IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v51y2024i3p393-405..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Boundary work to what end? Analysing the acid mine drainage case in Gauteng, South Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Nikki Funke
  • Dave Huitema
  • Arthur Petersen

Abstract

This article contributes a boundary work analysis of the case of acid mine drainage (AMD) in South Africa to the existing boundary work literature. We conduct our analysis by applying a synthesized multi-level boundary work framework to examine whether the knowledge that was produced during the boundary work conducted was usable and influential in decision-making and resulted in successful policy implementation. We conclude that contrary to expectations, a closed, technocratic boundary work process resulted in the relatively successful implementation of a short-term intervention in the AMD problem, whereas a subsequent open and deliberative process did not result in the successful implementation of the long-term policy solution. We ascribe this finding to the influence of critical enabling and constraining factors characterizing the South African socio-political context within which the AMD issue is situated, and therefore, we recommend adding a meta-analytical layer to boundary work analyses, especially in developing country contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • Nikki Funke & Dave Huitema & Arthur Petersen, 2024. "Boundary work to what end? Analysing the acid mine drainage case in Gauteng, South Africa," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 51(3), pages 393-405.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:51:y:2024:i:3:p:393-405.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scad078
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Danielle K Jensen-Ryan & Laura A German, 2019. "Environmental science and policy: A meta-synthesis of case studies on boundary organizations and spanning processes," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(1), pages 13-27.
    2. Koch, Susanne, 2018. "“Identifying enabling factors of science-policy interaction in a developing country context: A case study of South Africa's environment sector”," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 36-45.
    3. Rob Hoppe & Anna Wesselink & Rose Cairns, 2013. "Lost in the problem: the role of boundary organisations in the governance of climate change," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(4), pages 283-300, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kenji Otsuka, 2022. "Co‐optation in co‐production: Maintaining credibility and legitimacy in transboundary environmental governance in East Asia," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(6), pages 771-797, November.
    2. Tiffany H. Morrison & W. Neil Adger & Katrina Brown & Maria Carmen Lemos & Dave Huitema & Terry P. Hughes, 2017. "Mitigation and adaptation in polycentric systems: sources of power in the pursuit of collective goals," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(5), September.
    3. Amelia Sharman & Richard Perkins, 2017. "Post-decisional logics of inaction: The influence of knowledge controversy in climate policy decision-making," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 49(10), pages 2281-2299, October.
    4. Soler, Rosina & Lorenzo, Cristian & González, Joel & Carboni, Lucas & Delgado, Juan & Díaz, Mayra & Toro Manríquez, Mónica D.R. & Alejandro, Huertas Herrera, 2021. "The politics behind scientific knowledge: Sustainable forest management in Latin America," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    5. Constant, Natasha Louise & Taylor, Peter John, 2020. "Restoring the forest revives our culture: Ecosystem services and values for ecological restoration across the rural-urban nexus in South Africa," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    6. Ramirez, Luisa F. & Belcher, Brian M., 2020. "Crossing the science-policy interface: Lessons from a research project on Brazil nut management in Peru," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    7. Koch, Susanne & Tetley, Camilla, 2023. "What ‘counts’ in international forest policy research? A conference ethnography of valuation practice and habitus in an interdisciplinary social science field," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    8. Ronlyn Duncan & Melissa Robson-Williams & Sarah Edwards, 2020. "A close examination of the role and needed expertise of brokers in bridging and building science policy boundaries in environmental decision making," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-12, December.
    9. Ritodhi Chakraborty & Pasang Yangjee Sherpa, 2021. "From climate adaptation to climate justice: Critical reflections on the IPCC and Himalayan climate knowledges," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 167(3), pages 1-14, August.
    10. Karaulova, Maria & Edler, Jakob, 2023. "Bringing research into policy: Understanding context-specific requirements for productive knowledge brokering in legislatures," Discussion Papers "Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis" 77, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    11. Susana Sobral & Fronika Wit & Rita Carrilho & Dora Cabete & António Barbosa & Filipa Vala, 2024. "Navigating complexity: looking at the potential contribution of a boundary organisation in Portugal to evidence-informed policy," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-12, December.
    12. Clune, Conor & O’Dwyer, Brendan, 2020. "Organizing dissonance through institutional work: The embedding of social and environmental accountability in an investment field," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    13. Bruce Hewitson & Katinka Waagsaether & Jan Wohland & Kate Kloppers & Teizeen Kara, 2017. "Climate information websites: an evolving landscape," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(5), September.
    14. Harmke Immink & Robbie Louw & Amy Garlick & Samuel Vosper & Alan Brent, 2022. "Country specific low carbon commitments versus equitable and practical company specific decarbonisation targets," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(8), pages 10005-10025, August.
    15. Holzscheiter, Anna, 2017. "Coping with Institutional Fragmentation? Competition and Convergence between Boundary Organizations in the Global Response to Polio," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 34(6), pages 767-789.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:51:y:2024:i:3:p:393-405.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.