The main objective of this sub-project is to develop a Decision Support System (DSS) that can be used to craft appropriate response strategies to disturbances associated with invasive species proliferation and policy changes. To that purpose, the relevant governance system for land use and conservation will be analyzed in terms of opportunities and constraints for the development and implementation of technical invasive species management options. Subsequently, stakeholders will be mapped in terms of (i) the positions they hold and interest they represent with regard to invasive species, and with regard to policy options targeting this issue, and (ii) the power bases these stakeholders represent. In the next step of the research, both the governance system and the network of stakeholders will be assessed in terms of the expected adaptive capacity that they possess, and that would potentially allow them to craft appropriate response strategies to changes in the natural environment. The DSS will take into account the knowledge generated in sub-project 1, about the temporal and spatial dimensions of the altering disturbance regime triggered by the varying rates of invasive species? spread at the islands? hot- and coldspots. The DSS will also be tailored in accordance with the knowledge generated in this sub-project about the governance system, stakeholders, and their respective adaptive capacities. The testing of the DSS in a series of stakeholder workshops will serve the purpose of ground truthing the instrument, disseminating knowledge and capacity building among participants.

In this PhD project we assume that there is no unique, ideal science-policy interface but that the performance of these interfaces (in terms of producing policy-relevant knowledge and mutual learning) depends on the policy activity at issue. Especially in the case of policy development and management of controversial issues we expect a high risk of strategic use of knowledge and report wars. In these cases scientists may have to play another role than in the case of monitoring and maintenance. In this project the policy activity-specific requirements for science-policy interfaces and how these can be met are addressed.

Well-functioning interfaces between the worlds of science and policy are necessary for the production of useful, legitimate and policy relevant knowledge. Yet, the controversies on new gas mining and cockle fisheries have taught us that the construction of adequate science-policy interfaces is not straightforward, resulting in under-utilization of knowledge and unanswered questions on the part of decision-makers. Ideally, science-policy interfaces help to overcome the fundamental differences between the worlds of science and policy with their own rationalities, values and ways of knowing by facilitating interaction, coordination and mutual learning. Within a complex, fragmented and controversial policy domain like the Wadden Sea, a variety of policy activities (1. strategic planning and preparation, 2. policy issue development, 3. implementation and public investments, and 4. maintenance and monitoring) take place, which do have their own, unique interfaces. Moreover, around complex issues like climate change and ecological restoration interfaces are as multifaceted and dynamic as the issues they comprise. The objectives of this research project are fourfold. First, we want to increase our understanding of the constitution of a variety of science-policy interfaces within a complex system like the Wadden Sea. Secondly, we refine the current evaluation frameworks to assess the quality of science-policy interfaces. Third, we shed light upon what explains the quality of science-policy interfaces. Finally, we translate our scientific findings into practically applicable results to get an empirical test of the prescriptions resulting from our analysis. In this research project we answer the question: To what extent do the various interfaces between science and policy in the Wadden Sea contribute to effective and legitimate interaction between science and policy, and how can their functioning be improved? We study science-policy interfaces from two different angles. First we analyze the different science-policy interfaces related to the four phases of policy-making we distinguish. In addition we analyze the complex interfaces around multifaceted and urgent issues like climate change in which interfaces are better can be conceptualized as complex processes of mutual adjustment. In both projects we reconstruct the policy and science subsystem by analyzing the actors involved; their interaction patterns and the dynamic evolution of the primary processes within that system. We analyse the various interface components. These components are organizational, relational, contractual, and cultural. We subsequently evaluate the quality of specific compositions of science-policy interfaces in terms of its structure and its impacts. Its structure is evaluated by looking at: 1. the extent to which the interface guarantees enough professional autonomy (primacy of politics and scientific freedom) (distance); 2. the extent to which both domains are interconnected to exchange information and resources and to enable cooperation (connectedness); 3. the extent to which the interface overcomes internal fragmentation (e.g. disciplinary/administrative) and controversies within the sub systems of science and policy (inclusiveness). We evaluate the impacts of an interface by focussing upon: 4. coproduction: the extent to which both domains coproduce policy-relevant knowledge which surpasses institutional borderlines, is credible and authoritative for policy-makers and stakeholders, and scientific proven, reliable and valid; 5. coevolution: the extent to which frame reflection within and mutual learning between both domains is realized. Finally, we translate our empirical findings into concrete prescriptions to improve the science-policy interfaces within the Wadden Sea. We organize a learning environment in which practitioners and researchers cooperate in socially constructing insights and jointly develop action in improving the relationship between science and knowledge to create policy relevant and science robust information for assessment and decision-making.

The Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna (GBM) delta faces rapid, unplanned urbanization driven by rural-urban migration and informal governance. This increases vulnerability to hydro-climatic hazards and socio-ecological challenges, especially in peri-urban zones. Peri-urban livelihoods suffer due to multi-hazard exposure, unstable employment, inadequate infrastructure, limited access to services, and lack of just governance. Using Living Labs in a systems dynamics approach, FLASH addresses the broader scientific question of how to create sustainable, climate-resilient livelihood options for peri-urban populations in Bangladesh’s delta region. The interrelated outcomes offer sustainable and climate-resilient peri-urban livelihood options in the GBM delta, aligning with the Bangladesh Delta Plan 2100.

Facing the challenges of climate change adaptation, TRANS-ADAPT aims to analyse and evaluate the multiple use of flood alleviation schemes with respect to social transformation in communities exposed to flood hazards. The overall goals are (1) to identify indicators and parameters necessary for strategies to increase societal resilience, (2) to analyse the institutional settings needed for societal transformation, and (3) to assess the perspectives of changing divisions of responsibilities between public and private actors necessary to arrive at more resilient societies. Yet each risk mitigation measure is built on a narrative of exchanges and relations between people and therefore may condition the outputs. As such, governance is done by people interacting and defining risk mitigation measures as well as climate change adaptation are therefore simultaneously both outcomes of, and productive to, public and private responsibilities. Building off current knowledge this project will focus on different dimensions of adaptation and mitigation strategies based on social, economic and institutional incentives and settings, centring on the linkages between these different dimensions and complementing existing flood risk governance arrangements. The policy dimension of adaptation, predominantly decisions on the societal admissible level of vulnerability and risk, will be evaluated by a human-environment interaction approach using multiple methods and the assessment of social capacities of stakeholders across scales. As such, the challenges of adaptation to flood risk will be tackled by converting scientific frameworks into practical assessment and policy advice. In addressing the relationship between these dimensions of adaptation on different temporal and spatial scales, this project is both scientifically innovative and policy relevant, thereby supporting climate policy needs in Europe towards a concept of risk governance.