IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v2y2016i1d10.1057_palcomms.2016.92.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scientific assessments to facilitate deliberative policy learning

Author

Listed:
  • Martin Kowarsch

    (Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, Berlin, Germany)

  • Jennifer Garard

    (Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, Berlin, Germany
    Technical University Berlin, Berlin, Germany)

  • Pauline Riousset

    (Institute for Ecological Economy Research, Berlin, Germany)

  • Dominic Lenzi

    (Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, Berlin, Germany)

  • Marcel J. Dorsch

    (Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, Berlin, Germany
    Technical University Berlin, Berlin, Germany)

  • Brigitte Knopf

    (Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, Berlin, Germany)

  • Jan-Albrecht Harrs

    (Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, Berlin, Germany)

  • Ottmar Edenhofer

    (Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, Berlin, Germany
    Technical University Berlin, Berlin, Germany
    Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany)

Abstract

Putting the recently adopted global Sustainable Development Goals or the Paris Agreement on international climate policy into action will require careful policy choices. Appropriately informing decision-makers about longer-term, wicked policy issues remains a considerable challenge for the scientific community. Typically, these vital policy issues are highly uncertain, value-laden and disputed and affect multiple temporal and spatial scales, governance levels, policy fields and socioeconomic contexts simultaneously. In light of this, science-policy interfaces should help facilitate learning processes and open deliberation among all actors involved about potentially acceptable policy pathways. For this purpose, science-policy interfaces must strive to foster some enabling conditions: (1) “representation” in terms of engaging with diverse stakeholders (including experts) and acknowledging divergent viewpoints; (2) “empowerment” of underrepresented societal groups by co-developing and integrating policy scenarios that reflect their specific knowledge systems and worldviews; (3) “capacity building” regarding methods and skills for integration and synthesis, as well as through the provision of knowledge synthesis about the policy solution space; and (4) “spaces for deliberation”, facilitating direct interaction between different stakeholders, including governments and scientists. We argue that integrated, multi-stakeholder, scientific assessment processes—particularly the collaborative assessments of policy alternatives and their various implications—offer potential advantages in this regard, compared with alternatives for bridging scientific expertise and public policy. This article is part of a collection on scientific advice to governments.

Suggested Citation

  • Martin Kowarsch & Jennifer Garard & Pauline Riousset & Dominic Lenzi & Marcel J. Dorsch & Brigitte Knopf & Jan-Albrecht Harrs & Ottmar Edenhofer, 2016. "Scientific assessments to facilitate deliberative policy learning," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 2(1), pages 1-20, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:2:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1057_palcomms.2016.92
    DOI: 10.1057/palcomms.2016.92
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/palcomms.2016.92
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/palcomms.2016.92?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Martin Bohle & Cornelia E. Nauen & Eduardo Marone, 2019. "Ethics to Intersect Civic Participation and Formal Guidance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-17, February.
    2. Mavrommati, Georgia & Borsuk, Mark E. & Kreiley, Allison I. & Larosee, Christopher & Rogers, Shannon & Burford, Klancey & Howarth, Richard B., 2021. "A methodological framework for understanding shared social values in deliberative valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    3. Vanessa J. Schweizer, 2020. "Reflections on cross-impact balances, a systematic method constructing global socio-technical scenarios for climate change research," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(4), pages 1705-1722, October.
    4. Eduardo Marone & Martin Bohle, 2020. "Geoethics for Nudging Human Practices in Times of Pandemics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-15, September.
    5. Troy J. Bouffard & Ekaterina Uryupova & Klaus Dodds & Vladimir E. Romanovsky & Alec P. Bennett & Dmitry Streletskiy, 2021. "Scientific Cooperation: Supporting Circumpolar Permafrost Monitoring and Data Sharing," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-17, June.
    6. Jennifer Garard & Martin Kowarsch, 2017. "Objectives for Stakeholder Engagement in Global Environmental Assessments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-21, September.
    7. Ottmar Edenhofer & Max Franks & Matthias Kalkuhl, 2021. "Pigou in the 21st Century: a tribute on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the publication of The Economics of Welfare," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 28(5), pages 1090-1121, October.
    8. Martin Bohle, 2019. "One Realm: Thinking Geoethically and Guiding Small-Scale Fisheries?," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 31(2), pages 253-270, April.
    9. Robert Weymouth & Janette Hartz-Karp & Dora Marinova, 2020. "Repairing Political Trust for Practical Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-25, August.
    10. Haas, Peter M., 2018. "Preserving the epistemic authority of science in world politics," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Global Governance SP IV 2018-105, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    11. Cinzia Daraio, 2017. "A framework for the Assessment of Research and its impacts," DIAG Technical Reports 2017-04, Department of Computer, Control and Management Engineering, Universita' degli Studi di Roma "La Sapienza".
    12. Jérôme Hilaire & Jan C. Minx & Max W. Callaghan & Jae Edmonds & Gunnar Luderer & Gregory F. Nemet & Joeri Rogelj & Maria Mar Zamora, 2019. "Negative emissions and international climate goals—learning from and about mitigation scenarios," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 157(2), pages 189-219, November.

    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:pal:palcom:v:2:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1057_palcomms.2016.92. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    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.