{"title":"Uncovering the Science-Policy Interface: Applying Bibliometric Approaches to the Wildfire Risk Management Domain","authors":"Juliane Schlierkamp, Claudia Berchtold, Isabelle Linde-Frech","doi":"10.1007/s00267-025-02161-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The impact of research is gaining increasing importance, as science is increasingly seen as a means to address humanity’s grand challenges. Consequently, interaction between science and policymakers is essential — a process formalized through Science-Policy Interfaces (SPIs). But who actually participates in these processes? This question is crucial, as scientific findings are not always consistent: they may be subject to interpretation, contradict each other, or be shaped by underlying normative frameworks. This paper explores the potential of bibliometric analysis to trace science-policy interactions, using the Wildfire Risk Management (WFRM) domain as a case study. Drawing on data from the Dimensions database, we examine publication and policy trends, disciplinary coverage, and the influence of Altmetrics on policy citations. Our key findings indicate that: There is a significant time lag (6–9 years) between scientific publication and policy adoption. The number of publications in a research field correlates with policy citations, but not all disciplines are equally represented in policy documents. Altmetrics, particularly social media attention, influence policy uptake, suggesting that visibility beyond academia plays a role in knowledge transfer. Data quality issues in linking scientific research to policy documents persist, limiting full traceability. Despite these limitations, the study highlights the potential of bibliometric approaches to support the development of more transparent and accountable SPIs. With improved data infrastructure, such methods could help policymakers better identify and integrate relevant scientific insights.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":543,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Management","volume":"75 6","pages":"1368 - 1387"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00267-025-02161-x.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00267-025-02161-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The impact of research is gaining increasing importance, as science is increasingly seen as a means to address humanity’s grand challenges. Consequently, interaction between science and policymakers is essential — a process formalized through Science-Policy Interfaces (SPIs). But who actually participates in these processes? This question is crucial, as scientific findings are not always consistent: they may be subject to interpretation, contradict each other, or be shaped by underlying normative frameworks. This paper explores the potential of bibliometric analysis to trace science-policy interactions, using the Wildfire Risk Management (WFRM) domain as a case study. Drawing on data from the Dimensions database, we examine publication and policy trends, disciplinary coverage, and the influence of Altmetrics on policy citations. Our key findings indicate that: There is a significant time lag (6–9 years) between scientific publication and policy adoption. The number of publications in a research field correlates with policy citations, but not all disciplines are equally represented in policy documents. Altmetrics, particularly social media attention, influence policy uptake, suggesting that visibility beyond academia plays a role in knowledge transfer. Data quality issues in linking scientific research to policy documents persist, limiting full traceability. Despite these limitations, the study highlights the potential of bibliometric approaches to support the development of more transparent and accountable SPIs. With improved data infrastructure, such methods could help policymakers better identify and integrate relevant scientific insights.
期刊介绍:
Environmental Management offers research and opinions on use and conservation of natural resources, protection of habitats and control of hazards, spanning the field of environmental management without regard to traditional disciplinary boundaries. The journal aims to improve communication, making ideas and results from any field available to practitioners from other backgrounds. Contributions are drawn from biology, botany, chemistry, climatology, ecology, ecological economics, environmental engineering, fisheries, environmental law, forest sciences, geosciences, information science, public affairs, public health, toxicology, zoology and more.
As the principal user of nature, humanity is responsible for ensuring that its environmental impacts are benign rather than catastrophic. Environmental Management presents the work of academic researchers and professionals outside universities, including those in business, government, research establishments, and public interest groups, presenting a wide spectrum of viewpoints and approaches.