欧洲生物多样性科学-政策-社会界面的社会网络分析。

IF 5.2 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Dalia D'Amato, Salla Rantala, Kaisa Korhonen-Kurki, Karla E Locher-Krause, Twan Stoffers, Enzo Falco, Renata Włodarczyk-Marciniak, Mihai Adamescu, Kinga Krauze, M Susana Orta-Ortiz, Robin Dianoux, Matthew J Grainger, Juliette Young
{"title":"欧洲生物多样性科学-政策-社会界面的社会网络分析。","authors":"Dalia D'Amato, Salla Rantala, Kaisa Korhonen-Kurki, Karla E Locher-Krause, Twan Stoffers, Enzo Falco, Renata Włodarczyk-Marciniak, Mihai Adamescu, Kinga Krauze, M Susana Orta-Ortiz, Robin Dianoux, Matthew J Grainger, Juliette Young","doi":"10.1111/cobi.70023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite the wealth of evidence on biodiversity status, trends, and policy options in Europe, knowledge often fails to inform policy makers and decision makers effectively. Implementing the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 will require the transformation of engagement and exchange between knowledge providers and policy and decision makers. This is one of the main goals of the forthcoming EU Science Service for Biodiversity. We sought to support this endeavor by mapping the landscape of actors at the biodiversity science-policy-society interface. We first compiled an extensive database of actors (n = 215) by combining existing databases, searching the web, and consulting experts. We then interviewed representatives of key organizations (n = 28) to elicit data about their network of relations with other organizations. Additional qualitative data were elicited from a subset of organizations (n = 17/28) focusing on the roles of different actors in knowledge cocreation and their potential contribution to the functioning of the Science Service for Biodiversity. The social network analysis mapped the interactions (and lack thereof) between 101 organized actors. Central to the network were EU organizations, other international and intergovernmental organizations, and one well-known public interest group. A more varied mix of organizations had the potential to act as bridges between unconnected actors, including private sector organizations, organizations dedicated to the management of ecological units, and science-based networks. The social network analysis also revealed 4 thematic communities emerging from the interactions among actors: biodiversity knowledge for EU policy-making; land ownership and management in agriculture and forestry; natural capital and sustainable development; and nature conservation and participation. Consistent with the results of the social network analysis, the qualitative data suggested that nonpolicy and nonscience actors have an important role to play in the dialogue and knowledge cocreation for biodiversity conservation and restoration. To strengthen the European science-policy-society interface on biodiversity, we recommend addressing gaps in themes and actor types, fostering cross-community dialogue, and supporting the further development of the network in terms of participants and potential intermediaries.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":" ","pages":"e70023"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A social network analysis of the European science-policy-society interface on biodiversity.\",\"authors\":\"Dalia D'Amato, Salla Rantala, Kaisa Korhonen-Kurki, Karla E Locher-Krause, Twan Stoffers, Enzo Falco, Renata Włodarczyk-Marciniak, Mihai Adamescu, Kinga Krauze, M Susana Orta-Ortiz, Robin Dianoux, Matthew J Grainger, Juliette Young\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cobi.70023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Despite the wealth of evidence on biodiversity status, trends, and policy options in Europe, knowledge often fails to inform policy makers and decision makers effectively. Implementing the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 will require the transformation of engagement and exchange between knowledge providers and policy and decision makers. This is one of the main goals of the forthcoming EU Science Service for Biodiversity. We sought to support this endeavor by mapping the landscape of actors at the biodiversity science-policy-society interface. We first compiled an extensive database of actors (n = 215) by combining existing databases, searching the web, and consulting experts. We then interviewed representatives of key organizations (n = 28) to elicit data about their network of relations with other organizations. Additional qualitative data were elicited from a subset of organizations (n = 17/28) focusing on the roles of different actors in knowledge cocreation and their potential contribution to the functioning of the Science Service for Biodiversity. The social network analysis mapped the interactions (and lack thereof) between 101 organized actors. Central to the network were EU organizations, other international and intergovernmental organizations, and one well-known public interest group. A more varied mix of organizations had the potential to act as bridges between unconnected actors, including private sector organizations, organizations dedicated to the management of ecological units, and science-based networks. The social network analysis also revealed 4 thematic communities emerging from the interactions among actors: biodiversity knowledge for EU policy-making; land ownership and management in agriculture and forestry; natural capital and sustainable development; and nature conservation and participation. Consistent with the results of the social network analysis, the qualitative data suggested that nonpolicy and nonscience actors have an important role to play in the dialogue and knowledge cocreation for biodiversity conservation and restoration. To strengthen the European science-policy-society interface on biodiversity, we recommend addressing gaps in themes and actor types, fostering cross-community dialogue, and supporting the further development of the network in terms of participants and potential intermediaries.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10689,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Conservation Biology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e70023\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Conservation Biology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.70023\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conservation Biology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.70023","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管关于欧洲生物多样性状况、趋势和政策选择的证据丰富,但知识往往不能有效地为政策制定者和决策者提供信息。实施《欧盟2030年生物多样性战略》需要知识提供者与政策和决策者之间的参与和交流方式发生转变。这是即将成立的欧盟生物多样性科学服务的主要目标之一。我们试图通过绘制生物多样性科学-政策-社会界面行动者的景观来支持这一努力。我们首先通过结合现有数据库、搜索网络和咨询专家,编制了一个广泛的演员数据库(n = 215)。然后,我们采访了关键组织的代表(n = 28),以引出他们与其他组织的关系网络的数据。另外,还从一些组织(n = 17/28)获得了定性数据,这些组织侧重于不同行为者在知识共同创造中的作用及其对生物多样性科学服务功能的潜在贡献。社会网络分析映射了101个有组织的参与者之间的互动(和缺乏互动)。网络的核心是欧盟组织,其他国际和政府间组织,以及一个知名的公共利益团体。更多样化的组织组合有可能在不相关的行动者之间发挥桥梁作用,包括私营部门组织、致力于生态单位管理的组织和基于科学的网络。社会网络分析还揭示了行动者之间相互作用产生的4个专题社区:欧盟政策制定的生物多样性知识;农业和林业的土地所有权和管理;自然资本与可持续发展;自然保护和参与。与社会网络分析结果一致,定性数据表明,非政策和非科学行为体在生物多样性保护与恢复的对话和知识共同创造中发挥着重要作用。为了加强欧洲科学-政策-社会在生物多样性方面的对接,我们建议解决主题和行动者类型方面的差距,促进跨社区对话,并在参与者和潜在中介方面支持网络的进一步发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A social network analysis of the European science-policy-society interface on biodiversity.

Despite the wealth of evidence on biodiversity status, trends, and policy options in Europe, knowledge often fails to inform policy makers and decision makers effectively. Implementing the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 will require the transformation of engagement and exchange between knowledge providers and policy and decision makers. This is one of the main goals of the forthcoming EU Science Service for Biodiversity. We sought to support this endeavor by mapping the landscape of actors at the biodiversity science-policy-society interface. We first compiled an extensive database of actors (n = 215) by combining existing databases, searching the web, and consulting experts. We then interviewed representatives of key organizations (n = 28) to elicit data about their network of relations with other organizations. Additional qualitative data were elicited from a subset of organizations (n = 17/28) focusing on the roles of different actors in knowledge cocreation and their potential contribution to the functioning of the Science Service for Biodiversity. The social network analysis mapped the interactions (and lack thereof) between 101 organized actors. Central to the network were EU organizations, other international and intergovernmental organizations, and one well-known public interest group. A more varied mix of organizations had the potential to act as bridges between unconnected actors, including private sector organizations, organizations dedicated to the management of ecological units, and science-based networks. The social network analysis also revealed 4 thematic communities emerging from the interactions among actors: biodiversity knowledge for EU policy-making; land ownership and management in agriculture and forestry; natural capital and sustainable development; and nature conservation and participation. Consistent with the results of the social network analysis, the qualitative data suggested that nonpolicy and nonscience actors have an important role to play in the dialogue and knowledge cocreation for biodiversity conservation and restoration. To strengthen the European science-policy-society interface on biodiversity, we recommend addressing gaps in themes and actor types, fostering cross-community dialogue, and supporting the further development of the network in terms of participants and potential intermediaries.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Conservation Biology
Conservation Biology 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
3.20%
发文量
175
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Conservation Biology welcomes submissions that address the science and practice of conserving Earth's biological diversity. We encourage submissions that emphasize issues germane to any of Earth''s ecosystems or geographic regions and that apply diverse approaches to analyses and problem solving. Nevertheless, manuscripts with relevance to conservation that transcend the particular ecosystem, species, or situation described will be prioritized for publication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信