C. Cvitanovic , DB Karcher , J. Breen , N. Badullovich , P. Cairney , R. Dalla Pozza , J. Duggan , S. Hoffmann , R. Kelly , AM Meadow , S. Posner
{"title":"Knowledge brokers at the interface of environmental science and policy: A review of knowledge and research needs","authors":"C. Cvitanovic , DB Karcher , J. Breen , N. Badullovich , P. Cairney , R. Dalla Pozza , J. Duggan , S. Hoffmann , R. Kelly , AM Meadow , S. Posner","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103973","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The largely negative impacts of human activities on social-ecological systems are becoming increasingly apparent. Efforts to address these impacts require effective knowledge exchange among researchers and decision-makers to facilitate evidence-informed decision-making processes. Despite this, however, examples of achieving effective knowledge exchange in practice are few. One solution to reducing barriers to knowledge exchange and building capacity for evidence-informed decision-making is through the use of knowledge brokers. Recognition of the role and value of knowledge brokers is becoming increasingly common in the environmental sector, but there are important gaps in understanding the divergent practices of knowledge brokers working to inform solutions to environmental challenges that hinder their successful implementation. To this end, we undertake a systematic map of the peer-reviewed and grey literature on knowledge brokering at the interface of environmental science and policy. We find that traditional conceptualisations of knowledge brokers are insufficient for capturing the true diversity of practices and identities that knowledge brokers can take. Instead, we show that within the environment sector, knowledge brokers, and the work they do, can take a variety of forms that are influenced by (among other things) the processes through which brokering roles were created, their mission, their budgets, and the contexts in which they work. In doing so, we also emphasize the ‘invisible’ work that knowledge brokers do, seeking to bring to the fore the range of activities that are central to supporting knowledge exchange, but often go unnoticed and are almost impossible to quantify. Drawing on our results and our collective knowledge, we outline a research agenda that articulates the most critical remaining knowledge gaps relating to knowledge brokering. Bringing these together, a core goal of this paper is to support and serve a growing global community of practice (both in theory and application) on knowledge brokering at the interface of environmental science and policy.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":"163 ","pages":"Article 103973"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Science & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901124003071","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The largely negative impacts of human activities on social-ecological systems are becoming increasingly apparent. Efforts to address these impacts require effective knowledge exchange among researchers and decision-makers to facilitate evidence-informed decision-making processes. Despite this, however, examples of achieving effective knowledge exchange in practice are few. One solution to reducing barriers to knowledge exchange and building capacity for evidence-informed decision-making is through the use of knowledge brokers. Recognition of the role and value of knowledge brokers is becoming increasingly common in the environmental sector, but there are important gaps in understanding the divergent practices of knowledge brokers working to inform solutions to environmental challenges that hinder their successful implementation. To this end, we undertake a systematic map of the peer-reviewed and grey literature on knowledge brokering at the interface of environmental science and policy. We find that traditional conceptualisations of knowledge brokers are insufficient for capturing the true diversity of practices and identities that knowledge brokers can take. Instead, we show that within the environment sector, knowledge brokers, and the work they do, can take a variety of forms that are influenced by (among other things) the processes through which brokering roles were created, their mission, their budgets, and the contexts in which they work. In doing so, we also emphasize the ‘invisible’ work that knowledge brokers do, seeking to bring to the fore the range of activities that are central to supporting knowledge exchange, but often go unnoticed and are almost impossible to quantify. Drawing on our results and our collective knowledge, we outline a research agenda that articulates the most critical remaining knowledge gaps relating to knowledge brokering. Bringing these together, a core goal of this paper is to support and serve a growing global community of practice (both in theory and application) on knowledge brokering at the interface of environmental science and policy.
期刊介绍:
Environmental Science & Policy promotes communication among government, business and industry, academia, and non-governmental organisations who are instrumental in the solution of environmental problems. It also seeks to advance interdisciplinary research of policy relevance on environmental issues such as climate change, biodiversity, environmental pollution and wastes, renewable and non-renewable natural resources, sustainability, and the interactions among these issues. The journal emphasises the linkages between these environmental issues and social and economic issues such as production, transport, consumption, growth, demographic changes, well-being, and health. However, the subject coverage will not be restricted to these issues and the introduction of new dimensions will be encouraged.