Uptake of peatland ecosystem service knowledge for decision-making

Abstract

Severe and ongoing loss of biodiversity and changing climate present major threats to nature and society. This requires urgent action at the science-policy interface. However, progress towards achieving international biodiversity and climate targets is currently insufficient. To improve the implementation of environmental governance processes, robust and up-to date evidence is needed to inform decision-making, built upon effective knowledge exchange and strong multistakeholder networks. However, if evidence of the need for action is so strong, the question remains – why is knowledge not taken up effectively and efficiently in decision making, and why does a strong science-policy gap remain? In order to evaluate science-policy communication and exchange this doctoral research drew on data from two case studies around peatland ecosystem services in the UK and Germany and a questionnaire with international policy makers. Peatlands were chosen due to their global importance to combatting climate change and halting biodiversity loss. Data was collected using a mixed-method approach and analysed via Bayesian network analysis, social network analysis and analyses of interviews, questionnaire data and stakeholder workshop discussions. The combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches enabled a triangulation of the results, providing rigorous, in-depth insights into the science-policy process in each case study. The results showed that in order to make informed decisions, evidence needs to successfully reach the target audience, which was not always the case given the mismatches between the transfer and perceived reception of knowledge in the case study networks. However, where there was dialogue between the case study actors, this not only improved the likelihood that knowledge and evidence was taken up, it also resulted in higher probabilities that decisions were made based on the communication. If knowledge exchange occurred regularly (at least quarterly), the likelihood for evidence-informed decision-making increased. Both bilateral and group exchange led to decisions being made. Trust was found to be an important factor in stakeholder relationships, and the critical time for trust building appeared to be in the years 1-5. This includes a deliberate choice to engage with both homophilic (similar) and heterophilic (dissimilar) actors in the network, and the creation of strong ties as well as weak ties between actors, including from pre-existing network connections, from the outset and continuing throughout the project. At the beginning of the project, this can be done by centrally located actors, however, the involvement of professional knowledge brokers can help to deliberately manage and decentralise the network structure over

time, making it more stable and less vulnerable to break apart. If knowledge exchange interactions improve awareness and hence address stakeholder needs, evidence can be tailored, delivered or co-produced accordingly. The results shed light into the broader processes of knowledge exchange in science-policy settings. Results also seem to indicate that trust is more easily formed between homophilic actors (who close in physical distance) who held central positions in the science-policy network. Ongoing network management seem to be required to build stable networks, which enable efficient knowledge exchange. This research may help multiple stakeholders to collaborate more effectively around environmental knowledge in the future, therefore moving the world closer to successfully and collectively solving environmental issues of our time