NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Environmental Science & Policy
Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was
subsequently published as: Leith, P., K. O’Toole, M. Haward, B. Coffey, C. Rees, and E. Ogier. 2014. “Analysis of
Operating Environments: A Diagnostic Model for Linking Science, Society and Policy for Sustainability.”
Environmental Science & Policy 39: 162–71. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2014.01.001.
Analysis of operating environments: A diagnostic
model for linking science, society and policy for
sustainability
Peat Leith a,b,*, Kevin O’Toole c, Marcus Haward a, Brian Coffey d,
Chris Rees a, Emily Ogier a
a
Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart 7001, Tasmania, Australia
Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 98, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
c
School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Deakin University, Warrnambool, Victoria, Australia
d
Alfred Deakin Research Institute, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia
b
article info
abstract
Article history:
Through analysis of the dynamics between science and decision-making, we argue that
Received 5 October 2013
diagnosing fit-for purpose approaches to linking science and decision-making may be
Received in revised form
possible. Such diagnosis should enable identification of appropriate processes, institutions,
6 January 2014
objects (e.g. tools, information products) and relationships that can facilitate outcomes. We
Accepted 6 January 2014
begin the paper by unsettling the traditional constructions that science must distance itself
Available online 2 February 2014
from debates about values and what is at stake, and so from policy making. Then, drawing
from mixed methods case studies in coastal South-eastern Australia, we describe how
Keywords:
scientific research has had a bearing on decisions affecting society and the environment.
Science policy
These analyses suggest that the willingness and capacity of research organisations, pro-
Research outcomes
grammes or projects to actively reflect on and participate in the evolution of the ‘operating
Environmental governance
environment’ for their research is integral to their ability to inform outcomes through
Coastal zone management
science.
# 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Values
Problem structuring
1.
Introduction
A fundamental challenge for sustainability stems from longstanding tensions between the domains in which knowledge
is made and applied in contemporary society. Jasanoff (2003:
235) sums the challenge up well: ‘‘how to institutionalize
polycentric, interactive, and multipartite processes of knowledge making within institutions that have worked for decades
at keeping expert knowledge away from the vagaries of
populism and politics’’. Traditional narratives in science and
policy organisations tend to treat science, policy and politics
as three separate spheres. Yet empirical research on the
demarcation of roles and responsibilities across these
domains indicates that their boundaries are blurred and
continually renegotiated (Jasanoff, 1987; Wynne, 1994; Guston,
2000). Approaches to addressing the interactions between
science and decision-making have tended to be normative
rather than diagnostic. For example, boundary organisations that operate between science and decision-making
* Corresponding author at: Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 98, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
Tel.: +61 3 6226 2650; fax: +61 3 6226 7444.
E-mail addresses: Peat.Leith@utas.edu.au (P. Leith), kevin.otoole@deakin.edu.au (K. O’Toole), Marcus.Haward@utas.edu.au
(M. Haward), brian.coffey@deakin.edu.au (B. Coffey), Chris.Rees@utas.edu.au (C. Rees), Emily.Ogier@utas.edu.au (E. Ogier).
1462-9011/$ – see front matter # 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.01.001
163
organisations and are accountable to both spheres (Guston,
2001) tend to be presented as a generic institutional and
structural means of mediating and translating science for
decision-making (Cash et al., 2003; McNie, 2007). Alternately, a
focus on improving information products has drawn on
psychological research (e.g. Kahneman and Tversky, 1996)
to tactically refine scientific messages to improve ‘science
impact’.
In this paper we draw on relevant literature and a synopsis
of five case studies of science integration for South-eastern
Australia. We argue that this empirical and theoretical work
provides grounds for a diagnostic approach to developing
context appropriate interventions into the interactions
between science and decision-making, in what we term the
operating environment. We define the operating environment
for sciences as the dynamic and cumulative interactions
between actors, values, stakes, and the institutions, processes,
discourses and objects that mediate such interactions. Our
diagnostic model is proposed as an approach for analysing and
re-configuring operating environments for science in specific
problem contexts.
2.
Trends in making useful science for
environmental management
Empirical research on the effectiveness of science in environmental governance demonstrates that the linear model of
science and its application to decisions (Wynne, 1994) is rarely
effective in creating outcomes (McNie, 2007; Nelson et al.,
2008; Leith, 2011). Analyses of practice have detailed how
scientists and policy-makers frame problems in partial ways,
between diverse values and interests, and negotiate the
credibility and meaning of knowledge in relation to such
framing (Jasanoff, 1987; Wynne, 1994; Guston, 2000, 2001). A
more public concern for science has been the associations
between sciences and specific interests, undermining the
legitimacy of scientists, science agencies, or the scientific
enterprise as a whole (Oreskes, 2004). Claims by scientists may
also be perceived as illegitimate when they are made in
isolation from local knowledge, through their apparent finality
and purported authority (Wynne, 1992a,b).
The metaphor of boundaries has become an influential
framing of the interactions between science and decisionmakers. Boundary work has moved beyond its origins as a
methodology for analysing ‘credibility contests’ among scientists (Gieryn, 1983; Gilbert and Mulkay, 1984). Scholars have
adapted the concept of boundaries to analyse a variety of
situations where science intersects with lay and policy
domains. Jasanoff’s (1987) seminal work on science-policy
boundaries highlighted the complex negotiation of boundaries
around responsibility and authority. Star and Griesemer (1989)
detailed how ‘boundary objects’ (such as graphs, maps, and
report cards) can be used to mediate knowledge between
actors. Guston (2001) suggested that the creation of sciencefor-policy and policy-for science are two sides of a principalagent problem that can be resolved through setting up
‘boundary organisations’ which sit between science and
decision-makers and are accountable to both. For Cash
et al. (2003) boundary spanning includes processes of
convening, translating and mediating to create knowledge
for decision-making in which synergies and trade-offs
between the salience, credibility and legitimacy of that
knowledge are negotiated. In all these forms of boundary
spanning ‘what we know’ and ‘who we are’ are linked together
(Jasanoff, 2004). Knowledge production and governance
become a single system (Whatmore, 2009) in which the supply
of scientific information meets the well-developed demands
of decision-makers (McNie, 2007; Sarewitz and Pielke, 2007).
There are multiple dimensions to problem definition that
could help to guide focussed application of boundary spanning. However, two frames of reference – systems uncertainty
and stake – have consistently been at the centre of debates
about how to link science with decision-making (Funtowicz
and Ravetz, 1993). Below we draw on two recent framings of
these broad issues.
Firstly, Allenby and Sarewitz (2011) suggest that sciences
and technologies can be thought of as having effects on three
levels depending on the system complexity and uncertainty.
The direct ‘level one’ effects are the usual goals of the
application of a technology. ‘Level two’ interactions are the
less immediate consequences that emerge from the interaction of human and biophysical systems at a local and regional
level. At ‘level three’, these second level interactions are
extended through interactions with global drivers to create
even less predictable or manageable consequences. These
three levels of interactions are reflected in inter- and transdisciplinary research as means to better understand complex
systems problems (Holling et al., 1998). Such research underpins adaptive governance, where policy creates experiments
and research plays a key role in their evaluation (e.g. Holling
et al., 1998; Innes and Booher, 2004; Cash and Buizer, 2005;
Nelson et al., 2008; Hallegatte, 2009). The three levels of
complexity and system uncertainty provide a useful lens for
considering and defining system boundaries and therefore
contexts for learning, policy review, and the scope of
enabling research.
Secondly, stakes and the politics that arise from them are
crucial to the structuring of problems. By stakes we mean the
degree of interest or concern that individuals or groups have
regarding particular issues, and the degree of associated value
consensus or divergence. Stakes may be based on pecuniary,
instrumental, non-instrumental, intrinsic, or any other
values. Authors such as Hoppe (2011) and Turnhout et al.
(2008) argue that politics structures problem situations in
different ways depending on what is at stake for whom.
Turnhout et al. (2008) develop a typology of problem
structuring across which the role of scientists, policy
processes and the forms of useable knowledge all vary
substantially (Table 1). First, well-structured problems are
those for which converging values and/or low stakes make a
problem amenable to direct application of technical information. Second, moderately structured problems exist where
there is a possibility of a majority reaching agreed goals, and
relatively high certainty about science. Third, poorly structured problems are typified by dilemmas such that an outcome
that is considered positive will create another that is
considered negative, often depending on the divergent values
and stakes. Finally, for unstructured problems, divergent
perspectives exist about what the issue actually is, and
164
Table 1 – A typology of problem structures and appropriate processes, roles and forms of knowledge.
Problem structure
Policy process
Role of scientist
Type of research
Useable forms of knowledge
Well
structured
Moderately
structured
Poorly
structured
Unstructured
Linear
Solve problem
Disciplinary
Data
Negotiation
Policy options
Inter-disciplinary
Contextualised
information/argument
Compromise
Accommodate
Trans-disciplinary
Conceptual knowledge,
linked with values
and interests
Learning
Signal issues
Partial analysis
Options and perspectives
Source: Adapted from Turnhout et al. (2008).
therefore agreement on goals associated with the issue is
difficult to accomplish. Pielke (2007) provides exemplars of
how stakes and thus politics structure actions situations in
which science has a potential role – the cases of what he calls
‘tornado politics’ and ‘abortion politics’ (cf. Schö n and Rein,
1994). In extreme weather events such as tornados, consistent
societal stakes (e.g. risks to life and property) leave predictive
science uncontested. These are well-structured (albeit complicated) problems. In abortion politics, strongly held societal
values diverge and agreement about the basis of societal
debate is absent – a hallmark of unstructured problems. For
such unstructured problems, science tends to have little
traction and can lead to intensification of controversy
(Sarewitz, 2004).
In addressing well-structured problems, the issue, desired
outcomes and stakes are generally either uncontested or
inconsequential. In moderately structured problems there is
some interaction amongst interests and identifying alternative options, but science or information can play neatly into
informing options and their negotiation. In trying to resolve
poorly structured problems, decision-makers will tend to use
compromise to trade-off and ‘balance’ between opposing
outcomes or values in attempts to define a majority view.
Unstructured problems give rise to divergent claims, interests
and values. These differences are likely to foster adversarial
politics in which various players appear to be talking about
different issues. In such settings of substantial distrust among
stakeholders the salience and credibility of science itself may
be threatened (Clark et al., 2011).
In the central question for understanding problem structuring – ‘what is at stake, for whom?’ – the latter part implies
some analysis of power and knowledge relations. Schattscheneider (1960: 106) famously emphasised the bias in political
decision-making towards elites: ‘‘whoever decides what the
game is about decides also who can get into the game’’. The
ways that problems are signalled and represented, and
through which options are generated, selected and enacted,
tend to be entrenched within existing institutions and
incumbent power/knowledge structures, relations and cultures (Foucault, 1980; Hoppe, 2011). While it is beyond our
scope to fully review the literature on power in decisionmaking, it is useful to briefly highlight the shifting power
relations that are reflected in the cases that follow. In
particular, the global north has experienced shifts to more
distributed and networked forms of knowledge production
and governance, especially in complex resource management
issues (Innes and Booher, 2004). Driven in large part by
information and communications technologies (ICTs), citizens
have rapidly developed new ways of influencing markets,
policy processes, knowledge and politics. This has created
new imperatives, including the development of a ‘social
license to operate’ beyond regulatory compliance (Gunningham et al., 2004). Such distributed forms of power and
knowledge production blur boundaries between traditional
roles of science, policy and politics as well as between the
public and private spheres. Inclusion and engagement,
however, can also be subsumed (often subtly) by pre-existing
knowledge/power relations to achieve existing organisational
goals (Cooke and Kothari, 2001).
3.
Science input into coastal zone
management in South-eastern Australia
Coasts are particularly useful sites for examining the roles of
sciences in managing complex issues because diverse interests interact with complex biophysical and socio-political
processes. In this section we summarise five case studies from
the southeast coast of Australia. These case summaries stem
from mixed methods studies reported elsewhere (see Table 2)
including qualitative semi-structured interviews, document
analysis, participatory workshops, focus groups and participant observation. An important commonality across the cases
was the use of forms of discourse analysis. Participants were
asked to describe and reflect on how processes and interactions among stakeholders had, among other things, created or
undermined legitimacy, credibility and salience of science,
built capacity to use scientific results, and precipitated
community involvement or dissent in relation to the relevant
science. Cases used a variety of largely qualitative approaches
as detailed in relevant citations.
3.1.
Planning for sea-level rise in Clarence and
Kingborough Councils, Tasmania
Assessing the present and future risk of sea level rise (SLR) in
Australia falls particularly to local governments. Trade-offs
exist between the protection of private assets of substantial
value (e.g. beachfront houses) and public assets of substantial
amenity and ecosystem value (e.g. beaches). The science of
local impacts is uncertain, and events such as storm surge
create a public debate that turns on and off, literally with the
165
Table 2 – An overview of case studies summarised.
Name of case
Region case
Data collection
Estuary entrance
management
Western Victoria
Marine protected
areas
Victoria
Derwent Estuary
Program
SE Tasmania
Salmon aquaculture
SE Tasmania
Coastal council
sea-level rise
planning
SE Tasmania
Key informant
interviews;
Workshops;
Document analysis
Key informant
interviews;
Workshops;
Literature review
Key-informant
interviews;
Document analysis
Key informant
interviews;
Workshops
Interviews;
focus group
Participantsa
Number of participants
Citations
O’Toole et al.
(2013) and
Keneley et al.
(2013)
Coffey and
O’Toole (2012)
42 interviewees
30 workshop participants
SG, LG, I, SO,
NGO, CO, CA
42 interviewees
30 workshop participants
SG, LG, I, SO,
NGO, CO, CA
10 interviewees
SG, LG, I, SO
Leith et al.
(2012a,b)
18 interviewees
12 workshop participants
SG, I, SO, NGO,
CO
Leith et al.
(2014)
6 Interviewees (Clarence);
13 Focus group participants
(Kingborough)
LG, PC
Leith et al.
(2012b)
a
Participants from different sectors indicated as follows: state government (SG), local government (LG), industry (I), private consultants (PC),
science organisations (SO), non-government organisations (NGO) community organisations (CO) community activists (CA).
weather. Clarence and Kingborough Councils in South-eastern
Tasmania represent two proximate but vastly different
situations of SLR planning.
Clarence City Council on the Eastern shore of the Derwent
Estuary has 191 km of coastline of which many areas are soft
sediment. Much of the coastline remains undeveloped, but
there are a number of small to medium settlements that are
erosion or inundation prone. Community concern about these
impacts led Clarence to apply for early Australian Government
financial support in April 2009. The ensuing project provided
an integrated scientific assessment of climate change risks on
public infrastructure and private property for 18 coastal
locations in the municipality. In contrast to Clarence, the
Kingborough Council, has 336 km of coastline with fewer lowlying settlements on erodible substrates. Kingborough provides an informative contrast to Clarence. By virtue of their
geography, topography and aspect, none of the Kingborough
coastal settlements have been historically exposed to substantial erosion or inundation. Most notably, storm surge
activity in Kingborough is limited by the presence of a large
offshore island. The Clarence population had been sensitised
to the prospect of coastal hazards by frequent erosion events
including a 9 m recession of beach backed by residential
properties over the 8 years to July 2011. As a result of these
geographical differences, public interest and participation
across relevant projects was very low in the Kingborough and
high in Clarence.
In Clarence, the synergy between key players’ capacities
and experience and timely scientific research, storm surge
events and related political developments and opportunities
was critical to the success of SLR planning. Participants
described early science reports as incomprehensible to most
people, and reported that inundation maps triggered a strong
fear reaction in Council. The lead consultant was able to
effectively translate high quality science into locally relevant
forms, and work with relevant Council staff to empower the
Council to be transparent and effectively engage the community. The Council’s communication plan committed them to
actively involving, informing and being an advocate for the
community, and respecting, listening and responding to the
community’s concerns around the project. Council was
praised by community members for such transparency and
became comfortable with releasing highly sensitive information to the wider public about coastal inundation and erosion
risks. Appreciating the uncertainties in the science, shortterm, ‘experimental’ works for hazard management were
developed, alongside ongoing public consultation and communication.
Despite the extent of serendipity involved, the ‘Clarence
process’ has been promoted as a model for other councils’ SLR
planning. It demonstrated the effectiveness of open community engagement with science and policy directions. The
experience of Kingborough demonstrated that, despite comparable processes, low political interest followed an absence
of public interest, which in turn was driven by low perceived
stakes as a result of a geography which limited the impact of
storm surges on residents. Thus, scientific reports were left ‘on
the shelf’.
3.2.
Marine
Victoria
protected
area
planning,
The consideration of marine protected areas (MPAs) attracts
significant and sustained input from a diverse and changing
range of stakeholders. These stakeholders include conservation groups (national, state, and local groups), fishing
organisations (commercial and recreational), other interest
groups (tourism operators and diving groups), political parties,
public servants and members of the scientific community.
Central elements in ongoing debates about MPAs include how
marine and coastal areas should be managed, the role of MPAs
in resource management and conservation, the nature of
MPAs (‘no take’ versus ‘multiple use’), the boundaries of any
protected areas established, and the compensation arrangements for those impacted.
Victoria’s Environment Conservation Council (ECC) worked
through these issues by applying strategic environmental
166
assessment process. Between 1991 and 2000, the ECC and its
predecessor organisation conducted a Marine, Coastal and
Estuarine Inquiry (ECC, 2000). ECC investigation processes
involved five main steps: (1) initiation of investigations; (2)
preparation of descriptive reports; (3) preparation of draft
options; (4) preparation of final recommendations; and (5)
preparation of a government response (with steps 1 and 5
undertaken by the government and not the Council) (Coffey
et al., 2011: 309). In the Marine, Coastal and Estuarine
Investigation, there were six formal periods for public
comment, ongoing consultation with a wide range of
stakeholders, and technical support provided by an advisory
group. 2500 written submissions were received following the
release of draft recommendations (ECC, 2000). Following the
release of its final report, the focus of attention shifted to the
Victorian Parliamentary processes. Protracted negotiations led
to the development of ‘‘a substantial compensation package
for people adversely affected’’ (Wescott, 2006: 910) and
subsequent passage of the MPA legislation.
Throughout this process, many and varied forms of
knowledge were drawn upon. First, available technical
information on Victoria’s marine, coastal, and estuarine
environments was assembled in various background reports.
Information on the socio-economic values derived from
making use of Victoria’s marine, coastal, and estuarine
environments were collated from a range of sources, including
the fishing industry, and the socio-economic impacts of
recommendations considered. More informal forms of knowledge (lay and indigenous) were also considered through the
widespread consultation processes, including public meetings
where ECC members met with members of the community, of
a separate consultation process ‘‘to facilitate and coordinate
the input of aboriginal people’’ (ECC, 2000: xii). In summary,
extensive opportunities for written and verbal input were
made available, which provided for the consideration of
various forms of knowledge. While the underlying foundation
for the ECC is rational and managerial and centred on the
compilation of technical information on the biophysical
environment, it had clear requirements for consideration of
economic, social, and environmental objectives and thus
provided a forum within which diverse viewpoints could be
aired.
Stakeholders held markedly different visions of the value
of marine, coastal, and estuarine environments and how they
should be used and managed. The presence of the ECC as an
independent, transparent, structured, and respected process
(Coffey et al., 2011) enabled the many frames and related
controversies to be included and thoroughly considered, even
if they were not necessarily conclusively resolved.
3.3.
Estuary
Victoria
entrance
management,
Estuaries provide habitat for fish, birds and other species, as
well as being important sites for recreation, agriculture,
fishing and urban and industrial development. Estuaries are
also affected by numerous local and upstream human
activities. In Victoria many estuary entrances close periodically resulting in raised water levels, which can result in
flooding of agricultural land, buildings, roads and structures,
such as jetties and boat ramps (Sherwood et al., 2008). In the
past these effects have been addressed by artificial river
mouth openings, usually with little reference to environmental impacts, or broader social and economic implications.
The ecological risks of artificially opening estuary entrances
include impacts on water bird habitat in fringing wetlands and
fish kills through the lowering of dissolved oxygen levels in
water following estuary opening, as well as degradation of
estuarine catchments (Sherwood et al., 2008).
An estuary entrance management support system (EEMSS)
was developed by local catchment management agencies. Key
features of the EEMSS process were the inclusion of
stakeholder input and the integration of their concerns with
the views of scientific experts to develop a workable solution
to a serious environmental problem. The EEMSS was designed
to facilitate the management of estuary openings in a manner
that was acceptable to stakeholders whilst minimising
environmental repercussions.
Preliminary assessment of the EEMSS process suggested a
positive acceptance of this approach by local stakeholders
(Keneley et al., 2013). Other positive outcomes have included a
greater understanding by local stakeholders of the complex
issues and processes involved in estuary management and a
reduction in complaints from those local landowners involved
in the consultation process.
Whilst benefits have accrued from the EEMSS process,
incorporating this type of grass roots initiative into broader
integrated coastal strategies and processes remains a considerable challenge. In particular, ‘scaling up’ the EEMSS
process across all relevant estuaries is challenging in an
environment of time-bound interventions as state-funded
projects (O’Toole et al., 2013). Improving estuary entrance
management therefore is not merely a matter of using a
‘cookie-cutter’ to scale up adoption of new approaches.
Instead, scale and context are central to the design of
stakeholder engagement that underpins success. There is a
need to consider the higher order rules (and policy processes),
which ensure participatory mechanisms are built into policies,
programmes and plans, to enable a context derived response
to occur (see, for example, Jentoft, 2000).
3.4.
Salmon aquaculture in South East Tasmania
Salmon aquaculture is a substantial and growing industry in
Tasmania, and now constitutes Australia’s most economically
lucrative seafood sector. Three main companies lease areas of
public waterways and are regulated under legislation. In
recent years, the industry has been the focus of some
controversy and concern among sectors of the community,
including environmental non-governmental organisations,
local community groups and recreational fishers. There is
currently a substantial effort in the sector to improve
sustainability, variously supported by government, industry
and the community. However, sustainability, and reporting on
what it means, relies on science and science agencies that
effectively target research and communicate to diverse
audiences – government regulators, local communities,
consumers, and industry decision-makers.
A pervasive set of narratives from participants in the
community, science and industry, highlight an erosion of trust
between some vocal community groups, the government
167
regulator and the industry organisations. These narratives
often include concerns about the transparency, efficacy and
accessibility of environmental monitoring information.
Recent changes appeared to have tempered these tension
including: the industry leader becoming a publicly listed
company and needing to undertake triple bottom line
accounting; the role of individuals in precipitating more
transparent and participatory forms of engagement, interactions and programmes; the industry agenda to expand and the
necessity of political support for this expansion; the recognition that community groups and NGOs can affect consumer
perceptions and thus markets; a recognition that the
adversarial approach that typified other environmental conflicts and ‘salmon wars’ elsewhere in the world had not
resulted in desirable social, economic or environmental
outcomes for any parties.
Social license is constituted by different players as critical to
understanding the current and future role of environmental
science and of science policy in enabling this role. In general,
social license is described by participants as being founded in
mutual understanding of the effects of Salmon aquaculture on
communities and public waterways and capacity to engage in
legitimate decision-making processes around these issues.
Some participants’ concerns are indicative of a deficit of trust in
public representation of environmental monitoring and reporting by government and industry. Lack of access to scientific
interpretations that are perceived as legitimate (and the data on
which they are based) has created a highly politicised operating
environment for science in which no intermediary is currently
effective. The majority of effort in communicating science has
occurred between scientists, industry and government, and
these communication efforts have themselves not always been
easy. Communication and engagement with community
members and environmental NGOs has generally been poorly
resourced and not seen as a priority in an operating environment in which science has traditionally been viewed in relation
to its regulatory application.
Most participants suggested that the industry is opening to
public view, becoming more transparent and accountable to
the community, not only through the regulatory processes but
through commitment to transparent communication. As one
industry participant stated; the industry and NGOs had to
‘‘stop meeting in the media’’ where the imperative was to
argue rather than negotiate or deliberate. Another participant
suggested ‘‘you can only challenge each other when you are
connected and communicating. If it is adversarial it is logical
for the adversary to shut down or fight.’’
Traditional, top-down regulatory systems tend to involve
small technical audiences regularly engaged with scientific
analysis, interpretation, risks, uncertainties and how these
align with specific policy options. In a more distributed
knowledge system, in which social license is a core concern,
the legitimacy and credibility of scientific interpretation to
diverse audiences can be crucial to mediating mutual understanding. This requires effective intermediary organisations
and/or individuals that can legitimately translate rigorous
science for diverse audiences. Many participants in this case
appeared to have developed this understanding alongside an
evolutionary appreciation of social license as a critical
underpinning of ongoing business viability.
3.5.
The Derwent Estuary Program, Tasmania
The Derwent Estuary Programme (DEP) in South East
Tasmania is a regional partnership comprising the Tasmanian
State Government and Local Councils and commercial and
industrial enterprises bordering the Derwent River. It also
engages closely with research organisations, and communitybased groups. Established in 1999, the DEP develops, coordinates and implements framework agreements and practical
initiatives aimed at the reduction of water pollution, conservation of habitat and species, the monitoring of river health
and enhancing the use of the Derwent foreshore areas. Taking
a long term strategic approach to managing challenges in the
Derwent by providing its partners and stakeholders with a
strong science base, the DEP coordinates targeted projects and
ongoing monitoring programmes, producing an annual report
card and a State of the Derwent Report every five years.
The DEP has positioned itself carefully on multiple
boundaries: between state and local government, industry,
science agencies, and the broader community. It serves
particular goals of each of these groups in a way that allows
for synergy and delimits political controversy and risk. The
DEP’s successful navigation of political issues by maintaining
a science focus, contrasts with its inception in a bid to manage
controversy associated with a legacy of heavy metal pollution
in the Derwent River. This controversy was itself precipitated
by highly credible research that identified dangerous zinc and
cadmium levels in shellfish in the Derwent Estuary, following
a poisoning incident in 1970.
Through early wins, the DEP cemented a partnership
between key industries and relevant levels of government
which resulted in the development of a relatively stable entity
with a strong science-oriented programme of work. The
science focus and the explicit avoidance of political issues
have created what one participant referred to as a ‘‘a safe
space’’ in which science and management appear to be kept
separate. Yet the DEP also maintains a dialogue between these
separate endeavours enabling a broader awareness of activity
across the estuary in both science and management. Such a
dialogue allows individuals and groups to view and critique
the modus operandi of others, but also has enabled a gradual
shift in consensus from a central focus on heavy metals and
water quality to a more systems oriented programme focussed
on estuarine health.
Although the pathway to the current stability of the DEP is
broadly acknowledged as being relatively smooth, there have
been key flashpoints in which hard decisions, complex
negotiations and diverging values occurred. These appear to
have been largely well managed to create opportunities for
learning across member organisations and a resulting
increase in their level of commitment to the DEP. For example,
when a favoured recreational fish in the upper estuary, Bream,
were found to be containing high levels of heavy metals, the
DEP mediated discussions between parties on how this
information might be communicated. Ongoing negotiation
of the framing of information appears to be a core component
of the social and political work undertaken through (not by)
the DEP by creating an ethos of collaboration on science
among its partners. The DEP has built substantial legitimacy
among its constituents by coordinating and writing reports
168
and other outputs for all partners while maintaining a
reputation in science circles for producing credible and
relevant outputs.
4.
Towards diagnosis and intervention in the
‘operating environment’ for sciences
The above cases highlight a variety of ways in which
interactions between science and decision-making are consistently structured by recurring characteristics. Among these,
the stakes associated with issues are pervasive. Issues, such as
the loss of public amenity of private property in our SLR cases,
can precipitate high stakes situations depending on the
associated values. If the values across stakeholder groups
converge around the importance of private property over
public values then decisions may be relatively straightforward
– for instance, priority is given to private property without
regard for the public amenity of beach users or the loss of
shore-nesting bird habitat. In the cases presented here,
however, there was substantial perceived trade-offs between
public and private benefits associated with intervention. The
problems were mostly structured by relatively high stakes and
substantial values divergence, and mostly accompanied by
entangled historical knowledge/power relations.
Following Cash et al. (2003), Gieryn (1983), Guston (2001),
Jasanoff (1987) and others we refer to the mediation of issues
and stakes as ‘boundary spanning’ whether this is undertaken
actively or otherwise. The term embodies a diverse range of
possible practices. Done well, boundary-spanning links issues
and stakes and thereby defines a useful role for scientists or
science communicators to contribute to useable knowledge.
When done poorly, especially where stakes are high and
diverse and stakeholders numerous and/or powerful, boundary spanning can rapidly result in the politicisation of science
and undermine the perceived credibility and legitimacy of
science organisations or scientists.
The way ‘stakes’ and ‘issues’ were co-created in our cases
did not solely depend on underlying human values (and their
divergence, or convergence). How these stakes and issues
were mediated was crucial to outcomes. In the Victorian MPA
process, time and effort were given to iterative public
consultation in parallel to scientific assessment (including
socio-economic) work, which enable these issues and stakes
to be co-created in a constructive rather than destructive form.
Scientific assessment was responsive to public concerns, and
as a result publics were responsive to science (Wynne,
1992a,b). In the more rapid Clarence SLR case an individual
actor drove much of the comparable boundary spanning
activity. In the Tasmanian Salmon aquaculture case, there
was an apparent shift through relationships and products to
articulate the component issues of a relatively unstructured
problem. With an eye to social license, the industry appeared
to be moving from an adversarial position in which the
mainstream media and marine farm planning appeals
processes were the primary sites of boundary spanning, to a
more engaged footing in which dialogue is seen as integral to
future operations.
Science was perceived to have a strong bearing on decisionmaking where it was linked effectively to the interests of
stakeholders; their stakes and values. These cases were the
DEP, the ‘Clarence process’ for SLR planning, the EEMSS
process, and the Victorian MPA planning process. Effectiveness was not achieved through a single means but through a
combination of ‘design elements’ with different foci. These
elements represent five different but linked boundary spanning activities and are presented in Table 3.
These elements can be mutually reinforcing. Science
communication with a simple product focus, or a ‘loading
dock’ approach (Cash et al., 2006), was not apparent in our
cases. Rather, relationship, actor, network or organisation foci
were used to ground science in specific decision-making or
learning contexts. The actor and network focus was successful
where it was able to link values, policy objectives and science
into coherent narratives and leave a legacy within relevant
organisations to continue do the same. Actors and networks
appeared to have key roles in reconfiguring the way existing
organisations and their members understood relevant science
and were able to articulate it with diverse problem frames of
stakeholders. The relationship focus presented a less formal
or explicit means of developing mutually agreeable narratives
that can bring science and values together through a focus on
specific issues. Relationships underpinned by products
enabled issues to be discussed separately rather than
conflated, thereby structuring problems more cohesively.
The less common organisation focus was undergirded by
other design elements.
The boundary spanning function with an organisation focus
was apparent in two of the cases that participants considered
successful, the DEP and the Victorian MPA planning process.
Table 3 – The key design elements of boundary spanning.
Element and focus
Science communication (product focus)
Informal linkages (relationship focus)
Brokering/intermediary (actor focus)
Temporary organisation (structure/network
focus – e.g. reference groups)
Boundary organisation (organisation focus)
Explanation
Development of boundary objects.
Where problems are poorly structured or unstructured building informal linkages among
key stakeholder groups can begin to create mutual understanding of stakes and values
across groups, thereby allowing clearer definition of issues.
The building of capacity within organisations that manage problems in which science and
community values are both important.
Temporary organisations or projects used to address complex issues and/or short-term
imperatives.
Long-lived, persistent ‘wicked’ problem, managing complex conditions, often within
multiple organisations.
169
Table 4 – Presence (denoted by dark shading, lighter shading indicates element emerging) of different ‘boundary spanning
foci’ across cases.
Cases
Product Relationship
focus
focus
Actor Structure/ Organisation
focus network
focus
focus
Sea level rise, Clarence
and Kingborough
Marine protected areas
Estuary entrance
management support
system
Salmon aquaculture
Derwent Estuary Program
These were clearly not the only cases in which ‘success’ was
apparent. They were both long-term efforts with sustained
interests, associated with diverse management objectives, and
organisational/statutory responsibilities, as well as the complex
politics associated with divergent values, stakes and attendant
knowledge/power relations. Different ‘boundary spanning
elements’ were distributed across our case studies as illustrated
in Table 4. These five key design elements have many potential
forms that need to be explored in context, rather than as
blueprints. While the cases represent some of this diversity, it is
beyond the scope of this paper to unpack the many forms these
elements can take and the ways they might interact.
5.
From cases to model: the operating
environment
Issues, stakes and boundary spanning can be considered to
constitute the ‘operating environment’ that affects whether
and how sciences can have an impact on decision-making. An
operating environment is an emergent property of elements as
diverse as an advertising campaign, a well-networked policy
entrepreneur and a storm event that threatens coastal homes. It
is neither deterministic, nor fully tractable to an analyst. Any
analysis of an operating environment will be partial. Among
stakeholders there will be diverse interpretations of operating
environments, and much understanding will be tacit, vaguely
articulated, or contested. For level two and three problems
(Allenby and Sarewitz, 2011), a key challenge will be in problem
definition as system boundaries extend. In this context, the aim
of the analyst and facilitator is not to achieve consensus, but to
develop a coherent, credible and legitimate account of the
operating environment, highlighting points of tension, divergence and consensus. ‘Naming up’ such elements can help to
categorise the operating environment in terms of its problem
structure. Problem structures vary continuously so it may be
useful to use exemplars as anchor points for each to compare a
specific problem context to. For instance, is the operating
environment more like climate change (unstructured) or
bookbinding (well-structured)?
The above constraints do not undermine the goal of
analysing operating environments which is to explicitly
articulate the linkages between issues and the stakes of
relevant actors in a manner which is credible and legitimate to
those actors. Thus, definition of category is not crucial to
analysis. Rather, deliberation on the critical question of what
is at stake for whom provides avenues into a nuanced
understanding of problem structure. While robust social
research methods are needed, analysis of operating environments must be legitimate in order to comprise a useful
conceptualisation of the problem. Legitimacy requires effective mediation and facilitation, especially in the context of
entrenched power dynamics or divergent values and stakes
(Innes and Booher, 2004). As depicted in Fig. 1, the goal of such
analysis is ultimately the practical development and application of context appropriate boundary design elements.
Application of the model is, in the first instance, achieved
through cycling iteratively through a three stage process
(Fig. 1). The first stage involves iteratively building up an
understanding of the operating environment through facilitated dialogue. Within workshops or other forums, dialogue
can be used to understand issues and related stakes, and how
these are mediated by existing boundary spanning elements.
At this stage, biases can be limited through inclusion of
diverse relevant stakeholders or their representatives (Innes
and Booher, 2004). Workshop design is oriented to mutual
understanding of the constellation of issues (e.g. beach
activities that constitute public amenity) that are potentially
at stake (e.g. what elements of ‘lifestyle’ are at risk) in relation
to a particular issue (e.g. managing the impacts of storm
surge). Looping between issue and stake requires open
dialogue and reflection that should gradually develop greater
focus on how existing boundary spanning activities exacerbate and/or ameliorate the relationships between issues and
stakes.
The refinement or redesign of boundary spanning, via
specific design elements, we suggest, can effectively articulate
concerns and knowledge about them, so each part of the
problem can be seen in the context of a wider constellation of
issues and stakes. We would suggest that this process can
enable the maturation of demand for science, and thereby
inform the supply of science in a manner that enables
intervention (McNie, 2007; Sarewitz and Pielke, 2007). Segregating the components of unstructured problems and dealing
171
Fig. 1 – Schematic process for diagnosing and intervening in the operating environment for sciences.
with them in isolation may be necessary; but components will
eventually need to be re-articulated.
6.
Conclusion
Considering interactions between science and decision-making in terms of boundary spanning design elements provides a
means to better link science and decision-making, and
thereby better reconciles the supply of and demand for
science (McNie, 2007; Sarewitz and Pielke, 2007). Through a
series of cases, and drawing on diverse literature, we have
argued that such reconciliation can lead to outcomes where
well-targeted science is deployed via appropriate boundary
spanning design elements. Such design elements can explicitly bring scientific information into debates about issues and
stakes. Analysis of interactions between issues and stakes via
boundary spanning elements, allows the analyst and participants to potentially diagnose missing or ineffective boundary
spanning elements that might enable more effective, efficient,
equitable and legitimate processes for informing decisionmaking.
The approach of analysing the operating environment with
the explicit intention to refine boundary design elements
represents a substantial step beyond applications of generic
principles. The approach outlined here begins to address
constraints to the application of science, but will not allow all
problems to become tractable. Where problems are unstructured it may well be that the role of research becomes one of
mediating, and documenting debates over values. We do
argue, however, that the role of scientific information in varied
decision-making contexts is mediated by the relative adequacy of boundary spanning design elements and the
interactions between them. These design elements for
boundary spanning provide a potentially fruitful focus for
ongoing empirical, practical and theoretical work concerned
with linking science, society and policy for sustainability.
Acknowledgement
This research was supported by the CSIRO Coastal Collaboration Cluster with funding from the CSIRO Flagship Collaboration
Fund. We thank all participants in the case study research.
references
Allenby, B.R., Sarewitz, D., 2011. The Techno-Human Condition.
MIT Press, Boston, MA.
Cash, D.W., Borck, J.C., Patt, A.G., 2006. Countering the ‘‘Loading
Dock’’ approach to linking science and decision-making: a
comparative analysis of ENSO forecasting systems. Science,
Technology and Human Values 31 (4) 465–494.
Cash, D.W., Buizer, J., 2005. Knowledge-action systems for
seasonal to interannual climate forecasting. In: Roundtable
on Science and Technology for Sustainability Policy and
Global Affairs. National Research Council, Washington, DC.
Cash, D.W., Clark, W.C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N.M., Eckley, N.,
Guston, D.H., Jager, J., Mitchell, R.B., 2003. Knowledge
systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America 100 (14) 8086–8091.
Clark, W.C., Tomich, T.P., van Noordwijk, M., Guston, D.,
Catacutan, D., Dickson, N.M., McNie, E., 2011. Boundary work
for sustainable development: Natural resource management
at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural
Research (CGIAR). Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1073/pnas.0900231108.
Coffey, B., Fitzsimons, J.A., Gormly, R., 2011. Strategic public
land use assessment and planning in Victoria, Australia:
four decades of trailblazing but where to from here? Land
Use Policy 28 (1) 306–313.
Coffey, B., O’Toole, K., 2012. Understanding coastal knowledge
dynamics: the potential of knowledge systems. Conservation
and Society 10 (4) 318–329.
170
Cooke, B., Kothari, U., 2001. Participation: The New Tyranny?
Zed Books, London.
Foucault, M., 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and
Other Writings, 1972–1977. Harvester, Brighton.
Funtowicz, S.O., Ravetz, J.R., 1993. Science for a post-normal
age. Futures 25 (7) 739–755.
Gieryn, T.F., 1983. Boundary-work and the demarcation of
science from non-science: strains and interests in
professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological
Review 48, 781–795.
Gilbert, G.N., Mulkay, M.J., 1984. Opening Pandora’s Box.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Gunningham, N., Kagan, R.A., Thornton, D., 2004. Social license
and environmental protection: why business go beyond
compliance. Law & Social Inquiry 29, 307–341.
Guston, D.H., 2000. Between Politics and Science: Assuring the
Integrity and Productivity of Research. University of Chicago
Press, Chicago.
Guston, D.H., 2001. Boundary organisations in environmental
policy and science: an introduction. Science, Technology and
Human Values 26 (1) 399–408.
Hallegatte, S., 2009. Strategies to adapt to an uncertain climate
change. Global Environmental Change 19 (2) 240–247.
Holling, C.S., Berkes, F., Folke, C., 1998. Science, sustainability
and resource management. In: Berkes, F., Folke, C. (Eds.),
Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management
Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience.
Cambridge University Press, London, pp. 342–362.
Hoppe, R., 2011. The Governing of Problems: Puzzling, Power
and Participation. Policy Press, Portland, OR.
Innes, J., Booher, D., 2004. Reframing public participation:
strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory & Practice 5 (4)
419–436.
Jasanoff, S., 1987. Contested boundaries in policy-relevant
science. Social Studies of Science 17 (2) 195–230.
Jasanoff, S., 2003. Technologies of humility: citizen participation
in governing science. Minerva 41, 223–244.
Jasanoff, S. (Ed.), 2004. States of Knowledge: The Co-production
of Science and Social Order. International Library of
Sociology. Routledge, London/New York.
Jentoft, S., 2000. Legitimacy and disappointment in fisheries
management. Marine Policy 20, 141–148.
Kahneman, D., Tversky, A., 1996. On the reality of cognitive
illusions. Psychological Review 103 (3) 582–591.
Keneley, M., OToole, K., Coffey, B., MacGarvey, A., 2013.
Stakeholder participation in estuary management: the
development of Victoria’s Estuary Entrance Management
Support System (EEMSS). Australasian Journal of
Environmental Management 20 (1) 49–62.
Leith, P.B., 2011. Public engagement with climate adaptation: an
imperative for (and driver of) institutional reform? In:
Whitmarsh, L., O’Neill, S., Lorenzoni, I. (Eds.), Engaging the
Public with Climate Change: Behaviour Change and
Communication. Earthscan, London, pp. 100–119.
Leith, P., Coffey, B., Haward, M., O’Toole, K., Allen, S., 2012a.
Improving science uptake in coastal zone management:
principles for science engagement and their application in
South-eastern Tasmania. In: Kenchington, R., Stocker, L.,
Wood, D. (Eds.), Sustainable Coastal Management and
Climate Adaptation: Lessons from Regional Approaches in
Australia. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, pp. 135–155.
Leith, P., Ogier, E., Rees, C., Haward, M., 2012b. Progressing
analysis of the structure and function of knowledge-action
systems for coastal zone management. In: Presented at
Coast to Coast 2012 Conference, Brisbane 17–21 September
2012, http://www.coast2coastaustralia.com/2012presentations-a-l/.
Leith, P., Ogier, E., Haward, M., 2014. Science and social license:
defining environmental sustainability of Atlantic Salmon
aquaculture in South-eastern Tasmania, Australia. Social
Epistemology (in press).
McNie, E.C., 2007. Reconciling the supply of scientific
information with user demands: an analysis of the problem
and review of the literature. Environmental Science & Policy
10 (1) 17–38.
Nelson, R.A., Howden, M., Stafford Smith, M., 2008. Using
adaptive governance to rethink the way science supports
Australian drought policy. Environmental Science & Policy 7,
588–601.
Oreskes, N., 2004. Science and public policy: what’s proof got to
do with it? Environmental Science & Policy 7, 369–383.
O’Toole, K., Keneley, M., Coffey, B., 2013. Participatory logic and
coastal management under the project state: the case of the
Estuary Entrance Management Support System (EEMSS) in
Victoria, Australia. Environmental Science and Policy 27, 206–
214.
Pielke Jr., R.A., 2007. The Honest Broker: Making Sense of
Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge University Press,
New York.
Sarewitz, D., 2004. How science makes environmental controversies
worse. Environmental Science & Policy 7, 385–403.
Sarewitz, D., Pielke Jr., R.A., 2007. The neglected heart of science
policy: reconciling supply and demand for science.
Environmental Science & Policy 10, 5–16.
Schattscheneider, E.E., 1960. The Semisovereign People: A
Realist’s View of Democracy in America. Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, New York.
Schö n, D.A., Rein, M., 1994. Frame Reflection: Toward the
Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies. Basic Books,
New York.
Sherwood, J., Mondon, J., Fenton, C., 2008. Classification and
management issues of estuaries in western Victoria, Australia.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria 120 (1) 257–276.
Star, S.L., Griesemer, J.R., 1989. Institutional ecology,
‘‘translation’’ and boundary objects: amateurs and
professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology.
Social Studies of Science 19 (3) 387–420.
Turnhout, E., Hisschemö ller, M., Eijsackers, H., 2008. Science in
Wadden Sea policy: from accommodation to advocacy.
Environmental Science & Policy 11 (22) 227–239.
Whatmore, S.J., 2009. Mapping knowledge controversies:
science, democracy and the redistribution of expertise.
Progress in Human Geography 33 (5) 587–598.
Wynne, B., 1992a. Misunderstood misunderstandings: social
identities and the public uptake of science. Public
Understanding of Science 1, 281–304.
Wynne, B., 1992b. Uncertainty and environmental learning:
reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm.
Global Environmental Change 3.
Wynne, B., 1994. Scientific knowledge and the global
environment. In: Redclift, M., Benton, T. (Eds.), Social Theory
and the Global Environment. Routledge, London, pp. 169–189.
Peat Leith is a research fellow at the Tasmanian Institute of
Agriculture, University of Tasmania (UTAS).
Kevin O’Toole is associate professor in politics and policy at
Deakin University.
Marcus Haward is professor at the Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies, UTAS.
Brian Coffey is a post-doctoral research fellow at Deakin University.
Chris Rees is research fellow at the Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies, UTAS.
Emily Ogier is research fellow at the Institute of Marine and
Antarctic Studies, UTAS.