No abstract

Despite increased popularity of knowledge co-production as a research approach to address contemporary environmental issues, its implementation in science–policy contexts is not self-evident. In this paper, we illustrate how researchers at the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (in Dutch: Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving (PBL)) ensured a fit between key features of knowledge co-production and conventional norms and customs for knowledge production processes at the science–policy interface while simultaneously challenging those norms to create space for knowledge co-production. Drawing on implementation science, we analyzed two types of alignment activities: negotiation of normative and relational norms and modification of co-production features. Based on three policy evaluation cases, we show that PBL researchers developed co-production capacity over time. They became more skilled at recognizing (un)conducive structures to knowledge co-production, negotiating such structures, and modifying co-production features without compromising co-production integrity. We argue that investment in these skills is required to negotiate space for knowledge co-production in science–policy settings.

Reducing the climate change-induced risk of uncontrollable fires in landscapes under nature management, with severe impacts on landscape and society, is particularly urgent in densely-populated and fragmented areas. Reducing fire risk in such areas requires active involvement of a wide diversity of stakeholders. This research letter investigates stakeholders’ needs with regard to fire risk reduction in the Veluwe area in the Netherlands. This densely populated landscape is a popular tourist attraction, and it is one of the most fire-prone landscapes of the Netherlands, with abundant fuels and human ignition sources. We draw upon seven in-depth qualitative interviews with key stakeholders in the Veluwe area, which we situate in a wider review of existing literature. Our analysis demonstrates that the rising incidence of uncontrollable fires poses four types of new challenges to these stakeholders in the Veluwe area. First, stakeholders express the need to reshape existing policy tools and develop novel ones that create synergies between existing policy-priorities (e.g. biodiversity conservation) and fire risk reduction. Second, stakeholders argue for a critical rethinking of the value of landscapes in society, and the diverse roles that fire may play in landscape management research and practice. Third, developing such policy tools requires new modalities and platforms for multi-stakeholder and multi-level collaboration, which are currently lacking because the current and expected future risk of uncontrollable fire is unprecedented. And fourth, the development of effective policy tools requires new knowledge that is interdisciplinary, sensitive towards the local social and ecological characteristics of the area, and which approaches current fire risk challenges and their possible solutions dynamically. While our stakeholder analysis is specific to the Veluwe area in the Netherlands, our findings are also likely to be relevant to other fire-prone nature areas in fragmented landscapes, particularly in Northwestern Europe.