4.7 Article

Policy windows for the environment: Tips for improving the uptake of scientific knowledge

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY
Volume 113, Issue -, Pages 47-54

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.013

Keywords

Evidence-based conservation; Evidence-based policy; Evidence-informed policy; Horizon scanning; Policy windows; Science-policy interface

Funding

  1. EU's Seventh Framework Programme within the EU Biodiversity Observation Network [308454]
  2. Fondation Wiener Anspach, Belgium
  3. Scriven fellowship
  4. Natural Environment Research Council, Cambridge Earth System Science NERC DTP [NE/L002507/1]
  5. Natural Environment Research Council through an Industrial CASE studentship [NE/M010287/1]
  6. Austrian Science Fund (FWF)
  7. Arcadia
  8. NERC [1653087] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Scientific knowledge is considered to be an important factor (alongside others) in environmental policy-making. However, the opportunity for environmentalists to influence policy can often occur within short, discrete time windows. Therefore, a piece of research may have a negligible or transformative policy influence depending on when it is presented. These 'policy windows' are sometimes predictable, such as those dealing with conventions or legislation with a defined renewal period, but are often hard to anticipate. We describe four ways that environmentalists can respond to policy windows and increase the likelihood of knowledge uptake: 1) foresee (and create) emergent windows, 2) respond quickly to opening windows, 3) frame research in line with appropriate windows, and 4) persevere in closed windows. These categories are closely linked; efforts to enhance the incorporation of scientific knowledge into policy need to harness mechanisms within each. We illustrate the main points with reference to nature conservation, but the principles apply widely.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available