theory , 1993 .

[42]  J. Klein Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research: a literature review. , 2008, American journal of preventive medicine.

[43]  Robert Hoppe,et al.  Rethinking the science-policy nexus: from knowledge utilization and science technology studies to types of boundary arrangements , 2005, Poiesis Prax..

[44]  Eric Kemp-Benedict,et al.  Developing detailed foresight narratives: a participatory technique from the Mekong region , 2013 .

[45]  G. Brundtland,et al.  Our common future , 1987 .

[46]  Louis Lebel,et al.  Guest Editorial, part of a Special Feature on Scale and Cross-scale Dynamics Scale and Cross-Scale Dynamics: Governance and Information in a Multilevel World , 2006 .

[47]  C. Pahl-Wostl,et al.  The implications of complexity for integrated resources management , 2007, Environ. Model. Softw..

[48]  Alexander Smajgl,et al.  Challenging beliefs through multi-level participatory modelling in Indonesia , 2010, Environ. Model. Softw..

[49]  Peter M. Todd,et al.  Fast and frugal heuristics for environmentally bounded minds , 2001 .