Interaction between knowledge and policy surrounding sustainability is going in the right direction

Impressions of the ‘Better Living Environment? Better research <-> Better policy’ conference, held in The Hague on 7 April

Policy and social and behavioural science research can work well together when working towards improving our living environment. Basic, policy-relevant research can produce useful knowledge, and sometimes even practical approaches to problems. Researchers and policy-makers can work together successfully to solve social problems – as long as they understand each other well and their roles are clearly defined. It’s important that they don’t step on each other’s toes. These and other issues were discussed during the ‘Better Living Environment? Better research <-> Better policy’ conference, which was very capably conducted by Pieter Hooimeijer. The conference took place at the conclusion of two NGO programmes: GaMON (Gamma research into nature and the environment) and VAM (the Vulnerability, Adaptation, Mitigation climate programme). As well as the presentation of the VAM film 'Waterproof', there was also a booklet made available in which sixteen researchers and three policy-makers reflect on the knowledge that has been gathered so far.

Around 100 researchers, policy-makers and other interested parties gathered at ‘7AM’, a conference centre just a stone's throw from the Binnenhof in the The Hague, which prides itself on its use of sustainable and environmentally-friendly products. The tone of the conference was set in the first few minutes.
Ton Dietz, the VAM programme commission chair, began with the assertion that the broader social science world in the Netherlands is still not sufficiently aware of the urgency of the climate and environment challenge. ‘There is also not enough debate between science and policy about the best scientific approach to dealing with this area of policy in a relevant way.’ Ben Geurts, the director of Central Strategy Knowledge Unit at the VROM (the Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment), emphasised that social and behavioural research must not be presented as opposite or derivative from beta research. ‘The social reality comprises different aspects and problems. For example new technology that leads us to new questions about social behaviour. Or the Government’s position, the Government being just one of the players involved in finding solutions to complex questions. Research helps with that – and then of course I mean gamma research.’

Janneke Hoekstra, the director of Knowledge and Innovation at LNV (the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality), advanced the thesis that policy-makers were not so much in need of new knowledge, as of the researchers that integrated existing knowledge and made it more accessible. ‘The transfer of scientific knowledge to knowledge users in society needs to be much more highly valued.’ In closing, Charles Vlek, the chair of the GaMON programme commission, gave a short history of the development of GaMON, concluding with the assertion that only through concrete and well-defined research projects can multidisciplinarity and policy relevance produce good results.

New knowledge about green space

A number of experts were invited to present the most policy-relevant results from the research they had carried out within the GaMON and VAM programmes. First up was the 'Spatial planning and decision-making' theme. Marianne Kuijpers, the director of Geodan Next, briefly discussed four GaMON programmes which all dealt with the importance of green space and the procedures of the relevant involved parties. The Vitamin G researchers demonstrated that there is a relationship between green in the living environment and health and well-being. The MetroLand programme dealt with, among other issues, the effectiveness of government planning policy in retaining green belts in the fringes between city and country areas. There was also a programme in which the researchers looked at how best to stimulate agricultural nature conservation by farmers. In closing, Kuijpers discussed a GaMON programme that studied the influence and effectiveness of external process guides and advisers in space planning processes. ‘My conclusion is that new people have been trained that possess very valuable and practical knowledge that can be put to good use in town planning and decision-making processes’, said Kuipers.

New research methods for climate change

Pim Martens, a professor at Maastricht University, is currently working on a book about the VAM projects. He summed up the main points of four of them. One of these dealt with the consequences of climate change for the inland shipping sector, which will probably be able to react to these changes with the necessary flexibility. Another project dealt with a similar question, but for the coastal tourism sector. This sector faces as many opportunities as it does threats, but it has not yet really addressed them. A third and fourth project both dealt with the danger of flooding: One project looked at the Dutch situation and the preparing residents through the use of 3D simulations, while the other studied the Zambezi River in Mozambique and the question of how the people, authorities and NGOs there can prepare for the consequences of climate change. ‘I see a shift in climate research towards the human element, and towards new modern research methods, for example the application of virtual reality and webcams,’ said Martens.

Looking out for clichéd images of policy and science

Next it was time for Wim Derksen, the chief scientist of the VROM, to respond. He argued that it was not the department itself, but the NWO which should provide the funding for scientific research as much as possible. Departments should limit themselves to commissioning directly policy-relevant research. He also stated that using knowledge in policy was only successful if the policy-makers themselves had been involved in the research. He held the Belgian model up as a good example. ‘The minister decides which areas need to be researched, and the scientist then carries out the research in his own way and without external pressure.’ Janneke Hoekstra of the LNV (the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality) called for research programming ‘from the top down’, within which scientists must still be able to work independently. She invited the attendees to consider some of the important themes around which the various players should together develop a body of knowledge. The discussion then turned to an examination of the phenomenon that there is so little scientific reading done in government departments, to which Derksen said, ‘The people are good, but the processes are not.’ Various attendees said that scientists then also needed to take their readers into account and that there were more possibilities for communicating scientific findings than just by paper reports or summaries of these reports. Some of the possibilities mentioned included the SWOME Marktdag (a conference) which was organised by GaMON in association with the SWOME research network and the VROM. It was also commented that when examining the differences between scientists and policy-makers, we must be careful not to think or speak in clichés too much. In practice, the boundaries are not so clear-cut.

When looking at social themes, it is important to preserve the multiformity of outlooks and insights. Another scientist pleaded for research results to be integrated across departments.

More sustainable production and consumption

The second theme of the afternoon was ‘Sustainable production and consumption’. Eindhoven University of Technology-professor Cees Midden began with an explanation of the GaMON programme ‘Partnerships’. This explained the ways in which cooperation between manufacturers, NGOs and the authorities can help to achieve sustainable production chains. The next programme on the agenda researched stakeholder dialogues between various players, including the authorities, in order to obtain investment in sustainable energy in the province of Groningen. A lot can be learned from this regarding the management of similar decision-making processes. A third programme was directed at sustainable consumption and gave practical suggestions for steering manufacturing and consumption behaviour. The fourth GaMON programme that Midden presented dealt with risk communication by the authorities and how this can be better geared to the responsible, information-seeking citizen.

A lot of mitigation, less adaption, in knowledge development

Ans Kolk, professor at the University of Amsterdam, then had the difficult task of summing up five VAM projects. In four of these, mitigation took a central role, she said. There was one project in which adaptation played a part. One of the projects looked chiefly at legal principles under European climate policy and offered various different approaches to distribution questions. Another was concerned with insurance provisions for the risks that climate change brings with it. The government plays an important role in these provisions. A third project looked at saving energy in existing buildings, which still has a lot of room for improvement. A fourth project dealt with the introduction of white certificates as policy instruments – and the systematic ‘ex ante’ evaluation of this type of new instrument – and Kolk closed with her own project on the business community’s reaction to climate policy. She explained that businesses have a different understanding of ‘adaptation’ to what policy-makers do.

Clarity on content and roles

Herman Eijsackers, the Chief Science Officer of the LNV, was the first to respond to the research presented. He said that he had sent the short summaries of the research projects, which he had received prior to the event, through to his department. ‘Good analyses, that’s something we can work with! But why is it written up in such a vague way? The booklet of interviews was a breath of fresh air. Can’t we present all research documentation so clearly?’ he lamented. Something else that he noticed was that the government often stood central in the research projects, although there were so many other players and stakeholders in issues involving the environment and climate. Eijsackers also emphasised that, in the interaction between policy and science, it is of great importance that everybody is aware of his or her role. These roles can change, as long as it’s clear which role is appropriate at which time.

Geurts took the floor and wanted to put some parts of the discussion into perspective. ‘The system in the Netherlands, in which knowledge and vision come from science in the direction of policy, is working. It’s then something else again if politicians subsequently do something with the input from scientists. With the current interaction between policy and science, we are most certainly on the right track.’ Geurts also sketched out what he saw as the idea path for social problems, from policy question via knowledge question to research question. ‘It’s not a good idea to just give researchers a policy question. Policy-makers and researchers need to be clearer on this.’ The discussion then went to the floor again, on the question of how science and policy relate to each other and whether it’s realistic to try to draw a sharp distinction between the two worlds. When asked which research results he would like to implement immediately, Geurts answered that he found the Vitamin G research in particular to be very current and policy-relevant.

Cries from the heart

The last theme of the day, ‘The sustainable city’, was intended as an integration and synthesis of the afternoon’s events. Johan van Zoest of the Amsterdam City Council spoke on behalf of his colleague Gerrit Jolink, discussing the ambitions, challenges and knowledge questions that the organisation faced. As a relative outsider, he commented that in his view the gulfs and barriers that were obvious that day were not so serious that they could not be overcome. ‘As long as we're all working together, don’t we have everything we need?’ However, Van Zoest was aware that it was more difficult in practice. ‘For example, you would think that the Amsterdam City Council and the University of Amsterdam were closely attuned to each other, but even we have to make an extra effort to meet each other halfway on crucial knowledge questions.’ This is why the ‘Hortus-meeting’ was brought into being. ‘If it all works, great things can come out of it.’

During the closing discussion, the last heartfelt cries were heard. One of the GaMON researchers, for example, reminded the gathering that scientists were never permitted to take control of a project and were expected to seriously counter policy hype. Another added that researchers need to be prepared to build bridges to other research projects and knowledge sources. Someone else reminded the attendees that the majority of young people who followed an academic course of study didn't end up working in science, but in policy areas. The art is to keep that thinking potential on the science side and to keep working together to apply it to critical and analytical problems. A policy-maker said that there still needed to be attention given to interaction with political decision-makers, since this interaction is harder to establish than with government policy-makers. A former policy-maker sketched out that the usual way of working together currently took place in a more 'horizontal' format and that fortunately knowledge workers in fact did come to the table as a matter of course. A professor called for attention to the research potential that is present in the other players and stakeholders.

More room for social science sustainability research?

Charles Vlek and Ton Dietz gave the closing comments. Vlek called for attention to the intensive evaluation had been carried out by those involved with the GaMON research, and expressed the hope that the NWO would be able to elaborate productively on the conclusions and recommendations it had produced. He found the year-long GaMON project to be ‘a very educational time'. Dietz once again repeated his assertion from the beginning of the session and urged the NWO to make more effort to promote social science sustainability research and, in addition, to make itself a specialist in question articulation. He also commented that the results produced by GaMON and VAM were possibly ‘a bit too parochial’ in character. ‘There is too little directed at the wider world outside Europe.’ Pieter Hooimeijer closed the afternoon with a few more words about the discussions currently taking place within the NWO about the new strategy period. He expected that the sustainability issues – including those from the social and behavioural science approaches – would receive more emphasis in the coming period. He also stressed that we must not forget the third partner in knowledge sharing – the involved citizen. Renée van Kessel, the NWO’s director of Social and Behavioural Science, said that subsequently the knowledge dissemination directed at knowledge users at the NWO would also become more important. After thanks were given to the speakers and NWO employees, the discussion continued over closing drinks.