Researchers role and tools in the innovation process

The question: Can we, at different scales, show that knowledge of trade-offs make a difference

The case: In a complex resource scarce world single issue objective/policies are of inferior and perhaps damaging.

In a political sense, the opposing parties lobby the policy maker or public opinion – informed involvement in presenting trade-offs is necessary.

Informing the debate- detrimental trade-offs are often perceived as worse than the actual trade-offs (e.g. conflicts between farmers and foresters)

Decisions made are often non-rational, therefore we should identify where science plays a role (e.g flooding in Bangkok Vs dry season irrigation)

But can we demonstrate that considering trade-offs at higher scales have helped (questions over whether the impact that the analyses of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Development Goals made…communication?)

Researchers role and tools in the innovation process

Our role:

•Credibility, relevance and legitimacy-these 3 buttons need to be pressed at the same time. Mix the emphasis depending on your audience but include the 3 aspects.

•Rigorous and pre-emptive science must be on-going and provide more examples of trade-offs and inform the debates with evidence based work.

•Pre-emptive – knowledge about slowly variables is long term.

•Recognise where in the “issue cycle” that science plays a role•Dedicated communication teams – we cant be all things to everyone- mix of the science message and the public apsects

Politi

cal p

rom

inen

ce

pe

ople

* in

fluen

ce *

con

cern

Stage of the issue cycle

Scoping Stakeholder Negotiation Implemen- Re-eva- analysis response tation luation

Is it a problem?

Cause-effect mechanisms

Who’s to blame?

What will it cost?

Regulate and/or reward

Implement & monitor

Evaluate, re-assess

Who’ll have to pay?

What can be done to stop, mitigate, undo or adapt?

How much and where?

Who will monitor compliance? Litigation

Tomich et al. 2004