How to build science-action partnerships for local land-use planning and management: lessons from Durban, South Africa

Abstract

ABSTRACT. The gap between scientific knowledge and implementation in the fields of biodiversity conservation, environmental management, and climate change adaptation has resulted in many calls from practitioners and academics to provide practical solutions responding effectively to the risks and opportunities of global environmental change, e.g., Future Earth. We present a framework to guide the implementation of science-action partnerships based on a real-world case study of a partnership between a local municipality and an academic institution to bridge the science-action gap in the eThekwini Municipal Area, South Africa. This partnership aims to inform the implementation of sustainable land-use planning, biodiversity conservation, environmental management, and climate change adaptation practice and contributes to the development of human capacity in these areas of expertise. Using a transdisciplinary approach, implementation-driven research is being conducted to develop several decision-making products to better inform land-use planning and management. Lessons learned through this partnership are synthesized and presented as a framework of enabling actions operating at different levels, from the individual to the interorganizational. Enabling actions include putting in place enabling organizational preconditions, assembling a functional well-structured team, and actively building interpersonal and individual collaborative capacity. Lessons learned in the case study emphasize the importance of building collaborative capacity and social capital, and paying attention to the process of transdisciplinary research to achieve more tangible science, management, and policy objectives in science-action partnerships. By documenting and reflecting on the process, this case study provides conceptual and practical guidance on bridging the science-action gap through partnerships.

Improving scientific impact: how to practice science that influences environmental policy and management

“…It also often uses jargon or requires reading other papers for essential context. There are some exceptions with useful explicit suggestions (Jacobs et al 2005, Cockburn et al 2016, Beier et al 2017, Pohl et al 2017, but each omits some steps we have found to be important. For example, none of the guides we reviewed cover how much information to gather, most have minimal guidance on outreach for finished research (e.g.…”

Increasing the effectiveness of participatory scenario development through codesign

“…A codesign approach entails additional time commitments from participants that might otherwise have been Ecology and Society 22(3): 16 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol22/iss3/art16/ spent on scenario development. The literature on transdisciplinary research suggests that this is time well spent and that participatory processes benefit from a lengthy project scoping and codesign stage as a means to build trust, ownership, and process legitimacy (Kirchhoff et al 2013, Meadow et al 2015, Polk 2015, Reyers et al 2015, Clark et al 2016, Cockburn et al 2016, Page et al 2016. A less straightforward question is what level and type of stakeholder participation in the design process is necessary to ensure success, given the amount of work involved in designing a scenario process when combined with the need to adequately inform stakeholders about scenario practice research.…”

“…The stakeholder feedback described across these 23 case studies revealed many commonalities with that received for the NE-LFP. For example, the most frequently cited concerns for the NE-LFP are common across participatory processes and not specific to our case study, such as the time required and the difficulties in compacting engagement processes into a one-day framework (e.g., Oteros-Rozas et al 2015, Polk 2015, Cockburn et al 2016, Page et al 2016. Similarly, for feedback received about the lack of diversity among stakeholders, there is a tendency for certain stakeholder groups, such as industry representatives, to remain underrepresented in transdisciplinary research programs Evidence of process limitations: "More specifics on how to use this tool in my own organization on a day to day basis.…”

“…Attendees at the initial codesign meeting were selected to provide a balance of stakeholders, researchers, and experienced scenario practitioners who could provide insights about challenges and best practices in conducting participatory scenario processes. Activities at the workshop were structured with the intent of facilitating knowledge exchange, building relationships and trust between scientists and stakeholders, and enhancing collaborative capacity (Lemos and Morehouse 2005, Godemann 2008, Cockburn et al 2016. They included presentations by stakeholders and scientists, panel discussions, facilitated dialogue, small working group sessions, informal conversations, and training sessions.…”

Publication incentives undermine the utility of science: Ecological research in Mexico

“…For a user to make use of knowledge requires that s/he find the relevant scientific information from the millions of peer-reviewed and published articles and books, recognize its utility to their current situation, deem it to be credible, salient, and legitimate, and know how to make use of it. An emerging literature suggests that for science to be most effective at contributing solutions to society's problems, scientists must interact with potential knowledge users in an ongoing and iterative fashion, starting with the preliminary task of defining research questions and selecting methods for analysis, continuing throughout the research process, and including communication and possible utilization of the results (Cash et al, 2003;Cash et al, 2006;Roux et al, 2006;Sarewitz and Pielke, 2007;SPARC, 2010;Cockburn et al, 2016;Sarewitz, 2016).…”