IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0203752.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Building university-based boundary organisations that facilitate impacts on environmental policy and practice

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher Cvitanovic
  • Marie F Löf
  • Albert V Norström
  • Mark S Reed

Abstract

Responding to modern day environmental challenges for societal well-being and prosperity necessitates the integration of science into policy and practice. This has spurred the development of novel institutional structures among research organisations aimed at enhancing the impact of environmental science on policy and practice. However, such initiatives are seldom evaluated and even in cases where evaluations are undertaken, the results are rarely made publicly available. As such there is very little empirically grounded guidance available to inform other organisations in this regard. To help address this, the aim of this study is to evaluate the Baltic Eye Project at Stockholm University–a unique team consisting of researchers from different fields, science communicators, journalists and policy analysts–working collectively to support evidence-informed decision-making relating to the sustainable management of the Baltic Sea environment. Specifically, through qualitative interviews, we (1) identify the impacts achieved by the Baltic Eye Project; (2) understand the challenges and barriers experienced throughout the Baltic Eye Project; and (3) highlight the key features that are needed within research organisations to enhance the impact of science on policy and practice. Results show that despite only operating for three years, the Baltic Eye Project has achieved demonstrable impacts on a range of levels: impacts on policy and practice, impacts to individuals working within the organisation and impacts to the broader University. We also identify a range of barriers that have limited impacts to date, such as a lack of clear goals at the establishment of the Baltic Eye Project and existing metrics of academic impact (e.g. number of publications). Finally, based on the experiences of employees at the Baltic Eye Project, we identify the key organisational, individual, financial, material, practical, political, and social features of university-based boundary organisations that have impact on policy and practice. In doing so this paper provides empirically-derived guidance to help other research organisations increase their capacity to achieve tangible impacts on environmental policy and practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher Cvitanovic & Marie F Löf & Albert V Norström & Mark S Reed, 2018. "Building university-based boundary organisations that facilitate impacts on environmental policy and practice," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-19, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0203752
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203752
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0203752
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0203752&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0203752?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nadine Marshall & Neil Adger & Simon Attwood & Katrina Brown & Charles Crissman & Christopher Cvitanovic & Cassandra De Young & Margaret Gooch & Craig James & Sabine Jessen & Dave Johnson & Paul Marsh, 2017. "Empirically derived guidance for social scientists to influence environmental policy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-9, March.
    2. Jennifer Chubb & Mark Reed, 2017. "Epistemic responsibility as an edifying force in academic research: investigating the moral challenges and opportunities of an impact agenda in the UK and Australia," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(1), pages 1-5, December.
    3. John T. Scholz & Cheng‐Lung Wang, 2006. "Cooptation or Transformation? Local Policy Networks and Federal Regulatory Enforcement," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(1), pages 81-97, January.
    4. Sarah Connick & Judith Innes, 2003. "Outcomes of Collaborative Water Policy Making: Applyxsing Complexity Thinking to Evaluation," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(2), pages 177-197.
    5. Barbara Befani & Chris Barnett & Elliot Stern, 2014. "Introduction – Rethinking Impact Evaluation for Development," IDS Bulletin, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 45(6), pages 1-5, November.
    6. Jordi Molas-Gallart & Puay Tang & Susie Morrow, 2000. "Assessing the non-academic impact of grant-funded socio-economic research: results from a pilot study," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(3), pages 171-182, December.
    7. Justine Lacey & Mark Howden & Christopher Cvitanovic & R. M. Colvin, 2018. "Understanding and managing trust at the climate science–policy interface," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 8(1), pages 22-28, January.
    8. Cvitanovic, C. & Hobday, A.J. & van Kerkhoff, L. & Marshall, N.A., 2015. "Overcoming barriers to knowledge exchange for adaptive resource management; the perspectives of Australian marine scientists," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 38-44.
    9. Laycock, Helen F. & Moran, Dominic & Smart, James C.R. & Raffaelli, David G. & White, Piran C.L., 2011. "Evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of biodiversity conservation spending," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(10), pages 1789-1796, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. World Bank, 2022. "World - Climate Services Operational Pathways," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 37580.
    2. Sattler, Claudia & Schröter, Barbara, 2022. "Collective action across boundaries: Collaborative network initiatives as boundary organizations to improve ecosystem services governance," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).

    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. Megan C Evans & Christopher Cvitanovic, 2018. "An introduction to achieving policy impact for early career researchers," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-12, December.
    2. Brown, Philip & Roper, Simon, 2017. "Innovation and networks in New Zealand farming," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 61(3), July.
    3. Eleanor Fisher & Jeremy D. Holland, 2003. "Social development as knowledge building: research as a sphere of policy influence," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(7), pages 911-924.
    4. John T. Scholz & Cheng‐Lung Wang, 2009. "Learning to Cooperate: Learning Networks and the Problem of Altruism," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(3), pages 572-587, July.
    5. Mark Lubell & Adam Douglas Henry & Mike McCoy, 2010. "Collaborative Institutions in an Ecology of Games," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(2), pages 287-300, April.
    6. William D. Berry & Jacqueline H. R. DeMeritt & Justin Esarey, 2010. "Testing for Interaction in Binary Logit and Probit Models: Is a Product Term Essential?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(1), pages 248-266, January.
    7. repec:oup:rseval:v:32:y:2024:i:3:p:591-602. is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Doelle, Sebastian, 2012. "Evaluation of predator-proof fenced biodiversity projects," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124289, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    9. Muradian, Roldan & Pascual, Unai, 2020. "Ecological economics in the age of fear," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    10. Olve Krange & Bjørn P. Kaltenborn & Martin Hultman, 2021. "“Don’t confuse me with facts”—how right wing populism affects trust in agencies advocating anthropogenic climate change as a reality," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, December.
    11. Sangmin Kim, 2016. "The workings of collaborative governance: Evaluating collaborative community-building initiatives in Korea," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 53(16), pages 3547-3565, December.
    12. Jason Alexandra, 2021. "Navigating the Anthropocene’s rivers of risk—climatic change and science-policy dilemmas in Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 1-21, March.
    13. Eunok Im, 2015. "The Effects of Interlocal Collaboration on Local Economic Performance: Investigation of Korean Cases," ERSA conference papers ersa15p1391, European Regional Science Association.
    14. Roth, Alyssa P. & de Loë, Rob C., 2017. "Incorporating Outcomes from Collaborative Processes into Government Decision Making: A Case Study from Low Water Response Planning in Ontario, Canada," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 169-178.
    15. Hawkins, Richard & Langford, Cooper H. & Saunders, Chad, 2015. "Assessing the practical application of social knowledge: A survey of six leading Canadian Universities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 83-95.
    16. Ole Henning Sørensen & Jakob Bjørner & Andreas Holtermann & Johnny Dyreborg & Jorid Birkelund Sørli & Jesper Kristiansen & Steffen Bohni Nielsen, 2022. "Measuring societal impact of research—Developing and validating an impact instrument for occupational health and safety," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(1), pages 118-131.
    17. Sarah E. Anderson & Andrew J. Plantinga & Matthew Wibbenmeyer, 2022. "Unequal Treatments: Federal Wildfire Fuels Projects and Socioeconomic Status of Nearby Communities," NBER Chapters, in: Environmental and Energy Policy and the Economy, volume 4, pages 177-201, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Gerlak, Andrea K. & Guido, Zack & Owen, Gigi & McGoffin, Mariana Sofia Rodriguez & Louder, Elena & Davies, Julia & Smith, Kelly Jay & Zimmer, Andy & Murveit, Anna M. & Meadow, Alison & Shrestha, Padme, 2023. "Stakeholder engagement in the co-production of knowledge for environmental decision-making," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    19. Yuwan Malakar & Justine Lacey & Paul M Bertsch, 2022. "Towards responsible science and technology: How nanotechnology research and development is shaping risk governance practices in Australia," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-14, December.
    20. James A. Cunningham & Kristel Miller & Jose-Luis Perea-Vicente, 2024. "Academic entrepreneurship in the humanities and social sciences: a systematic literature review and research agenda," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 49(5), pages 1880-1913, October.
    21. Nadine Marshall & Neil Adger & Simon Attwood & Katrina Brown & Charles Crissman & Christopher Cvitanovic & Cassandra De Young & Margaret Gooch & Craig James & Sabine Jessen & Dave Johnson & Paul Marsh, 2017. "Empirically derived guidance for social scientists to influence environmental policy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-9, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0203752. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.