- Email: [email protected]
When landscape planning becomes landscape governance, what happens to the science?
Landscape and Urban Planning 100 (2011) 324–326
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Landscape and Urban Planning journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landurbplan
When landscape planning becomes landscape governance, what happens to the science? Raoul Beunen ∗ , Paul Opdam Wageningen University, Land use planning group, The Netherlands
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Available online 5 March 2011 Keywords: Science–practice nexus Governmental decentralization Coproduction of knowledge Credibility of science
a b s t r a c t A key issue of scientific research is the impact of science in landscape planning. Two trends in society demand this issue to be a research priority: the decentralization of government power to the local level and the growing distrust towards experts and scientific knowledge in policy and the public. We show how these trends challenge the role and position of science in landscape planning. We conclude that it is urgent to systematically extend our knowledge on the impact of science in decision-making networks. © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction In this essay we address the role of scientific knowledge in planning and decision-making concerning the adaptation of landscapes to future demands, and conclude that investigating the impact of scientific knowledge in local landscape planning should be a research priority. Many scientists have dealt with the relation between science and society in a general or philosophical way (e.g. Fischer, 2009; Latour, 2004; Nowotny et al., 2001). The main message from these discussions is that useful scientific knowledge emerges from the cooperation of scientists and practitioners. These general discussions, however, do not provide insight into the role scientific knowledge plays in landscape planning processes, and how this impact can be optimized by adapting the structure of this knowledge and the way it is incorporated into decision making. We propose that these questions should be high on the landscape research agenda, because the role of landscape science in society is challenged by two currents: the change from government to governance in landscape adaptation and the growing criticism and distrust towards scientific knowledge (Schermer, 2010). Hence, we focus on the local level of landscape planning where the sceptical attitude towards scientific knowledge is fed by a growing dissatisfaction among both citizens and experts about the outcomes of decision-making in governance. 2. Landscape governance as an arena for scientists The term landscape governance reflects two contemporary, interrelated changes in the scale and organization of decision-
∗ Corresponding author at: P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA, Wageningen, The Netherlands. E-mail address: [email protected] (R. Beunen). 0169-2046/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.01.018
making about the landscape. Government power is decentralized to the lower tiers of command, while a growing number of private parties and citizens begin to actively participate in decision-making. As a consequence the role of government organization is shifting towards the coordination and fusion of public and private resources. These changes have important implications for the role and position of scientific knowledge within landscape planning and management practices. The traditional governmental model in which the scientist functions primarily as an informant to policymakers on general knowledge or technical advice is changing. According to the governance model, private parties like NGOs and citizens are significant actors at the science–practice nexus. The governance model takes into account the complexity of today’s society, which is dependent on the relationships between many formal and informal institutions and actors. Politicians, interest groups and citizens bring in a variety of competing and evolving perspectives upon the issues at stake. There is a growing awareness of the consequences of this complexity, ambiguity and uncertainty for the position of science in these planning practices, both among researchers and professionals (Fischer, 2009). While science aims for generic and universal phenomena, rules and relationships, the validity of such generalities is limited at the local level. Here problem solving requires a reinterpretation of generic rules in the local context, which almost by definition deviates from the standard. For the application of scientific knowledge this means that the more generic guidelines which had been readily applied at the national or regional level are now replaced by site-specific interpretations involving a level of detail that is not addressed by peer-reviewed publications. Azerrad and Nilon (2005) found that while technical guidance for environmental planning was useful at the state level, it was much less useful at the local scale. This reinterpretation of generic knowledge introduces a
R. Beunen, P. Opdam / Landscape and Urban Planning 100 (2011) 324–326
source of uncertainty, and may undermine the credibility of science among local practitioners. Decentralization also means that professionals of central governments, as users of knowledge, are replaced by local stakeholders who may have the advantage of local expertise over the scientist, but have difficulty interpreting the facts in a larger evidence-based knowledge context. Such actors are not always convinced by facts and figures and may even deny the scientific basis for defining problems or solutions. Such critics can be found, for example, in the debates surrounding climate change, natural resource governance or public health (Schermer, 2010). In the decision-making processes scientific knowledge is also selectively used to advocate or reject claims, drawing science further into the domain of political argument. Governmental and non-governmental organizations utilize knowledge to reinforce their own position of power, while de-legitimizing the knowledge of competing organizations, practitioners and citizens. These issues must be taken into account in the assessment of the impact of science in decision-making networks.
3. A new challenge to landscape research Several authors have addressed the difficult relationship between scientific and local knowledge and the consequences for the planning processes and their outcomes (Ellis and Waterton, 2005; Escobar, 1998). While most of these studies focused on the impact of knowledge in environmental policy and its use by professionals (e.g. Yli-Pelkonen and Niemelä, 2006), the impact of scientific knowledge in local landscape adaptation processes has rarely been addressed in the environmental sciences. This is a critical issue as the societal position of landscape science heavily depends on its ability to demonstrate its contribution to local initiatives. It is not seen that local planning actors, considering themselves local experts, ask for the input of scientists to improve the evidence base for their decision making. How can science demonstrate its added value in landscape governance? How can it improve the quality of the decision making process, as well as that of its outcome? We propose that landscape scientists must develop much more insight into how their knowledge and knowledge tools affect societal processes. We need to be able to understand why scientific information is sometimes successfully used while in others it is not, how it contributes to the quality of the future landscape, and how it affects the social network of the area. To this end, two complementary approaches can be distinguished. One approach focuses on the knowledge itself, its characteristics, structure and form—for example, whether it concerns a prescriptive guideline or a range of options. These characteristics should be considered in relation to the demands of the planning process. Cash et al. (2003) proposed three criteria to define the quality of knowledge in the context of its transfer from science to practice: whether it is regarded as credible by its users, whether it is relevant to problem solving at the local level (for example, whether it allows trade offs between land use values to be taken into consideration), and whether it is regarded as legitimate by local planning groups (for example, can local actors manipulate the knowledge to incorporate their values and desires?). There is little systematic research showing in which form scientific evidence best fits into different phases of the planning processes or different planning cultures. The second approach emphasizes the human factor instead of the knowledge itself. It assumes that knowledge is an inevitable product of social practices, and focuses on targeted knowledge construction within social networks. From such a perspective knowledge is not defined as the sum of all the information held by scientist or published in books and journals, but as an expected outcome of a social network (Fuchs, 2001). Fuchs suggested that
325
a better understanding of the relationship between knowledge and practice starts with an understanding of how social networks acquire new knowledge and integrate it into their competence. Following his ideas we can distinguish categories of social networks within the science–policy nexus (for example scientific networks and networks in planning practices). Within the decision-making networks scientists exist among politicians, policy-makers, consultants, entrepreneurs and citizens. Whether knowledge proposed by an individual within the network is incorporated into its larger knowledge base depends on all of the involved actors. Every network has its own methods to assess the quality of knowledge produced internally. It is therefore relevant to study how scientific knowledge is recognized by these different networks, and whether they distinguish between scientifically rigorous methods and the experience of local actors. And if they do, which criteria they use?
4. Adding priorities to the research agenda Focusing on the valuation of scientific knowledge within different decision-making networks opens up new research opportunities in landscape science. This research would connect to the growing spotlight on the participatory planning process and the changing relationship between experts and citizens within these processes (e.g. Fischer, 2009). Scientific knowledge can only impact decision-making if it is used by the people within said process. In the field of landscape governance, decision-making networks are diverse and constantly changing. Due to increasing decentralization the positions of citizens and experts within these networks have changed. Distrust towards the input of experts may stem from this structural change and the uneasiness of experts in adapting to their new role. Scientists looking to contribute to societal change must recognize that the shift towards governance produces the need to participate in networks that use different criteria to assess the value of scientific knowledge (Latour, 2004). The diversity of criteria used makes it difficult to predict the role of scientific knowledge across networks. We argue that there is a critical need for a more reflexive approach to researching the role of scientific reasoning in landscape governance. We also agree with McNie (2007) that more research is needed to explore and understand the dynamics of the demand side of scientific knowledge. This entails focusing on how social networks make decisions and how the input of scientific experts affects these processes. Effective use of scientific knowledge depends on its functionality as well as on the manifold influences of social and political factors. Research must therefore recognize that within decision-making practices scientific knowledge is not simply used, but strategically produced, contested and ignored (Ellis and Waterton, 2005; Fischer, 2009; McNie, 2007). We propose that the following three research questions capture the essence of the knowledge gap that we have put forward: • Which criteria do different types of decision-making networks use to assess scientific knowledge? • What are the key characteristics of scientific knowledge that influence its impact in landscape governance? • How can the added value of scientific knowledge in landscape governance be identified? Answering these questions helps to understand the discrepancy in the variety of criteria used by actors in the decision-making and scientific networks in attributing credibility to scientific knowledge. Furthermore it provides insight in the forms of scientific knowledge that are most effective, taking into account the demands of diverse actors and the different phases and channels of decision-making.
326
R. Beunen, P. Opdam / Landscape and Urban Planning 100 (2011) 324–326
References Azerrad, J.M., Nilon, C.H., 2005. An evaluation of agency conservation guidelines to better address planning efforts by local government. Landscape Urban Plan. 77, 255–262. Cash, D.W., Clark, W.C., Alcock, F., Dickson, M.N., Eckly, N., Guston, D.H., Jäger, J., Mitchel, R.B., 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 100, 8086–8091. Ellis, R., Waterton, C., 2005. Caught between the cartographic and the ethnographic imagination: the whereabouts of amateurs, professionals, and nature in knowing biodiversity. Environ. Plan. D 23, 673–693. Escobar, A., 1998. Whose Knowledge? Whose nature? Biodiversity, conservation, and the political ecology of social movements. J. Polit. Ecol. 5, 53–82. Fischer, F., 2009. Democracy and Expertise: Reorienting Policy Inquiry. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Fuchs, S., 2001. Against Essentialism. A Theory of Culture and Society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Latour, B., 2004. Politics of Nature. How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. McNie, E.C., 2007. Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environ. Sci. Policy 10, 17–38.
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., Gibbons, M., 2001. Re-thinking Science. Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Blackwell, Malden, MA, USA. Schermer, M., 2010. I am a sceptic, but I’m not a denier. New Sci. 206, 36–37. Yli-Pelkonen, V., Niemelä, J., 2006. Use of ecological information in urban planning: experiences from the Helsinki metropolitan area, Finland. Urban Ecosyst. 9, 211–226. Dr. Raoul Beunen is assistant professor at Wageningen University (Land use planning group). His research focuses on innovation in regional planning. He has published work on topics as the implementation of environmental policies, landscape planning and participatory governance. He has a wide experience in working on the science–practice nexus. Prof. Paul Opdam occupies the landscape in spatial planning chair at Wageningen University (Land use planning group) and is also senior researcher at Alterra research institute. Based on a long career as landscape ecologist, his expertise now integrates spatial ecology and biodiversity conservation planning with sustainable landscape planning and multifunctional land use change. He has proposed system innovations in landscape and nature planning, for example the introduction of a theory on ecosystem networks for biodiversity and of the concept of green–blue networks for multifunctional land use planning, which are used in policy and local planning. He combines a leading role in science with advisory roles in the science–practice interface.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Landscape and Urban Planning journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landurbplan
When landscape planning becomes landscape governance, what happens to the science? Raoul Beunen ∗ , Paul Opdam Wageningen University, Land use planning group, The Netherlands
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Available online 5 March 2011 Keywords: Science–practice nexus Governmental decentralization Coproduction of knowledge Credibility of science
a b s t r a c t A key issue of scientific research is the impact of science in landscape planning. Two trends in society demand this issue to be a research priority: the decentralization of government power to the local level and the growing distrust towards experts and scientific knowledge in policy and the public. We show how these trends challenge the role and position of science in landscape planning. We conclude that it is urgent to systematically extend our knowledge on the impact of science in decision-making networks. © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction In this essay we address the role of scientific knowledge in planning and decision-making concerning the adaptation of landscapes to future demands, and conclude that investigating the impact of scientific knowledge in local landscape planning should be a research priority. Many scientists have dealt with the relation between science and society in a general or philosophical way (e.g. Fischer, 2009; Latour, 2004; Nowotny et al., 2001). The main message from these discussions is that useful scientific knowledge emerges from the cooperation of scientists and practitioners. These general discussions, however, do not provide insight into the role scientific knowledge plays in landscape planning processes, and how this impact can be optimized by adapting the structure of this knowledge and the way it is incorporated into decision making. We propose that these questions should be high on the landscape research agenda, because the role of landscape science in society is challenged by two currents: the change from government to governance in landscape adaptation and the growing criticism and distrust towards scientific knowledge (Schermer, 2010). Hence, we focus on the local level of landscape planning where the sceptical attitude towards scientific knowledge is fed by a growing dissatisfaction among both citizens and experts about the outcomes of decision-making in governance. 2. Landscape governance as an arena for scientists The term landscape governance reflects two contemporary, interrelated changes in the scale and organization of decision-
∗ Corresponding author at: P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA, Wageningen, The Netherlands. E-mail address: [email protected] (R. Beunen). 0169-2046/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.01.018
making about the landscape. Government power is decentralized to the lower tiers of command, while a growing number of private parties and citizens begin to actively participate in decision-making. As a consequence the role of government organization is shifting towards the coordination and fusion of public and private resources. These changes have important implications for the role and position of scientific knowledge within landscape planning and management practices. The traditional governmental model in which the scientist functions primarily as an informant to policymakers on general knowledge or technical advice is changing. According to the governance model, private parties like NGOs and citizens are significant actors at the science–practice nexus. The governance model takes into account the complexity of today’s society, which is dependent on the relationships between many formal and informal institutions and actors. Politicians, interest groups and citizens bring in a variety of competing and evolving perspectives upon the issues at stake. There is a growing awareness of the consequences of this complexity, ambiguity and uncertainty for the position of science in these planning practices, both among researchers and professionals (Fischer, 2009). While science aims for generic and universal phenomena, rules and relationships, the validity of such generalities is limited at the local level. Here problem solving requires a reinterpretation of generic rules in the local context, which almost by definition deviates from the standard. For the application of scientific knowledge this means that the more generic guidelines which had been readily applied at the national or regional level are now replaced by site-specific interpretations involving a level of detail that is not addressed by peer-reviewed publications. Azerrad and Nilon (2005) found that while technical guidance for environmental planning was useful at the state level, it was much less useful at the local scale. This reinterpretation of generic knowledge introduces a
R. Beunen, P. Opdam / Landscape and Urban Planning 100 (2011) 324–326
source of uncertainty, and may undermine the credibility of science among local practitioners. Decentralization also means that professionals of central governments, as users of knowledge, are replaced by local stakeholders who may have the advantage of local expertise over the scientist, but have difficulty interpreting the facts in a larger evidence-based knowledge context. Such actors are not always convinced by facts and figures and may even deny the scientific basis for defining problems or solutions. Such critics can be found, for example, in the debates surrounding climate change, natural resource governance or public health (Schermer, 2010). In the decision-making processes scientific knowledge is also selectively used to advocate or reject claims, drawing science further into the domain of political argument. Governmental and non-governmental organizations utilize knowledge to reinforce their own position of power, while de-legitimizing the knowledge of competing organizations, practitioners and citizens. These issues must be taken into account in the assessment of the impact of science in decision-making networks.
3. A new challenge to landscape research Several authors have addressed the difficult relationship between scientific and local knowledge and the consequences for the planning processes and their outcomes (Ellis and Waterton, 2005; Escobar, 1998). While most of these studies focused on the impact of knowledge in environmental policy and its use by professionals (e.g. Yli-Pelkonen and Niemelä, 2006), the impact of scientific knowledge in local landscape adaptation processes has rarely been addressed in the environmental sciences. This is a critical issue as the societal position of landscape science heavily depends on its ability to demonstrate its contribution to local initiatives. It is not seen that local planning actors, considering themselves local experts, ask for the input of scientists to improve the evidence base for their decision making. How can science demonstrate its added value in landscape governance? How can it improve the quality of the decision making process, as well as that of its outcome? We propose that landscape scientists must develop much more insight into how their knowledge and knowledge tools affect societal processes. We need to be able to understand why scientific information is sometimes successfully used while in others it is not, how it contributes to the quality of the future landscape, and how it affects the social network of the area. To this end, two complementary approaches can be distinguished. One approach focuses on the knowledge itself, its characteristics, structure and form—for example, whether it concerns a prescriptive guideline or a range of options. These characteristics should be considered in relation to the demands of the planning process. Cash et al. (2003) proposed three criteria to define the quality of knowledge in the context of its transfer from science to practice: whether it is regarded as credible by its users, whether it is relevant to problem solving at the local level (for example, whether it allows trade offs between land use values to be taken into consideration), and whether it is regarded as legitimate by local planning groups (for example, can local actors manipulate the knowledge to incorporate their values and desires?). There is little systematic research showing in which form scientific evidence best fits into different phases of the planning processes or different planning cultures. The second approach emphasizes the human factor instead of the knowledge itself. It assumes that knowledge is an inevitable product of social practices, and focuses on targeted knowledge construction within social networks. From such a perspective knowledge is not defined as the sum of all the information held by scientist or published in books and journals, but as an expected outcome of a social network (Fuchs, 2001). Fuchs suggested that
325
a better understanding of the relationship between knowledge and practice starts with an understanding of how social networks acquire new knowledge and integrate it into their competence. Following his ideas we can distinguish categories of social networks within the science–policy nexus (for example scientific networks and networks in planning practices). Within the decision-making networks scientists exist among politicians, policy-makers, consultants, entrepreneurs and citizens. Whether knowledge proposed by an individual within the network is incorporated into its larger knowledge base depends on all of the involved actors. Every network has its own methods to assess the quality of knowledge produced internally. It is therefore relevant to study how scientific knowledge is recognized by these different networks, and whether they distinguish between scientifically rigorous methods and the experience of local actors. And if they do, which criteria they use?
4. Adding priorities to the research agenda Focusing on the valuation of scientific knowledge within different decision-making networks opens up new research opportunities in landscape science. This research would connect to the growing spotlight on the participatory planning process and the changing relationship between experts and citizens within these processes (e.g. Fischer, 2009). Scientific knowledge can only impact decision-making if it is used by the people within said process. In the field of landscape governance, decision-making networks are diverse and constantly changing. Due to increasing decentralization the positions of citizens and experts within these networks have changed. Distrust towards the input of experts may stem from this structural change and the uneasiness of experts in adapting to their new role. Scientists looking to contribute to societal change must recognize that the shift towards governance produces the need to participate in networks that use different criteria to assess the value of scientific knowledge (Latour, 2004). The diversity of criteria used makes it difficult to predict the role of scientific knowledge across networks. We argue that there is a critical need for a more reflexive approach to researching the role of scientific reasoning in landscape governance. We also agree with McNie (2007) that more research is needed to explore and understand the dynamics of the demand side of scientific knowledge. This entails focusing on how social networks make decisions and how the input of scientific experts affects these processes. Effective use of scientific knowledge depends on its functionality as well as on the manifold influences of social and political factors. Research must therefore recognize that within decision-making practices scientific knowledge is not simply used, but strategically produced, contested and ignored (Ellis and Waterton, 2005; Fischer, 2009; McNie, 2007). We propose that the following three research questions capture the essence of the knowledge gap that we have put forward: • Which criteria do different types of decision-making networks use to assess scientific knowledge? • What are the key characteristics of scientific knowledge that influence its impact in landscape governance? • How can the added value of scientific knowledge in landscape governance be identified? Answering these questions helps to understand the discrepancy in the variety of criteria used by actors in the decision-making and scientific networks in attributing credibility to scientific knowledge. Furthermore it provides insight in the forms of scientific knowledge that are most effective, taking into account the demands of diverse actors and the different phases and channels of decision-making.
326
R. Beunen, P. Opdam / Landscape and Urban Planning 100 (2011) 324–326
References Azerrad, J.M., Nilon, C.H., 2005. An evaluation of agency conservation guidelines to better address planning efforts by local government. Landscape Urban Plan. 77, 255–262. Cash, D.W., Clark, W.C., Alcock, F., Dickson, M.N., Eckly, N., Guston, D.H., Jäger, J., Mitchel, R.B., 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 100, 8086–8091. Ellis, R., Waterton, C., 2005. Caught between the cartographic and the ethnographic imagination: the whereabouts of amateurs, professionals, and nature in knowing biodiversity. Environ. Plan. D 23, 673–693. Escobar, A., 1998. Whose Knowledge? Whose nature? Biodiversity, conservation, and the political ecology of social movements. J. Polit. Ecol. 5, 53–82. Fischer, F., 2009. Democracy and Expertise: Reorienting Policy Inquiry. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Fuchs, S., 2001. Against Essentialism. A Theory of Culture and Society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Latour, B., 2004. Politics of Nature. How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. McNie, E.C., 2007. Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environ. Sci. Policy 10, 17–38.
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., Gibbons, M., 2001. Re-thinking Science. Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Blackwell, Malden, MA, USA. Schermer, M., 2010. I am a sceptic, but I’m not a denier. New Sci. 206, 36–37. Yli-Pelkonen, V., Niemelä, J., 2006. Use of ecological information in urban planning: experiences from the Helsinki metropolitan area, Finland. Urban Ecosyst. 9, 211–226. Dr. Raoul Beunen is assistant professor at Wageningen University (Land use planning group). His research focuses on innovation in regional planning. He has published work on topics as the implementation of environmental policies, landscape planning and participatory governance. He has a wide experience in working on the science–practice nexus. Prof. Paul Opdam occupies the landscape in spatial planning chair at Wageningen University (Land use planning group) and is also senior researcher at Alterra research institute. Based on a long career as landscape ecologist, his expertise now integrates spatial ecology and biodiversity conservation planning with sustainable landscape planning and multifunctional land use change. He has proposed system innovations in landscape and nature planning, for example the introduction of a theory on ecosystem networks for biodiversity and of the concept of green–blue networks for multifunctional land use planning, which are used in policy and local planning. He combines a leading role in science with advisory roles in the science–practice interface.