Conducting and delivering integrated research to influence land-use policy: an Australian case study
David J PannellA,C* and Anna M RobertsB,C
ASchool and Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA, Australia 6009
BDepartment of Primary Industries, RMB 1145 Rutherglen, Victoria, Australia 3658
CFuture Farm Industries Cooperative Research Centre
Researchers into aspects of land-use policy often aspire for their research to be relevant to the design or implementation of policy. However, actual application of research within policy often remains an elusive goal. Design and implementation of policy programs depend upon judgements about a range of factors including political, administrative, economic, social and environmental issues (Barke, 1986; Shaw et al., 2000; King 2004), only some of which can be informed by research. Even where research is potentially relevant, research results may not provide the specific information needed to support policy, may be provided too late, may not be understood, may not be valued, or the information provided may conflict fatally with preconceptions, vested interests, or current policy.
These and other difficulties of fostering productive links between researchers and policy makers have been recognised in the literature (e.g. Briggs 2006; Gregich 2003; King 2004; Nutley 2003; Tomes 2003). In this paper we provide further insights on this issue based on our experiences with research and policy related to land use and degradation of land and water resources in Australia. These insights are derived from attempts since 2000 to bridge the science-policy gap, as described later in the paper. In brief, we have been actively involved in multi-disciplinary research that has been harnessed to provide specific advice to managers and policy makers in a range of contexts, at various levels of government and various scales. Through this experience, we have identified factors that can enhance or inhibit the adoption of science by managers and policy makers, and have developed relatively effective processes and strategies.
The following sections of this paper cover: the different influences of policy and research on land use; the adoption of new ideas by policy makers; differences between the operating environments for policy and research; the question of whether scientists should attempt to influence policy; a case study in which research into land degradation has been effective in informing and influencing land-use policy; strategies for researchers to engage with policy; and conclusions from the study.
Land use is influenced by many factors, including both science and policy (Figure 1). Policy makers concerned with land use can influence the decisions of private landholders (box E) through the selection and application of policy mechanisms (box A), such as regulation, education, subsidies, or research. The figure highlights that policy is only one of a number of broad influences on land-use decisions, others including the economic environment, social factors, and bio-physical conditions. Clearly, the ability of policy makers to control land use is partial and often highly uncertain. Actual land use has a set of economic, social and environmental consequences (box G) which may or may not align with the objectives of the policy maker (box H). If they do not, the policy maker can attempt to improve the alignment by modifying the policy mechanisms being used (link back to box A).
Figure 1. The indirect and partial effect of policy (through choice of policy mechanisms – box A) on land use and natural resource outcomes. See text for the influences of science. (Source: Pannell, 2003).
An alternative route to achieve policy objectives is for government to undertake required works itself (box D). For example, governments may choose to establish national parks, or to repossess private land in order to alter its management.
Science may influence land use through several channels. These include giving landholders better knowledge of the relevant biophysical or economic conditions (boxes F and B) and their influence on outcomes from different land uses; through developing improved land-use options (altering the influence of box E on box G), or indirectly through better informing policy makers.
Note that land-use change is occurring continuously, irrespective of policies or science, as a result of changes in economic, social or bio-physical conditions. It may also occur as a result of other policies that are not intended to target land use, such as taxation or trade policy. Overall, the influences of policy and science are complex, and often indirect.
Some science, probably a minority, is conducted and/or funded with the serious intent of supporting or influencing policy. Within that subset of the science, only a minority succeeds in its policy intent. A broad range of reasons for poor uptake of science by policy makers have been identified, including the following (drawing on Briggs, 2006; Clark et al., 1998; Jacobs, 2002; Carolan, 2006; Barke, 1986; King 2004).
Non-scientific considerations matter. Sometimes scientific information may be known to policy makers, but the decision reached may still appear to be inconsistent with the science. This may or may not be a concern. It may simply reflect that policy makers and managers consider additional factors, such as legal mandates, societal desires, economic benefits and costs, rights, distributional equity and procedural fairness.
Hidden agendas. There may be political or bureaucratic objectives unrelated to the public interest, so that research that seeks to advance the public interest is not wanted.
Policy fashions and crises. Policy attention tends to be directed to certain issues with high currency, often issues where there is a perceived crisis, and this may leave little scope for science (or any other input) to influence policy in a policy area that is not currently high on the agenda. We observed this occurring in Australia around 2000 with land and water degradation due to salinity. Now salinity is no longer perceived as a crisis, and policy attention has shifted to another area of perceived crisis: climate change. We also observe scientists responding by trying to relate their research to climate change in order to enhance its perceived relevance.
Timing issues. “Information must be timely to be useful” (Jacobs, 2002, p.9). “Policy generally moves faster than science, and the capacity of science to provide information may require more time than policy makers are willing to accept, especially for politically hot issues” (Clark et al., 1998, p.9).
Difficulty getting access. Policy makers often rely primarily on locally based experts with whom they are familiar. Our experience is consistent with Feldman et al. (2001) who reported that policy makers preferred to use local trusted sources for information. This is understandable, given the flood of information that policy makers can face on some issues, but it does not ensure that the most appropriate information is used, and it can make it very hard for new scientists to be heard.
Distrust. There may be suspicion about motivations of scientists, so that they are treated as just another interest or lobby group. The growth of public advocacy by some high-profile scientists feeds these suspicions (Pielke, 2007). Even without overt advocacy, some environmental scientists tend to intertwine facts and values (Carolan, 2006), and this affects the perceived independence of their scientific advice.
Incentives facing researchers. It may be that scientists are not conducting research that is relevant to policy, or not making efforts to make their science known to policy makers. “University reward systems rarely recognize inter-disciplinary work, outreach efforts, and publications outside of academic journals, which limits the incentives for academics to participate in real-world problem solving and collaborative efforts” (Jacobs, 2002, p.14). This probably helps to explain the observed lack of so-called “boundary spanners”, these being individuals who can link the worlds of science and management and translate the concerns of one to members of the other (Clark et al., 1998).
Norse and Tschirley (2000) observed that, compared to atmospheric and oceanic sciences, terrestrial science lags behind in its ability to carry out policy-relevant research. They argue that this is due to many factors, but importantly including institutional constraints and the fact that human beings inhabit the land, causing complex environmental, social and economic interactions.
Communication problems. Research findings may be communicated in ways that policy makers cannot understand, using jargon, technical language, or mathematics. Conversely, policy makers also have a comprehensive set of jargon, and may have trouble expressing their information needs in ways that researchers can respond to.
Lack of expertise. In some situations there is rapid turnover or movement of staff in government policy agencies, leading to lack of expertise by responsible staff and lack of knowledge of relevant science and scientists. A culture may develop in government agencies that detailed subject knowledge is not necessary.
Pannell (2004) argued that understanding of the adoption of new policy ideas by policy makers can be enhanced by a knowledge of the research literature on adoption of innovations. He highlighted some generalisations from that literature that are relevant to the policy sphere:
1. Most potential adopters considering an innovation are sensibly cautious. They do not rush in, but seek information to improve their eventual decision about the innovation.
2. Where decision makers do not have personal experience with an innovation, they rely to some extent on external sources of information. As decision makers gain personal experience, this tends to have a dominant influence on their perceptions and their actual behaviour.
3. External sources of information are given more or less weight depending on factors such the expertise and credibility of the information source, the relevance of the external information to the decision maker’s circumstances, and the number of external sources reinforcing the message with similar information.
4. Apparently misguided decisions to adopt or not adopt an innovation can often be easily understood and seen as reasonable if one makes the effort to learn about the objectives and perceptions of the individual decision makers involved.
5. Many factors influence the speed of adoption of an innovation. Key ones include: the extent to which adopting the innovation is superior to maintaining existing practice; the ease with which the innovation can be observed and evaluated; the number of other potential adopters who have already adopted it; and the intensity and quality of efforts to promote the innovation.
These insights help a researcher to understand, at least partly, a policy maker’s likely response to information that he or she is given about a policy innovation, and they give hints about effective strategies for presenting such information.
In attempting to strengthen the links between policy and research, it is likely to be helpful to both sides to understand some of the key differences between them. The following list of differences draws on Alcamo et al. (1990), Briggs (2006), Tomes (2003) and Nutley (2003).
Outcomes valued. Scientists place a high value on knowledge and innovation while policy officers seek to advance the public interest, to capture resources, and to please their political masters, who are primarily concerned about being re-elected.
Source of recognition. The sources of recognition for practitioners are different: from an administrative or political master in the case of policy, and from peers in the case of science.
Achievements rewarded. Policy officers tend to be promoted based on their ability to successfully implement desired policy programs, while scientists are promoted according to their productivity of scientific outputs, especially of those judged to be high in scientific quality. Many scientists do not place a high value on research being practically useful.
Controversy vs compromise. Policy officers aim to resolve management or political problems with minimal controversy, making pragmatic compromises wherever necessary, whereas a healthy scientific discipline thrives on debate, and will not compromise the truth.
Communication. Scientists and policy makers speak different languages (Alcamo et al., 1990), with different acronyms and jargon and different hidden assumptions. Scientific communication can be hard to understand even between different scientific disciplines. Policy officers deal mainly with very brief, simply written and highly interpreted/synthesised material conveying only essentials with a focus on practical implications and recommendations. On the other hand, even brief scientific writing is considerably more detailed and qualified and much science appears to deal with practical implications as an afterthought, if at all.
Time frame. The time frame for policy development is usually short and the process places participants under great pressure, with little time for careful consideration. Science is generally slow and unresponsive to urgent policy needs, although it can be responsive in the longer term. Science usually takes a conservative approach to new knowledge, only accepting a change when the evidence is compelling.
Supply vs demand. Policy usually addresses a problem identified by someone else (demand-driven), while the directions of science are usually selected by scientists (supply-driven).
Complexity vs simplicity. Policy officers prefer simple, straightforward advice with few, if any, caveats, whereas scientists tend to enjoy unravelling the full complexity of an issue, with all caveats highlighted.
Specialisation vs breadth. University training and the academic reward system encourages narrow specialisation, whereas policy officers need to consider a broad range of factors.
People focus. Policy involves intensive interaction among diverse groups of people, requiring highly developed social skills, while for some scientists working with people does not come naturally. They may prefer to work individually and value academic freedom highly.
Some have argued that scientists should strictly avoid undertaking policy advocacy. For example, “If scientists attempt to participate in or personally influence such decisions, then their objectivity may be compromised as they bring their personal values regarding levels of acceptable risk to bear on the decision.” (Shaw et al., 2000, p. 378). Others disagree. For example, King (2004, p. 188) argues that “We have to be mindful of the perils of scientific elitism and being too remote from policymakers. The idea that we must be involved in “pure science” or work in a “value-free” discipline is both limiting and disingenuous. I worked in Washington for 15 years and I never was able to do that.”
Pielke (2007) recognised that there are more than two options. He identified four different roles that science can play in the policy process.
Pure scientist. The pure scientist stays distant from the decision making process. He or she makes scientific information available in a passive way, and is unconcerned with how (or even whether) the information is used by policy makers.
Science arbiter. The science arbiter does not make specific recommendations to policy makers, but does serve as a resource, providing answers to factual questions that the policy maker asks.
Issue advocate. The issue advocate does make specific recommendations, and attempts to make the case for one alternative over another.
Honest broker. The honest broker attempts to provide balanced information about the range of decision options facing the policy maker. The approach is to expand or clarify the choices available, while leaving the decision to policy makers based on their own preferences and values.
Pielke argues that, “All four roles are critically important and necessary in a functioning democracy. But scientists do have to choose” (Pielke, 2007, p. 7). Whether or not scientists are aware of it, whenever their research is relevant to a political issue, they will adopt one of the above four roles. Pielke shows that it is better for scientists to be aware of the issues around each role and to make a conscious choice. We suspect that only a minority of scientists do have this awareness.
Below we report a case study based on our experience over the past eight years in attempting to influence land-use policy to improve management of dryland salinity.
Dryland salinity in non-irrigated areas has long been recognised as a major cause of land and water degradation in Australia. Its main cause is land-use change, from native vegetation dominated by perennials, to extensive agriculture dominated by annuals such as wheat (National Land and Water Resources Audit, 2001). Most existing agricultural land uses do not use all available rain water, so that naturally saline groundwaters have risen and are now affecting a range of assets, including agricultural land, built infrastructure, natural ecosystems, and potable water supplies. Currently, around 2 million ha of land are affected by dryland salinity to some extent (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2002) and it is expected that this area will approximately double over the coming century.
The dryland salinity problem in Australia is complex, multifaceted, and requires case-specific management responses. The policy budget is very small indeed relative to the level that would be needed to address the problem comprehensively. Effective land-use policy for salinity needs to take full account of these realities and to make strong, integrated use of bio-physical and socio-economic research findings, at both the policy design and implementation phases. Past policy programs have mostly not done so, partly because of political considerations, and partly because to do so is very challenging. The most recent national program was the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (NAP), with funding of A$1.4 billion over 2000-2008. Pannell and Ridley (2008) strongly criticised the performance of the NAP for, among other things, its failure to integrate science effectively into decision making, with the result that most expenditure under the program failed to deliver worthwhile outcomes. A recent assessment by the Australian National Audit Office was also highly critical of the program (Auditor General, 2008).
To address weaknesses in the NAP, we developed Salinity Investment Framework III (SIF3, see www.sif3.org), building on previous work led by the state government of Western Australia (McAlinden et al., 2003; Sparks et al., 2006). SIF3 embeds current research knowledge and is designed to be easy to understand and apply (Ridley and Pannell, 2005). SIF3 includes a set of decision rules that guide natural resource management (NRM) bodies in the selection of high-priority assets for funding, and in the selection of policy tools. The aim is to guide investors towards the greatest NRM outcomes for the available budget. SIF3 requires environmental managers to be explicit in identifying high-value assets, the degree of salinity threat they face, the technical feasibility of reducing that threat, the adoptability of relevant works by land managers, the urgency of responding and the risk of adverse side effects from responding. This information is integrated to identify case-specific recommendations that are consistent with existing scientific research. This is done using an innovative “public and private net benefits framework” (Pannell, 2008).
Like the RAINS model in Europe (Sundqvist et al., 2002), SIF3 is intended to serve three roles:
· Policy tool: developed and used to create more fair, effect-based and cost-effective strategies;
· Communication tool: by which a complex environmental issue could be made understandable for policy makers and non-scientists in general;
· Scientific tool: a way to mobilise heterogeneous scientific practices to speak with a unanimous voice in a scientifically defensible way.
SIF3 recommends a broader and different mix of policy tools than have been used in practice, with extension and incentive payments being used more selectively, in cases where the relevant land-use changes are highly adoptable. The framework has been piloted successfully in two regions in a highly participatory process (Ridley and Pannell, 2008) and has influenced policy makers at national and state levels (see below).
The project proceeded through three broad phases, as follows:
Phase 1 “Complexity”. In establishing the foundations for the framework, we conducted research (and reviewed other research) on individual elements of the problem, including physical (e.g., Pannell et al. 2001; Coram et al. 2000); biological (e.g., Ridley et al. 2001; Pannell and Ewing 2006); agricultural (e.g., Ridley 2004, 2005); economic (e.g., Bathgate and Pannell 2002); social (e.g., Pannell et al. 2006); and political elements (Pannell 2005). Much of this research was not originally conducted with the intent of developing SIF3. The diversity of research topics covered proved to be important in the next phase. We also reviewed literature to identify key findings in each field relevant to salinity management and policy.
Phase 2 “Simplicity”. We integrated the various fields of work from phase 1 into a coherent and logical holistic framework. The aim in developing the framework was to be able to recommend, for any particular location, which broad category of policy response, if any, would be most cost-effective in achieving outcomes. One of the policy response options was informed inaction, which proved to be an important option given that the program budget was very small relative to the scale of the salinity problem nationally.
Importantly the integration of information was structured and systematic, not relying on arbitrary weightings of a selection of criteria. We created an innovative framework based on the Public Net Benefits and Private Net Benefits of potential land-use changes, based on commonsense rules that non-economists could follow. This framework provides recommendations about whether a particular public investment to protect or enhance an identified asset should be supported, and if so, which policy mechanism should be used (Pannell 2008). This framework is now being used internationally and in Australia to help make decisions about a range of environmental problems. In applying the framework to dryland salinity, decision makers are supported by a decision table that recommends the best policy tool/investment response for a particular salinity situation, considering the type of asset involved and relevant bio-physical and socio-economic features of the asset. Assets are assessed on a case-by-case basis, and the decision table makes specific recommendations based on the Public: Private Benefits Framework. The development of the decision table relied very heavily on complex computer modelling, but the tools themselves are paper-based, to maximise their accessibility to managers. The decisions arising from the approach are well justified, rational, explainable and repeatable.
Phase 3 “Implementation and support”: Comprehensive engagement/communication was used to promote and support the uptake of the research outputs. This included: formation of strong collaborative partnerships with regional environmental management bodies in two Australian states (Victoria and Western Australia). This phase of work also included research to understand the capacity limitations of environmental management bodies, in order to assess the requirements for successful uptake of our research. We have now moved to the support phase, where we offer a help-desk service to bodies applying our frameworks. We are currently working in five of the 56 regional NRM bodies in Australia, with strong interest from approximately eight more.
In parallel with the above three phases of the project, we adopted a three-pronged approach to pursuing uptake of the research. The first aspect was strong engagement at the grass-roots level, working in partnership with environmental management bodies that wished to apply our research. This was particularly the case in phase 3 of the research, but it also had feedbacks to phase 2.
The second aspect was communication to the broadest possible range of interested people. Given the long-term aim of having the research adopted nationally, we sought to build general support for the approach by publicising and explaining it widely. We used the electronic and print media; actively maintained a comprehensive web site (www.sif3.org); wrote research reports and papers; regularly published brief discussion papers on environmental management and policy; published brochures; and presented talks at seminars, symposiums, workshops, conferences, and in-house meetings. These activities took a considerable commitment of time.
The third aspect was engagement with policy makers. Australia’s federal system of government meant that we needed to deal with governments at both the state and national levels. We gave personal briefings, presented to meetings, wrote briefing papers, made submissions to government inquiries, and critiqued government policy documents (sometimes at the request of government). We did these things repeatedly and frequently, over several years, and across five government jurisdictions (four states and the national government). We formed good relationships and engendered trust with key policy officers.
There were many frustrations. There were frequent changes in staff, especially at the national level, so that we had to rebuild knowledge and trust. Staff in both levels of government were often very concerned with processes and political expectations, and less concerned with achievement of NRM outcomes. Also, particularly at the national level, most policy officers had very limited knowledge of the science that was relevant to their area of responsibility. Within the culture of the national government bureaucracy in Australia, there seems to be a belief that management of the process of government is much more important than detailed knowledge of the substantive issues. From our observation of the policy that emerges under this attitude, we believe that it is mistaken. It was difficult to know who we should talk to; we probably wasted time meeting the wrong people in some cases. We travelled great distances to have brief meetings, or to find that the key people were not available to meet due to another urgent priority. We became caught up in inter-agency rivalries, particularly in one of the states. Government officers who felt threatened by the implications of our work sought to undermine it in various ways. In some cases, our work was used by government officers to bolster arguments that we did not support.
All of this was very different from the world of conducting and publishing high-quality research. We wished to do that too, but we came to understand and accept that achieving broad-scale uptake and application of our research in the real world required a very large commitment of time, energy, resources, and creativity. To some extent, our experiences would have been specific to our circumstances: the particular research topic, the Australian government system, the particular agencies and individuals we had to deal with. However, based on other experiences described in the literature, it is clear that much of what we learned about policy engagement is broadly applicable within western countries.
The results of all this engagement have been encouraging although, at this stage, we still have not yet achieved the goal of having our frameworks adopted as the recommended national approach for prioritising proposed public investments in natural resource management. Positive outcomes so far have included the following.
Senate inquiry. In 2006 there was a public inquiry into salinity by a committee of the Senate, the upper house of the Australian national parliament (The Senate, 2006). The report of the inquiry included three pages (out of 256) about SIF3, including: “The Committee was particularly impressed by SIF3, which appears to offer a sound framework for making informed, objective and transparent investment decisions in a systematic way. Further, the Committee was encouraged to hear that the relevant Australian Government departments have held discussions with Professor Pannell about SIF3 and view the framework as potentially useful.” (The Senate, 2006, p. 205). One of its 22 recommendations was, “The Committee recommends that the Australian Government in cooperation with the states and territories keep a watching brief on the development of the Salinity Investment Framework 3 (SIF3), with a view to potentially implementing it (or a modified version of it) across the country. It is recommended that the framework be applied within the context of the new (post-2008) program(s).” (The Senate, 2006, p. 229-230).
Government peak committees. During 2006 and 2007 we played a major role in preparing papers about salinity policy for Australia’s peak government committees on Natural Resource Management, spelling out the implications of recent research for salinity policy, and recommending a more rigorous set of principles to drive public investment in the area. We began with Natural Resource Policies and Planning Committee, which then took the recommendations to its parent body, the Natural Resource Management Standing Committee, consisting of heads of all relevant state and national government departments. They endorsed the recommendations and forwarded them up the hierarchy to the body consisting of relevant state and national government ministers, the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council. The Council adopted the principles in April 2007. This process, which of course included considerable work by people other than ourselves, is outlined by Hood (2008).
Influence on state government agencies. Prior to this project, Pannell had successfully advocated for the state government of Western Australia to develop and apply the first versions of the Salinity Investment Framework (SIF1/2) (McAlinden et al., 2003; Sparks et al., 2006) and had served on a Ministerial Taskforce that reviewed salinity policy in the state (Frost et al., 2001). The state government in Victoria was influenced by SIF1/2 to adopt a philosophy of asset-based management (Annett, 2008), and so SIF3 garnered good support from some Victorian government officers. In both of these states we put considerable efforts into various forms of engagement, and became well recognised as experts in the area. In other states, New South Wales and South Australia, we also addressed various government bodies, although with lower intensity and so although our presentations were well received, there was less uptake.
Influence on national government agencies. Within the two relevant departments (currently called the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts), we established good working relations with a number of staff, including the heads of the relevant sections. We have been consulted for advice, invited to make presentations and are welcomed to the departments. However, there have been fewer tangible outcomes from this engagement than at the state level. Documents describing the new national policy program for NRM, “Caring for our Country” announced March 2008, say that it will have “a business approach to investment, clearly articulated outcomes and priorities and improved accountability.” We have recently commenced interaction with senior Ministerial advisers about the new program.
Current developments. In response to a number of requests, we have developed a more general version of SIF3, the Investment Framework For Environmental Resources (INFFER), which covers a broader range of threatening processes. With the announcement of the new national policy program we are currently advocating for governments to adopt INFFER as the recommended approach to making decisions about public investment in natural resource management at the regional level.
Relating our activities to the categories proposed by Pielke (2007), we have played a variety of roles, at different times and in different contexts. We have been consulted by governments on specific issues, and played the role of “science arbiters”. We have actively promoted the understanding and use of the decision frameworks that we have developed, during which our activities have had parallels with Pielke’s concept of “issue advocates”. We say “parallels” rather than a perfect match because our advocacy has focused on the use of decision methods that are more rigorous and transparent. In that way, our work also has much in common with the “honest broker”. The only one of Pielke’s four categories that we have not fallen within is that of “pure scientist”.
The strategies used in this project evolved from previous experiences of the researchers, informed by their knowledge of the literature as outlined earlier, and a survey of policy makers (Pannell, 2004). There was also experimentation in the approaches used, strongly grounded on engagement with stakeholders. Based on this mixture of sources, and on the experiences of this project, we put forward the following strategic advice to researchers wishing to engage with policy.
Understand the policy maker’s perspective. Understand the motivations and constraints of the policy makers you wish to influence (Pannell, 2004). They will only adopt your advice if it is consistent with their objectives and perceptions. For example, if a proposed change disadvantages a group the minister wishes to favour, or requires complex and time-consuming processes to implement, adoption is unlikely. Policy makers face numerous demands and responsibilities and invariably have tight timelines. They are likely to have expertise in areas other than your area of science. They may have different criteria for policy success than you expect.
Also understand the institutional context. For example, the Westminster political system of the UK, Canada and Australia has important differences from the Federal System of the US that may influence strategies of engagement (Clark et al., 1998).
It helps to align the research results with existing stated policy objectives if possible. Even if the results seem to conflict with current policy, attempt to express them as advancing an existing policy objective.
Science is not enough. Appreciate that “Good science itself is needed but is insufficient to drive informed decision-making. We have to translate it into a form for others to use and to improve decision-making” (King, 2004, p. 190). In considering policy options, policy makers will probably be more concerned with social, economic, political or administrative aspects than with science.
Practice excellent communication. In communications, recognise the lack of time that policy makers have. Be very brief, focus on clear messages, use simple language, free of jargon, using a mixture of approaches. In our experience, written material is useful but is not sufficient. Even more important is effective verbal communication. Communications should always present simplified/synthesised information rather than material suitable for scientists (Norse and Tschirley, 2000; Gregrich, 2003).
Develop relationships with policy makers. Attempt to establish a high level of mutual understanding and trust. “Emphasizing from the beginning an expectation that information will flow both from the researcher to the decision-maker and back to the researcher may allow for a more constructive approach” (Jacobs, 2002, p.10).
Be solution-oriented. It is relatively easy to point out problems with policy, but in our experience this may not generate an appropriate response, or any response at all. Do not expect policy makers or managers to see what may seem obvious implications of the research. When offering criticisms of current policy, also offer a practical solution to the problem.
Simplicity is essential. This is true both in one’s communications, and also in the solutions that one offers. In SIF3, based on earlier experience with SIF1/2, we gave a high priority to making the tool as simple to use as possible. It embeds a great deal of past research, but operates as a set of simple decision tables. As far as possible, the solutions one offers need to be simple, transparent and understandable. Policy makers are likely to be suspicious of solutions that rely on complex and opaque computer models.
Work with intended users. This will help to ensure that the solution being proposed is in fact practical and sufficiently simple. It will help to make sure that their issue of concern is addressed in a way that is relevant to them. When attempting to convince policy makers, it helps to be able to demonstrate that the solutions being proposed are already in use in the real-world. Our success in applying SIF3 with two regional environmental management bodies was very helpful in enhancing our credibility with policy makers, especially in Victoria and at the national level. The fact that the work involved two regional bodies in different states and with different institutional arrangements was also an advantage, particularly at national level.
Distinguish between knowledge and values. Be clear that the values that policy attempts to enhance are based on the desires of the community, not science. It is acceptable for research to deal with values (e.g. studies of the non-market values of environmental outcomes, or studies like ours that integrate values with knowledge) but it is essential to be clear that policy makers will have their own views about the values. Traditionally, science deals primarily with knowledge rather than values. In our case, the values of natural resource assets were estimated through various means (see Roberts and Pannell, 2008) as part of the investment framework, but they were clearly distinguished from scientific information about degradation threats and cause-and-effect relationships.
Be pragmatic. One has to accept compromise, and it may be necessary to make conscious decisions about where you can and cannot afford to compromise.
Be patient and persistent. Pannell’s attempts to influence policy in this area began in 2000 and are ongoing. Establish networks and build support for your ideas over time. Repetition is essential, even to people who are already on you side. “Preaching to the converted, far from being a superfluous activity, is vital. Preachers do it every Sunday. The strengthening of the commitment, intellectual performance and morale of those already on your side is an essential task, both in order to bind them more securely to the cause and to make them more effective exponents of it.” (Harries, 2002).
Be resilient. Numerous problems, frustration and setbacks will arise. We have at times found ourselves and our work to be the subjects of ill-informed and unreasonable criticism, usually not to our faces. In particular, people with vested interests in the status quo will actively resist proposals for change. These people may be insiders to the policy organisation and so have better access to decision makers than outside researchers do. Being part of a team helps when dealing with the various challenges that arise.
Timeliness is important. Be prepared to respond quickly to requests for information. Policy makers cannot wait for additional research. We attempt to respond to requests immediately if possible. Sometimes we will follow up with additional information gathering/research in certain important cases.
Find a champion. If possible, identify and cultivate a champion for your work within the policy organisation (Jacobs, 2002).
Work as a multidisciplinary team. The need for research that integrates biophysical and socioeconomic aspects of complex natural resource problems is well recogised (e.g. Norse and Tschirley, 2000). We have found that having expertise from a range of disciplines within the team has been very helpful when dealing with various policy officers with particular disciplinary backgrounds or interests. The team needs to include “integrators” (Jacobs, 2002), who can span the disciplines and draw them together in a way that is relevant to policy.
Our team includes researchers employed by a university and by a government department. This had advantages in that the university researcher was less constrained by government sensitivities, while the government researcher had easier access to policy makers within the same organisation and in a sister organisation.
Avoid any appearance of vested interest. In particular, do not present findings and seek funds at the same time (Gregrich, 2003).
Work with or within a boundary organisation. Boundary organisations attempt to mediate between the institutions of ‘science’ and ‘politics’. They can help to facilitate collaboration between scientists and non-scientists (Guston, 2001; Carolan, 2006). Our work was conducted within the Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Plant-Based Management of Dryland Salinity, which included as partners a number government agencies that we wished to influence. The Chief Executive Officer assisted with our policy engagement in a variety of ways.
A number of the above insights are reflected in the following quote from Australian scientist Richard Stirzaker. In particular, it highlights the need for transparency, simplicity, and mutual understanding.
"To bring together the knowledge and aspirations of managers and researchers, the decision making procedure needs to be:
· a system of clarity and transparency so participants can understand each other’s knowledge domains (most important);
· a system that makes everyone’s understanding of the problem explicit (no black boxes or complicated models);
· a system that shows how a decision was arrived at (even if it is wrong);
· a system that can be changed or added to as experience grows; and
· a system that gives the correct answer (least important)" (Richard Stirzaker, pers. comm., 2007).
We support Pielke’s (2007) call for scientists to make a clear and informed decision about the sort of role they play in relation to policy: pure scientist, science arbiter, issue advocate or honest broker. This decision will be influenced by personal motivations and career ambitions, as well as the circumstances of particular science and policy issues. Scientists may choose to play different roles in different cases or at different times, as we have done.
We suggest that scientists interested in changing land-use who choose to actively engage with policy should be prepared to apply the same rigour, creativity and persistence that they put into research. They will need to apply many of the strategies we have outlined, not the least of which are the need to understand the policy context, and the need for patience and persistence. Most likely, they will find, like us, that policy engagement is both rewarding and immensely frustrating.
Alcamo, J., Shaw, R., Hordijk, L., 1990. The RAINS Model of Acidification: Science and Strategies for Europe. KIuwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Annett, S., 2008. Re-framing the debate for public investment in salinity management, Proceedings, 2nd International Salinity Forum: Salinity, Water and Society – Global Issues, Local Action, 31 March – 3 April 2008, Adelaide (CD-ROM).
Auditor General, 2008. Regional Delivery Model for the Natural Heritage Trust and the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality, Report No. 21 2007–08, Performance Audit, Australian National Audit Office, Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2002. Salinity on Australian Farms, report 4615.0. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Barke, R., 1986. Science, Technology and Public Policy. CQ Press, Washington, DC.
Bathgate, A. and Pannell, D.J., 2002. Economics of deep-rooted perennials in Western Australia, Agricultural Water Management 53 (1), 117-132.
Briggs, S.V., 2006. Integrating policy and science in natural resources: Why so difficult? Ecological Management and Restoration 7 (1), 37-39.
Carolan, M.S. 2006. Science, expertise and the democratization of the decision-making process. Society and Natural Resources 19, 661-668.
Clark, R.N.; Meidinger, E.E., Miller, G., Rayner, J., Layseca, M., Monreal, S., Fernandez, J., and Shannon, M.A., 1998. Integrating science and policy in natural resource management: lessons and opportunities from North America. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-441. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 22 p.
Coram, J.E., Dyson, P.D., Houlder, P.A. and Evans, W.R. 2000. Australian Groundwater Flow Systems Contributing to Dryland Salinity. (Bureau of Rural Resources Project for the National Land and Water Resources Audit, Dryland Salinity Theme: Canberra).
Feldman, P.H., Nadash, P. and Gursen, M., 2001. Improving communication between researchers and policy makers in long-term care: or, researchers are from Mars; policy makers are from Venus, Gerontologist, 41, 312–321.
Frost, F.M., Hamilton, B., Lloyd, M. and Pannell, D.J., 2001. Salinity: A New Balance, The report of the Salinity Taskforce established to review salinity management in Western Australia, Salinity Taskforce, Perth, 78 pp.
Gregrich, R.J., 2003. A note to researchers: Communicating science to policy makers and practitioners. Journal of Substance Abuse 25, 233-237.
Guston, D.H., 2001. Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 26, 399–408.
Harries, O., 2002. How to win arguments and influence debate. The Australian Financial Review, Executive Highlights, No. 72, 1 February 2002.
Henzell, T., 2007. Australian Agriculture, Its History and Challenges. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, 308pp.
Hood, A., 2008. Dryland salinity in Australia—next steps—Ministerial Council salinity investment principles, Proceedings, 2nd International Salinity Forum: Salinity, Water and Society – Global Issues, Local Action, 31 March – 3 April 2008, Adelaide (CD-ROM).
Jacobs, K (2002). Connecting science, policy and decision-making: a handbook for researchers and science agencies. NOAA Office of Global Programs, Boulder, Colorado.
King, L., 2004. Impacting policy through science and education. Preventative Veterinary Medicine 62, 185-192.
Land and Water Australia, 2004. Research meets policy – Improving the uptake of your research, Land and Water Australia, Canberra, 12 pp. http://products.lwa.gov.au/products/pk040749 [accessed 28 July 2008]
McAlinden, D., Sparks, T., Burnside, D., Stelfox, L., 2003. Salinity Investment Framework Interim Report – Phase I, Report No. SLUI 32, Department of Environment, Perth.
National Land and Water Resources Audit, 2001. Australian Dryland Salinity Assessment 2000, National Land and Water Resources Audit, Canberra.
Norse, D. and Tschirley, J.B., 2000. Links between science and policy making. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 82, 15-26.
Nutley, S (2003). Bridging the policy/research divide – Reflections and lessons from the UK. Keynote paper at ‘ Facing the Future – Engaging Stakeholders and Citizens in Developing Public Policy. National Institute of Governance Conference, Canberra 23-24 April 2003.
Pannell, D.J. 2003. Balancing economics and sustainability in building an integrated agricultural system, Pacific Conservation Biology 9 (1/2), 23-29.
Pannell, D.J. 2004. Effectively communicating economics to policy makers. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 48 (3), 535-555.
Pannell, D.J. 2005. Farm, food and resource issues: Politics and dryland salinity, Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 45, 1471-1480.
Pannell, D.J. 2006. Policies and politics: Challenges and opportunities for economists, Agenda 13 (2), 117-132.
Pannell, D.J., 2008. Public benefits, private benefits, and policy intervention for land-use change for environmental benefits, Land Economics 84 (2), 225-240.
Pannell, D.J. and Ewing, M.A., 2006. Managing secondary dryland salinity: Options and challenges, Agricultural Water Management 80(1/2/3): 41-56.
Pannell, D.J. and Ridley, A.M., 2008. Lessons from dryland salinity policy experience in Australia, Proceedings, 2nd International Salinity Forum: Salinity, Water and Society – Global Issues, Local Action, 31 March – 3 April 2008, Adelaide (CD-ROM).
Pannell, D.J., Marshall, G.R., Barr, N., Curtis, A., Vanclay, F. and Wilkinson, R., 2006. Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 46 (11), 1407-1424.
Pielke, R.A. Jr. 2007. The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 188 pp.
Ridley, A.M., 2004. The role of applied science to help farmers make decisions about environmental sustainability. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 44, 959-968.
Ridley, A.M., 2005. The role of farming systems approaches in achieving environmental sustainability in Australian agriculture. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 45, 1-13
Ridley, A.M., Christy, B.P., Dunin, F.X., Haines, P.J., Wilson, K.F., Ellington, A., 2001. Lucerne in crop rotations on the Riverine Plains: 1. The soil water balance. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 52, 263-277.
Ridley, A., and Pannell, D.J., 2005. The role of plants and plant-based R&D in managing dryland salinity in Australia, Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 45, 1341-1355.
Ridley, A. and Pannell, D., 2008. Piloting a systematic framework (SIF3) for public investment in regional natural resource management in dryland salinity in Australia, Proceedings, 2nd International Salinity Forum: Salinity, Water and Society – Global Issues, Local Action, 31 March – 3 April 2008, Adelaide (CD-ROM).
The Senate, 2006. Living with salinity – a report on progress: The extent and economic impact of salinity in Australia, The Senate, Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, References Committee, Commonwealth of Australia, 2006.
Shaw, C.G. III, Everest, F.G., and Swanston, D.N., 1999. Independent scientific review in natural resource management: a recent example from the Tongass Land Management Plan. Northwest Sci. 73, 52–56.
Shaw, C.G. III, Everest, F.H. and Swanston, D.N., 2000. Working with knowledge at the science/policy interface: a unique example from developing the Tongrass Land Management Plan. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 27, 377-387.
Sparks, T., George, R., Wallace, K., Pannell, D., Burnside, D., Stelfox, L., 2006. Salinity Investment Framework Phase II, Report No. SLUI 34, Department of Water, Perth Western Australia, 86 pp.
Sundqvist, G., Letell, M. and Lidskog, R., 2002. Science and policy in air abatement strategies. Environmental Science and Policy 5, 147-156.
Tomes, A. 2003. UK government science policy: the ‘enterprise deficit’ fallacy. Technovation 23, 785-792.
Citation: Pannell, D.J. and Roberts, A.M. (2008). Conducting and delivering integrated research to influence land-use policy: an Australian case study, INFFER Working Paper 0803, University of Western Australia, Perth. http://dpannell.fnas.uwa.edu.au/dp0803.htm
Later published as
Pannell, D.J. and Roberts, A.M. (2009). Conducting and delivering integrated research to influence land-use policy: salinity policy in Australia, Environmental Science and Policy (forthcoming). Journal version on-line
David Pannell home page