More than policy neutral: Justifying the power of science-policy interfaces through legitimacy

IF 4.4 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Earth System Governance Pub Date : 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1016/j.esg.2024.100219
Niklas Wagner , Simo Sarkki , Thomas Dietz
{"title":"More than policy neutral: Justifying the power of science-policy interfaces through legitimacy","authors":"Niklas Wagner ,&nbsp;Simo Sarkki ,&nbsp;Thomas Dietz","doi":"10.1016/j.esg.2024.100219","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Science-policy interfaces are influential institutions that support policymakers in addressing complex environmental challenges. However, the power that SPIs wield in this capacity has been largely overlooked by the existing literature, which has primarily focused on the effectiveness of SPIs, often portraying them as apolitical and policy-neutral institutions.</p><p>Drawing on an integrative literature review, this article proposes a shift from effectiveness towards justifying the power of SPIs through assessing their legitimacy. We develop a framework for enhancing the democratic and epistemic quality of SPIs that comprises 12 criteria across the three dimensions of input, throughput, and output legitimacy. Input legitimacy criteria include inclusivity, consideration of multiple knowledge systems, and transdisciplinarity. Throughput legitimacy criteria address process accessibility, transparency, reflexivity, conflict management, and accountability. Output legitimacy criteria cover efficacy, accessibility, understandability, and dissemination.</p><p>The article provides a pathway for SPIs to foster both knowledge-based and participatory decision-making, by providing scholars and practitioners an evaluative tool to bridge the potential tensions between expertise and democratic representation in environmental governance.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":33685,"journal":{"name":"Earth System Governance","volume":"21 ","pages":"Article 100219"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589811624000193/pdfft?md5=227a370f8adbad82e07c2185adf5a833&pid=1-s2.0-S2589811624000193-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Earth System Governance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589811624000193","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Science-policy interfaces are influential institutions that support policymakers in addressing complex environmental challenges. However, the power that SPIs wield in this capacity has been largely overlooked by the existing literature, which has primarily focused on the effectiveness of SPIs, often portraying them as apolitical and policy-neutral institutions.

Drawing on an integrative literature review, this article proposes a shift from effectiveness towards justifying the power of SPIs through assessing their legitimacy. We develop a framework for enhancing the democratic and epistemic quality of SPIs that comprises 12 criteria across the three dimensions of input, throughput, and output legitimacy. Input legitimacy criteria include inclusivity, consideration of multiple knowledge systems, and transdisciplinarity. Throughput legitimacy criteria address process accessibility, transparency, reflexivity, conflict management, and accountability. Output legitimacy criteria cover efficacy, accessibility, understandability, and dissemination.

The article provides a pathway for SPIs to foster both knowledge-based and participatory decision-making, by providing scholars and practitioners an evaluative tool to bridge the potential tensions between expertise and democratic representation in environmental governance.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
超越政策中立:通过合法性证明科学政策互动机制的合理性
科学-政策互动机制是支持决策者应对复杂环境挑战的有影响力的机构。然而,现有文献在很大程度上忽视了科学政策互动平台在这方面所发挥的作用,这些文献主要关注的是科学政策互动平台的有效性,往往将其描述为非政治性和政策中立的机构。本文在综合文献综述的基础上,提出从有效性转向通过评估科学政策互动平台的合法性来证明其权力的合理性。我们为提高 SPI 的民主性和认识质量制定了一个框架,该框架由 12 项标准组成,横跨投入、产出和产出合法性三个维度。输入合法性标准包括包容性、考虑多种知识体系和跨学科性。产出合法性标准涉及过程的可及性、透明度、反思性、冲突管理和问责制。文章为学者和实践者提供了一个评估工具,以弥合环境治理中专业知识和民主代表之间可能存在的紧张关系,从而为 SPI 提供了一条促进知识型和参与型决策的途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.00
自引率
14.30%
发文量
31
审稿时长
35 weeks
期刊最新文献
Diversifying climate policy advice: Research agenda on the expertise of national climate councils Jurisdictional approaches to sustainable agro-commodity governance: The state of knowledge and future research directions Towards sustainable governance of freshwater sand – A resource regime approach Exploring the rights of nature in freshwater and marine ecosystems
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1