IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v70y2016icp147-154.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are forest researchers only scientists? Case studies on the roles of researchers in Japanese and Swedish forest policy processes

Author

Listed:
  • Nagasaka, Kenji
  • Böcher, Michael
  • Krott, Max

Abstract

The aim of this study is to clarify the roles of researchers in forest policy development processes. Comparative case studies between Japan and Sweden were conducted. The research–integration–utilisation (RIU) model on scientific knowledge transfer was employed as a framework. Based on the RIU model, ‘scientist’, ‘integrator’, and ‘policy entrepreneur’ were defined as three hypothesised roles of researchers, discussed in conjunction with Pielke's ‘honest broker’ model. It was found that researchers played important roles, both as scientists and integrators in Japan. In Sweden, researchers played only the role of scientist. However, no researchers working as policy entrepreneurs were found in either country. These results indicate that the RIU model could work as a basis for the comparison between countries and the clarification of the roles of researchers in forest policy processes. The case study analysis also specified three additional topics for further discussion: (1) different types of science-based policy advice; (2) the relationship between power allies and consensus building; and (3) the reason why the roles of researchers differ between Japan and Sweden.

Suggested Citation

  • Nagasaka, Kenji & Böcher, Michael & Krott, Max, 2016. "Are forest researchers only scientists? Case studies on the roles of researchers in Japanese and Swedish forest policy processes," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 147-154.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:70:y:2016:i:c:p:147-154
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2016.06.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138993411630123X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.06.006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Krott, Max, 2012. "Value and risks of the use of analytical theory in science for forest policy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 35-42.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Teder, Meelis & Kaimre, Paavo, 2018. "The participation of stakeholders in the policy processes and their satisfaction with results: A case of Estonian forestry policy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 54-62.
    2. Do, Thi Huong & Krott, Max & Böcher, Michael, 2020. "Multiple traps of scientific knowledge transfer: Comparative case studies based on the RIU model from Vietnam, Germany, Indonesia, Japan, and Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    3. Janina Heim & Max Krott & Michael Böcher, 2018. "Nomination and inscription of the “Ancient Beech Forests of Germany” as natural World Heritage: multi-level governance between science and politics," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 599-617, August.
    4. Koch, Susanne, 2018. "“Identifying enabling factors of science-policy interaction in a developing country context: A case study of South Africa's environment sector”," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 36-45.
    5. Vujcic, Maja & Tomicevic-Dubljevic, Jelena, 2018. "Urban forest benefits to the younger population: The case study of the city of Belgrade, Serbia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 54-62.
    6. Hidemichi Fujii & Masayuki Sato & Shunsuke Managi, 2017. "Decomposition Analysis of Forest Ecosystem Services Values," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-14, April.
    7. Salomaa, Anna & Paloniemi, Riikka & Hujala, Teppo & Rantala, Salla & Arponen, Anni & Niemelä, Jari, 2016. "The use of knowledge in evidence-informed voluntary conservation of Finnish forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 90-98.
    8. Zeigermann, Ulrike & Böcher, Michael, 2020. "Challenges for bridging the gap between knowledge and governance in sustainability policy – The case of OECD ‘Focal Points’ for Policy Coherence for Development," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Krott, Max & Bader, Axel & Schusser, Carsten & Devkota, Rosan & Maryudi, Ahmad & Giessen, Lukas & Aurenhammer, Helene, 2014. "Actor-centred power: The driving force in decentralised community based forest governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 34-42.
    2. Cooley, Savannah & Jenkins, Amber & Schaeffer, Blake & Bormann, Kat J. & Abdallah, Adel & Melton, Forrest & Granger, Stephanie & Graczyk, Indrani, 2022. "Paths to research-driven decision making in the realms of environment and water," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    3. Nagasaka, Kenji & Böcher, Michael & Krott, Max, 2017. "Reprint of 'Are forest researchers only scientists? Case studies on the roles of researchers in Japanese and Swedish forest policy processes'," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 210-218.
    4. Kleinschmit, Daniela & Böcher, Michael & Giessen, Lukas, 2016. "Forest Policy Analysis: Advancing the analytical approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 1-6.
    5. Stevanov, Mirjana & Böcher, Michael & Krott, Max & Krajter, Silvija & Vuletic, Dijana & Orlovic, Sasa, 2013. "The Research, Integration and Utilization (RIU) model as an analytical framework for the professionalization of departmental research organizations: Case studies of publicly funded forest research ins," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 20-28.
    6. Stevanov, Mirjana & Dobšinska, Zuzana & Surový, Peter, 2016. "Assessing survey-based research in forest science: Turning lemons into lemonade?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 105-117.
    7. Edwards, David M. & Meagher, Laura R., 2020. "A framework to evaluate the impacts of research on policy and practice: A forestry pilot study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    8. Do, Thi Huong & Krott, Max & Böcher, Michael, 2020. "Multiple traps of scientific knowledge transfer: Comparative case studies based on the RIU model from Vietnam, Germany, Indonesia, Japan, and Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    9. Kleinschmit, Daniela & Pülzl, Helga & Secco, Laura & Sergent, Arnaud & Wallin, Ida, 2018. "Orchestration in political processes: Involvement of experts, citizens, and participatory professionals in forest policy making," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 4-15.
    10. Sarker, Pradip Kumar & Rahman, Md Saifur & Giessen, Lukas, 2018. "Regional governance by the South Asia Cooperative Environment Program (SACEP)? Institutional design and customizable regime policy offering flexible political options," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 454-470.
    11. Hasanagas, Nikolaos D., 2016. "Managing information in forest policy networks: Distinguishing the influential actors from the “postmen”," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 73-80.
    12. Krott, Max & Giessen, Lukas, 2014. "Learning from practices — implications of the “practice based approach” for forest and environmental policy research," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 12-16.
    13. Aurenhammer, Peter K., 2017. "Forest land-use governance and change through Forest Owner Associations – Actors' roles and preferences in Bavaria," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(P1), pages 176-191.
    14. Aurenhammer, Peter K., 2016. "Network analysis and actor-centred approach — A critical review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 30-38.
    15. Böcher, Michael, 2016. "How does science-based policy advice matter in policy making? The RIU model as a framework for analyzing and explaining processes of scientific knowledge transfer," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 65-72.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:70:y:2016:i:c:p:147-154. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.