2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2022.07.033
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Accommodating coexisting impact rationales in knowledge co-production: The case of the Natuurpact reflexive evaluation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Stewart and Krier categorize environmental issues as environmental pollution (pollution), land misuse (land misuse), and depletion of natural resources. 15 The primary distinction between environmental pollution and depletion of natural resources is that pollution can result from the introduction or presence of a substance, energy, or component into a particular ecosystem or environment. Thus, the substance, energy, or component is foreign or something that initially did not exist in an environmental area but is now present in a particular quantity or quality due to human activities.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Stewart and Krier categorize environmental issues as environmental pollution (pollution), land misuse (land misuse), and depletion of natural resources. 15 The primary distinction between environmental pollution and depletion of natural resources is that pollution can result from the introduction or presence of a substance, energy, or component into a particular ecosystem or environment. Thus, the substance, energy, or component is foreign or something that initially did not exist in an environmental area but is now present in a particular quantity or quality due to human activities.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For this reason, notwithstanding the importance and usefulness of technocratic knowledge accountability, we believe current times ask for a deeper appreciation of political knowledge accountability. Specifically, we suggest that this logic can contribute to equipping science-policy-society relations with the capacity to support transformative change (Brouwers et al, 2022;Fisher et al, 2022) (Yunita et al, 2022, p. 93). Moreover, this question requires 'taking politics seriously' (Scoones et al, 2020), because of the inherently political character of transformative change (Patterson et al, 2017;Visseren-Hamakers et al, 2021).…”
Section: Accounting For Transformative Changementioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is visible in a third example, when the potential of knowledge co-production is reduced to the production of usable knowledge. Co-production is now widely embraced as a mode of knowledge production that is seen as having potential to address sustainability problems (Lemos et al, 2018;Sienkiewicz and Mair, 2020;Chambers et al, 2021;Brouwers et al, 2022). However, there is a risk that the rationale around this potential is narrowed down to the ostensible high usability of co-produced knowledge (Dilling and Lemos, 2011;Reed et al, 2014;Porter and Clark, 2023).…”
Section: Urging Knowledge For Environmental Sustainability and Transf...mentioning
confidence: 99%