当前位置: X-MOL 学术Forest Policy Econ. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Embedding scientific information into forestry praxis: Explaining knowledge transfer in transdisciplinary projects by using German case
Forest Policy and Economics ( IF 4.0 ) Pub Date : 2021-05-21 , DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102508
Mirjana Stevanov , Max Krott

The Horizon 2020 project, ALTERFOR, generated knowledge about forest management alternatives. Researchers modelled a future, sustainable provision of ecosystem services, where a salient question was one of how to facilitate the application of these innovative scientific results in praxis. Our qualitative study uses a method mix and the analytical Research-Integration-Utilisation (RIU) Model to provide in-depth explanation of the knowledge transfer going on between the ALTERFOR research project and the forestry praxis. The leading assumption related to this communication process is that selected pieces of information are de-embedded from their scientific context of the research project and re-embedded into the existing knowledge of specific forestry actors, who utilise them to implement science-based management solutions in their forest. This assumption is empirically corroborated by using ALTERFOR's German case. For the approximately 100, 000 ha of Augsburg Western Woods (south-western Bavaria) the researchers simulated five scenarios, showing which ecosystem services would be provided by different forest management models over the next 100 years. The integration of scenario results into the praxis comprised three integration forums. Within the first forum (pre-study) the alternatives focusing on “recreation” and “hunting” were dropped due to a lack of supportive powerful allies from praxis. Within the second forum (bilateral meeting) the three other scenarios - “timber production”, “multifunctional” and “set aside” scenarios, all remained in the discourse of praxis. Yet, the third forum (multilateral meeting - workshop) triggered the toughest selection. Most project results were either ignored or declined strongly, so that only a few pieces of scientific information found acceptance by particular actors, who utilised them either through support or resistance: (i) the State Forest used the information about the “multifunctional” scenario to legitimise the solution which was already in use (multifunctional management), whereas the Private Forest used the information for the possibility to increase timber harvests in a sustainable way, in order to push for (an otherwise contested) strategy of maximized timber harvesting; (ii) the State Forest resisted the possibility of increasing sustainable timber harvesting, whereas the Private Forest rejected the implementation of set asides. Both actors had sufficient power capabilities to realise their interests, even against the interests of other landowners or political groups. These results show that it is not complex scientific knowledge that makes it through the selection process, but rather, pieces of scientific information, de-embedded from their theory-based context of the research project, are re-embedded into the context of powerful actors in praxis, who then utilise these to either support or resist their own science-based solutions. Based on this, we suggest that the ambitious Horizon 2020 goal of facilitating knowledge transfer is attained more effectively when the project opens up multiple options for dialogue between researchers and different groups from praxis (multi-actor approach), abandoning the idea of one, best solution and offering different alternatives instead.



中文翻译:

将科学信息嵌入林业实践:利用德国案例解释跨学科项目中的知识转移

Horizo​​n 2020项目ALTERFOR产生了有关森林管理替代方案的知识。研究人员对未来的,可持续的生态系统服务提供进行了建模,其中一个突出的问题是如何促进这些创新的科学成果在实践中的应用。我们的定性研究使用方法混合和分析性研究集成利用(RIU)模型来提供对ALTERFOR研究项目与林业实践之间进行的知识转移的深入解释。与这种交流过程相关的主要假设是,从研究项目的科学背景中解嵌了部分信息,并将其重新嵌入到特定林业参与者的现有知识中,他们利用这些信息来实施基于科学的管理解决方案。他们的森林。通过使用ALTERFOR的德国案例在经验上证实了这一假设。研究人员对大约100,000公顷的奥格斯堡西部森林(巴伐利亚西南部)进行了模拟,模拟了五种情况,显示了在未来100年中,不同森林管理模式将提供哪些生态系统服务。将方案结果集成到实践中包括三个集成论坛。在第一个论坛(预研究)中,由于缺乏实践支持的强大盟友,因此放弃了侧重于“娱乐”和“狩猎”的替代方案。在第二次论坛(双边会议)中,其他三个方案-“木材生产”,“多功能”和“搁置”方案,均保留在实践中。然而,第三次论坛(多边会议-研讨会)引发了最艰难的选择。大多数项目的结果要么被忽略,要么被强烈拒绝,因此只有少数科学信息被特定行为者接受,这些行为者通过支持或抵抗来利用它们:(i)国家森林利用有关“多功能”情景的信息来使已经使用的解决方案合法化(多功能管理),而私有林则利用这些信息以可持续的方式增加木材采伐的可能性,以推动(否则会引起争议的)最大化木材采伐的战略;(ii)国家森林抵制了增加可持续木材采伐的可能性,而私有森林则拒绝实施固定资产。两位演员都有足够的力量去实现自己的利益,甚至有损其他土地所有者或政治团体的利益。这些结果表明,不是通过选择过程就能掌握的复杂科学知识,而是将从其研究项目基于理论的上下文中去嵌入的科学信息重新嵌入到强大的参与者的上下文中在实践中,然后他们利用它们来支持或抵制自己的基于科学的解决方案。基于此,我们建议,当项目为研究人员和实践中不同群体之间的对话提供多种选择(多角色方法)时,放弃“一个最好”的想法时,可以更有效地实现促进知识转移的宏伟的Horizo​​n 2020目标。解决方案,并提供其他替代方案。这些结果表明,不是通过选择过程就能掌握的复杂科学知识,而是将从其研究项目基于理论的上下文中去嵌入的科学信息重新嵌入到强大的参与者的上下文中在实践中,然后他们利用它们来支持或抵制自己的基于科学的解决方案。基于此,我们建议,当该项目为研究人员和实践中的不同群体之间的对话提供多种选择(多角色方法)时,放弃“一个最好”的想法时,可以更有效地实现促进知识转移的宏伟的Horizo​​n 2020目标。解决方案,并提供其他替代方案。这些结果表明,不是通过选择过程就能掌握的复杂科学知识,而是将从其研究项目基于理论的上下文中去嵌入的科学信息重新嵌入到强大的参与者的上下文中在实践中,然后他们利用它们来支持或抵制自己的基于科学的解决方案。基于此,我们建议,当该项目为研究人员和实践中的不同群体之间的对话提供多种选择(多角色方法)时,放弃“一个最好”的想法时,可以更有效地实现促进知识转移的宏伟的Horizo​​n 2020目标。解决方案,并提供其他替代方案。从研究项目的基于理论的上下文中被取消嵌入,然后被重新嵌入到实践中的强大参与者的上下文中,然后他们利用这些参与者来支持或抵制他们自己的基于科学的解决方案。基于此,我们建议,当该项目为研究人员和实践中的不同群体之间的对话提供多种选择(多角色方法)时,放弃“一个最好”的想法时,可以更有效地实现促进知识转移的宏伟的Horizo​​n 2020目标。解决方案,并提供其他替代方案。从研究项目的基于理论的上下文中被取消嵌入,然后被重新嵌入到实践中的强大参与者的上下文中,然后他们利用这些参与者来支持或抵制他们自己的基于科学的解决方案。基于此,我们建议,当该项目为研究人员和实践中的不同群体之间的对话提供多种选择(多角色方法)时,放弃“一个最好”的想法时,可以更有效地实现促进知识转移的宏伟的Horizo​​n 2020目标。解决方案,并提供其他替代方案。

更新日期:2021-05-22
down
wechat
bug