IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/tec/journl/v43y2023i1p440-453.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing Science-Based Solutions to Forest Management: A Case Study of the Upper Brantas River in Indonesia

Author

Listed:
  • Budi Dharmawan

    (Department of Agricultural Economics and Social Sciences, Jenderal Sudirman University, Purwokerto, Indonesia.)

  • Musdzalifah Sukmawati

    (Department of Forestry, Faculty of Agriculture-Animal Husbandry, University of Muhammadiyah Malang, Indonesia.)

  • Imam Ade Bala

    (Department of Forestry, Faculty of Agriculture-Animal Husbandry, University of Muhammadiyah Malang, Indonesia.)

  • Tatag Muttaqin

    (Department of Forestry, Faculty of Agriculture-Animal Husbandry, University of Muhammadiyah Malang, Indonesia.)

Abstract

Brantas river spring area (KMASB) is located in Batu, East Java, Indonesia. The forest areas nowadays are damaged because its function is changing from forest to agriculture. Efforts to solve these problems require the involvement of various parties. Including scientific solutions to provide input in policy formulation. The transfer of scientific knowledge in policy can work depending on whether decision-makers can turn scientific advice into policies that are acceptable to all actors involved. To investigate the procedure for sharing scientific knowledge from cases of endangered Brantas River resources in Indonesia, we adopt the "research-integration-utilization" model of science-policy interaction. Scientific knowledge is created through scientific systems (research). Political actors implement a scientific-based solution to answer the problems (utilization), and there must be significant linkages between research and utilization (integration). We use empirical data to evaluate hypotheses about the research-integration-utilization model based on document analysis and expert interviews. According to our research, the local government's use of its limited authority and improper application of scientific findings are to blame for the failure of knowledge transfer. The Batu city government cannot turn the scientific solution into a regulation while being required to employ scientifically sound solutions as a prerequisite for creating regional regulations. The Batu city government put its own solutions into practice because they think they are comprehend more thoroughly than the researchers. Researchers are unable to participate in the integration process since the Batu city government is a powerful actor to determine the scientific suggestions that are made

Suggested Citation

  • Budi Dharmawan & Musdzalifah Sukmawati & Imam Ade Bala & Tatag Muttaqin, 2023. "Assessing Science-Based Solutions to Forest Management: A Case Study of the Upper Brantas River in Indonesia," Technium Social Sciences Journal, Technium Science, vol. 43(1), pages 440-453, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:tec:journl:v:43:y:2023:i:1:p:440-453
    DOI: 10.47577/tssj.v43i1.8764
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://techniumscience.com/index.php/socialsciences/article/view/8764/3243
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://techniumscience.com/index.php/socialsciences/article/view/8764
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.47577/tssj.v43i1.8764?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. Timo Y. Maas & Annet Pauwelussen & Esther Turnhout, 2022. "Co-producing the science–policy interface: towards common but differentiated responsibilities," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
    2. Nataliia Sokolovska & Benedikt Fecher & Gert G. Wagner, 2019. "Communication on the Science-Policy Interface: An Overview of Conceptual Models," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-15, November.
    3. Soomai, Suzuette S., 2017. "Understanding the science-policy interface: Case studies on the role of information in fisheries management," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 65-75.
    4. Walter, Alexander I. & Helgenberger, Sebastian & Wiek, Arnim & Scholz, Roland W., 2007. "Measuring societal effects of transdisciplinary research projects: Design and application of an evaluation method," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 325-338, November.
    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. Paul Stock & Rob J.F. Burton, 2011. "Defining Terms for Integrated (Multi-Inter-Trans-Disciplinary) Sustainability Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(8), pages 1-24, July.
    2. Trutnevyte, Evelina & Stauffacher, Michael & Scholz, Roland W., 2012. "Linking stakeholder visions with resource allocation scenarios and multi-criteria assessment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(3), pages 762-772.
    3. Rau, Henrike & Goggins, Gary & Fahy, Frances, 2018. "From invisibility to impact: Recognising the scientific and societal relevance of interdisciplinary sustainability research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 266-276.
    4. Cooley, Savannah & Jenkins, Amber & Schaeffer, Blake & Bormann, Kat J. & Abdallah, Adel & Melton, Forrest & Granger, Stephanie & Graczyk, Indrani, 2022. "Paths to research-driven decision making in the realms of environment and water," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    5. Susanne Kubisch & Sandra Parth & Veronika Deisenrieder & Karin Oberauer & Johann Stötter & Lars Keller, 2020. "From Transdisciplinary Research to Transdisciplinary Education—The Role of Schools in Contributing to Community Well-Being and Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, December.
    6. de Jong, Stefan P.L. & Wardenaar, Tjerk & Horlings, Edwin, 2016. "Exploring the promises of transdisciplinary research: A quantitative study of two climate research programmes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1397-1409.
    7. Yu-Long Chao, 2020. "A Performance Evaluation of Environmental Education Regional Centers: Positioning of Roles and Reflections on Expertise Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-27, March.
    8. Eduardo Noboa & Paul Upham & Harald Heinrichs, 2024. "Building a Coalition with Depoliticized Sustainability Discourse: The Case of a Transdisciplinary Transition Management Arena in Peru," Journal of Sustainable Development, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 12(1), pages 1-84, July.
    9. Annette Elisabeth Toeller & Sonja Blum & Michael Boecher & Kathrin Loer, 2022. "The lesson learned from COVID-19 and the climate crisis is not to let experts decide on policies: a response to Robert C. Schmidt," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 12(2), pages 284-290, June.
    10. Lutz Bornmann, 2013. "What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? a literature survey," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 217-233, February.
    11. Paloma Yáñez Serrano & Zofia Bieńkowska & Zofia Boni & Franciszek Chwałczyk & Amirhossein Hassani, 2024. "Understanding individual heat exposure through interdisciplinary research on thermoception," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-12, December.
    12. Strzałkowski, Andrzej, 2024. "Adaptation and operationalisation of sustainable degrowth for policy: Why we need to translate research papers into legislative drafts?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    13. Kumar Bahadur Darjee & Prem Raj Neupane & Michael Köhl, 2023. "Proactive Adaptation Responses by Vulnerable Communities to Climate Change Impacts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-30, July.
    14. De Silva, Muthu & Gokhberg, Leonid & Meissner, Dirk & Russo, Margherita, 2021. "Addressing societal challenges through the simultaneous generation of social and business values: A conceptual framework for science-based co-creation," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    15. María D. López-Rodríguez & Javier Cabello & Hermelindo Castro & Jaime Rodríguez, 2019. "Social Learning for Facilitating Dialogue and Understanding of the Ecosystem Services Approach: Lessons from a Cross-Border Experience in the Alboran Marine Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-23, September.
    16. Larosa, Francesca & Mysiak, Jaroslav & Molinari, Marco & Varelas, Panagiotis & Akay, Haluk & McDowall, Will & Spadaru, Catalina & Fuso-Nerini, Francesco & Vinuesa, Ricardo, 2023. "Closing the gap between research and projects in climate change innovation in Europe," MPRA Paper 116771, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2023.
    17. Pratiwi, Santi & Juerges, Nataly, 2022. "Digital advocacy at the science-policy interface: Resolving land-use conflicts in conservation forests," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    18. Bárbara Ayala-Orozco & Julieta A. Rosell & Juliana Merçon & Isabel Bueno & Gerardo Alatorre-Frenk & Alfonso Langle-Flores & Anaid Lobato, 2018. "Challenges and Strategies in Place-Based Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration for Sustainability: Learning from Experiences in the Global South," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-22, September.
    19. Laurens K. Hessels & Stefan P.L. De Jong & Stijn Brouwer, 2018. "Collaboration between Heterogeneous Practitioners in Sustainability Research: A Comparative Analysis of Three Transdisciplinary Programmes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-16, December.
    20. Sabine Kuhlmann & Jochen Franzke & Benoît Paul Dumas, 2022. "Technocratic Decision-Making in Times of Crisis? The Use of Data for Scientific Policy Advice in Germany’s COVID-19 Management," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 269-289, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Forest; RIU; Science; Policy;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    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:tec:journl:v:43:y:2023:i:1:p:440-453. 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: Tasente Tanase (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.