Abstract

Effort to narrow the gap between the production and use of scientific knowledge for environmental decision-making is gaining traction, yet in practice, supply and demand remains largely unbalanced. A qualitative study based on empirical analysis offers a novel approach to exploring key factors, focussing on seven water models in the context of two organisations at the science-policy interface: the PIREN-Seine in France and the CRC for Water Sensitive Cities in Australia. Tentative linkages drawn from these examples identify: (1) objective and expertise; (2) knowledge and tools; and (3) support structures as main drivers influencing the production of scientific knowledge which, in turn, affect the use and utility of modelling tools. Further insight is gained by highlighting the wide spectrum of uses and utilities existing in practice, suggesting that such ‘boundary organisations’ facilitate interactions and exchanges that give added value to scientific knowledge. Coordinated strategies that integrate inter-, extra-, and intra-boundary activities, framed through collaborative scenario building and the use of interactive modelling platforms, may offer ways to enhance the use and utility of scientific knowledge (and its tools) to better support water resources management, policy and planning decisions, thus promoting a more cohesive relationship between science and policy.

Highlights

  • The trade-off between scientific complexity and ‘usability’ of scientific knowledge and tools to support management, policy and planning decisions is a fundamental question at the heart of the science-policy interface

  • In an effort to address these gaps, this paper aims to provide further insight by using a novel approach based on empirical analysis to explore the boundary organisation hypothesis: the way an organisation or a tools is structured can help or hinder the production of scientific knowledge that is perceived as valuable for the implementation of public policies

  • The science-policy interface resembled the web of interactions described by Vogel et al [107]: in PIREN, many practitioners came from the same academic training as researchers (AESN representative, 8 June 2016), while in CRCWSC, it was common for researchers and practitioners to have held positions on both sides of the boundary at different stages in their career (CRCWSC researcher/industry partner representative, 21 June 2017)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The trade-off between scientific complexity and ‘usability’ of scientific knowledge and tools to support management, policy and planning decisions is a fundamental question at the heart of the science-policy interface. In an effort to address these gaps, this paper aims to provide further insight by using a novel approach based on empirical analysis to explore the boundary organisation hypothesis: the way an organisation or a (set of) tools is structured can help or hinder the production of scientific knowledge that is perceived as valuable for the implementation (or elaboration) of public policies We explore this hypothesis, focussing on the use and utility of modelling tools within the context of two interdisciplinary research programs whose core activities are rooted in research-industry collaboration (public or private): the PIREN-Seine (Programme Interdisciplinaire de Recherche sur l’Environnement de la Seine) in France and the CRC (Cooperative Research Centre) for Water Sensitive Cities in Australia. We arrive at the conclusion that the use and utility of scientific knowledge (and its tools) could be enhanced through coordinated strategies which frame these inter-, intra- and extra-boundary exchanges and interactions through the co-construction of scenarios and the use of interactive modelling platforms

Materials and Methods
Document Analysis
Semi-Structured Interviews and Observation of Engagement
PIREN-Seine Models
Seneque
MODCOU
DAnCE4Water
Influence of Organisational Configurations and Context-Specific Drivers
Objective and Expertise
Knowledge and Tools
Support Structures
Moving Beyond the ‘Usability Approach’
User Involvement
Integration
Conclusions
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call