Ecological Indicators: Between the Two Fires of Science and Policy

Ecological Indicators 7 (2007) 215–228 This article is also available online at: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind

Ecological indicators: Between the two ﬁres of science and policy

Esther Turnhout *, Matthijs Hisschemo¨ller, Herman Eijsackers

Vrije Universiteit, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, Institute of Ecological Science, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Received 25 August 2005; received in revised form 21 December 2005; accepted 30 December 2005

Abstract

This article approaches the concept of ecological indicators from a social science perspective. By applying theoretical concepts from policy analysis and social studies of science about knowledge utilization, problem structuring and the boundaries between science and policy to the issue of ecological indicators, we aim to contribute to our understanding not only of the development but more importantly of the actual use of ecological indicators in policy processes and the importance of political context. Our interest is in those ecological indicators that attempt to measure the ecological quality of ecosystems and that can be or are specifically developed to be used as instruments to evaluate the effects of policies on nature. We claim that these indicators, although they are highly dependent on scientific knowledge, cannot be solely science-based, due to the complexity of ecosystems and the normative aspects involved in assessing ecosystem quality. As a result, we situate ecological indicators in a fuzzy area between science and policy and between the production and the use of scientific knowledge. We will argue that ecological indicators can be expected to be used or rejected strategically, dependent on policy context. Furthermore we will argue that ecological indicators cannot be evaluated with traditional scientific quality criteria alone. The article concludes with some lessons for future indicator development one of them being the inclusion of stakeholder perspectives. # 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Ecological indicator; Nature conservation policy; Boundary work; Knowledge utilization; Science policy interface

1. Introduction standing complex systems, like our society or the environment, requires simpliﬁcation. Essential to this The focus of the analysis presented is the concept understanding is the construction of a simple picture of ecological indicators. Indicators are a well known with a limited set of relevant factors: indicators. An phenomenon in our society. Managing and under- example of an economic indicator is the Dow Jones index: one number, which serves as an indicator for economic quality. * Corresponding author. Present address: Wageningen University, Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group, P.O. Box 342, 6700 Increasingly it is recognized that next to socio- AH Wageningen, The Netherlands. economic aspects, ecological and environmental E-mail address: [email protected] (E. Turnhout). aspects need to be included in decision making.

There is a large body of literature on indicators and problem structuring and the boundaries between how they can be used to balance socio-economic and science and policy to the concept of ecological ecological interests in decision making. Many indicators. Second, we use examples and experi- examples can be found in journals such as Ecosystem ences from the Netherlands, drawn from case studies Health, Ecological Economics and Ecological Indi- that have been investigated as part of a larger cators. For example, in the literature about sustain- research project (Turnhout, 2003), to illustrate our ability indicators or ecosystem health, discussions are argument. There are several reasons why we going on about how to include ecological as well as consider these Dutch examples to be very relevant socio-economic aspects in indicators (e.g. Rapport for the more general discussion about the use of et al., 1998). Furthermore there is a discussion going ecological indicators and the importance of the on about the monetarization of (functions of) nature political context. First of all, there are a lot of data (e.g. Costanza et al., 1997). Finally, and this is the available because the Netherlands have quite a long focus of our article, there is a discussion going on history in systematic collection of data on flora and about ecological indicators that aim to objectify the fauna. Second, from early on, policy has shown an (ecological) quality of nature. interest in using these data. Third, the Netherlands It is acknowledged that ecological indicators can be can be considered to be advanced in developing and used to balance socio-economic and ecological using ecological indicators for policy purposes aspects in decision making (EASAC, 2005) and, even (policy evaluation but also for environmental out- more so, that this use should be improved (Hyatt, looks). The publication of the report ‘Caring for 2001). However, as Robertson and Hull (2001) also Tomorrow’, by the RIVM (National Institute for point out, ‘‘Indicators [...] are too often defined only Public Health and the Environment) (Langeweg, by scientists’’. As a result, the answer to improving the 1989) and the role of the RIVM in the development use of indicators in management and policy processes process of the Global Environmental Outlooks (Ten is often sought in improving the indicators themselves. Brink, 1997, 2000) are noteworthy examples in this This means that discussions about indicators generally respect. focus on issues such as what parameters to include, In our article, we focus on a particular type of data requirements, or the ascertaining of cause and indicators which we will refer to as ecological effect relations (e.g. Aguilar, 1998; Pokorny and indicator. We use the following working definition Adams, 2003). (Turnhout, 2003): an ecological indicator stands for We find that discussions about indicators in general a framework of parameters that indicates the current neglect the importance of the political context that the and/or desired ecological or nature quality of a indicators are used in. The quality of the indicator certain area. This framework can be quantitative or alone does not determine the actual use of indicators in qualitative and it can be aggregated (for example into policy and management. Sheil et al. (2004) make a one index) or not. Furthermore, the parameters are comparable point about indicators and criteria in the characteristics of the ecosystem itself and are at least tropics: ‘‘few of the major failings [...] should be partly biotic (species, presence, richness composi- blamed on lack of knowledge’’. It is our view that, in tion,populations,etc.).Furthermore,theecological order to understand development and use of indicators, indicators we are interested in are used or are it is crucial to have insight in the specific character- specificallydevelopedtobeusedinnaturecon- istics and dynamics of the management and policy servation policy. In Section 2 we elaborate on this processes in which they are embedded. further. The aim of this article is to contribute to our understanding of not only development of ecological indicators but, more importantly, their actual use in 2. The concept of ecological indicators policy processes and the importance of political context. We do this first of all by applying With ecological indication it is often considered theoretical concepts from policy analysis and social possible with a limited set of measurable parameters to studies of science about knowledge utilization, make an assessment of an entity that is not directly E. Turnhout et al. / Ecological Indicators 7 (2007) 215–228 217 measurable, for example nature quality (Best and example the survival rate of young seals) merely one Haeck, 1984). In those cases, ecological indication is of the possible indicators for the health of the seal often based on the relationship between an environ- population in the Wadden Sea. Nutrient availability is mental factor and a biological parameter and uses (next to for example species richness) merely one of existing ecological knowledge on cause and effect the possible indicators for the ecological quality of a relationships and mechanisms in ecosystems. In certain nature area. Different parameters are aggre- science, the concept of bio- or ecological indication gated in the ecological indicator, which presents has long historical roots. Kolkwitz and Marsson information on what is indicated. This is visualized in (1902) were among the firsts to describe aquatic Fig. 1. systems in terms of indicator species. For terrestrial Importantly, no agreed upon terminology exists for systems, Ellenberg (1974) made an important con- ecological indicators. Usually, the term parameter is tribution by systematically linking abiotic soil factors reserved for the lower levels of abstraction, such as a with the vegetation present. species, or concentrations. The term criterion is often Many different levels exist for ecological indica- reserved for higher levels such as biodiversity, tors, making it a complex and potentially confusing naturalness, etc. Highest in this ranking is the concept concept. It is important to note that ‘indicator’ is a of quality. The term ecological indicator is used in the relative and nested concept. This means that a criterion entire spectrum between data and quality. As we stated such as diversity, which can be assessed through an before in our definition of ecological indicators, the ecological indicator such as species richness, is in its parameters are characteristics of the ecosystem itself turn an ecological indicator for ecological quality. It and they are at least partly biotic. This can be depends on what your starting point is and what you understood in light of our interest in the use of want to know. An example: PCB concentration in fat- ecological indicators in policy. Effect-oriented policy tissue of seals in the Wadden Sea is an indicator for the focuses on the quality of the ecosystem itself and health of the seal population while the health of the reasons back in order to decide what measures to take. seal population (in its turn) is one of the indicators for Within these parameters, different abstraction levels the ecological quality of the Wadden Sea. Or, for the can be distinguished: from nutrients to species to assessment of nutrient availability in the soil of a populations, biodiversity and finally nature or ecolo- certain nature area, the presence of stinging nettle can gical quality. The nested and relative character of be used as an indicator. However, when an assessment ecological indicators becomes clear again as a is to be made of the ecological quality of that nature parameter at a certain level can be an indicator for area, nutrient availability is only one of the possible the next level. indicators. The construction of ecological indicators implies a process of selection, integration and aggregation. A 3. Who wants them and why? number of parameters that are considered relevant are selected from a broader range of available and The emerging need for ecological indicators can potentially relevant data of the system under study: be explained by a shift from source-oriented to PCB concentration in fat-tissue of seals is (next to for effect-oriented policy that can be recognized in

Fig. 1. Ecological indicators cover the spectrum between data and quality. 218 E. Turnhout et al. / Ecological Indicators 7 (2007) 215–228 environmental and nature conservation policy since considered necessary for policy to be able to evaluate the 1980’s. This trend has been described by Arler current effect-oriented nature conservation policy. (2000) for Denmark, by Winsemius (1986) for the Netherlands and by Hajer (1995) (as one of the characteristics of the process he calls ecological 4. What is the problem with ecological modernization) for the Netherlands and the UK. Hajer indicators? (1996) states that ‘‘pollution as such was not the problem; the real issue was to guarantee a certain Ecological indicators are considered necessary to environmental quality’’. As a consequence, science evaluate effect-oriented nature and environmental and policy got increasingly entangled: scientific policy. The development of ecological indicators is involvement is required to make environmental issues highly dependent on scientific knowledge about calculable and ‘‘to determine ‘critical loads’ of how ecosystems, such as cause and effect relationships, much pollution nature can take’’ (Hajer, 1996). etc., and the scientific community is often involved in Traditionally, source-oriented policy was focused on the development of ecological indicators. For science, the reductions of emissions and uses emission however, this is not an easy task. This has to do with standards. An advantage is that emissions are relatively the fact that an ecological indicator is a simplification easy to measure and policy evaluation is straightfor- of nature, which is perceived to be a system ward. However, it is not always easy to find the ‘real’ characterized by high structural complexity, consider- sources, especially in the case of diffuse sources such as able spatial heterogeneity and temporal fluctuations. agriculture. The acid rain issue serves as an example of To grasp this complexity of ecosystems with a limited an environmental problem where diffuse sources turned set of parameters is therefore considered to be out to be very important (Tickle, 2001; Hisschemo¨ller scientifically highly uncertain because ‘‘[...] nature et al., 2001a,b,c). Another disadvantage of working is not only more complex than we think. It is also more with emission reductions is that, in cases with multiple complex than we can think’’ (Egler, 1970). A second sources, the effect of the emissions on nature and issue which is difficult for science to deal with is that environmental quality remains unclear. nature and, even more so, nature quality are not In the case of effect-oriented policy, the quality of objective characteristics. They are essentially value- the (eco)system is the starting point for the elaboration laden. With indicators a ‘picture’ is constructed of of policy and measures. An advantage of this approach systems. This ‘picture’ contains only those factors that is that policy focuses on what is actually valued. A are considered relevant. Indicators are therefore an disadvantage is that the link between policy measures expression of values (Bossel, 1997). Of course, as is and ecosystem quality is not straightforward or increasingly recognized, this can be argued for any predictable. To be able to evaluate the current type of scientific activity. However, the ideal of value effect-oriented policy, ecological quality objectives free science is still very dominant, for example when are necessary (Winsemius, 1986). Ecological quality you look at what is expected of science and at how objectives serve as a framework for the assessment of divisions of labor between science and policy are the quality of the ecosystem. As a result of that, they organized. Science is supposed to produce facts and also serve as a framework for the evaluation of policy policy then makes value-laden decisions. In this performance. The important question then is: how can context, the assertion that indicators are not value free ecological quality be assessed and measured? The is still relevant. answer is sought in the development and identification As experts can be expected to have different ideas of relevant ecological indicators. These indicators are on what nature is and/or should be, on how to deal with intended to objectify the concept of quality and complexity and uncertainties and on what values can connect this quality with policy measures. Further- be legitimately included and what not, ecological more, ecological indicators are considered more indicators are often heavily debated within the efficient than ‘just measuring everything’. scientific community. Especially the choice between In short, to answer the question that was raised in abiotic and biotic parameters has proven to be the title of this section: ecological indicators are controversial (Turnhout, 2003). Biotic parameters E. Turnhout et al. / Ecological Indicators 7 (2007) 215–228 219 are often seen as the most valued components of concentrations of toxicants were used as parameters. ecosystems, but they are controversial because A reference was selected and quantified in that especially in dynamic ecosystems high natural quantitative values of the parameters at the reference fluctuations can be expected. On the other hand, state were determined. The state of the ecosystem in a abiotic parameters are perhaps less problematic, but certain year, at which time the ecosystem was assumed they indicate only conditions for ecological quality. to be in a sustainable state, was taken as a reference. Furthermore, especially among ecologists, there For the Sea Amoeba, the situation in 1930, that seems to be a fundamental and moral resistance against represented a natural, undisturbed and sustainable the entire concept of ecological indicators and situation, served as the reference. The current values ecological quality assessments. The following quote of the parameters were monitored. The reference serves as an illustration of that resistance: ‘‘[Ecological values were set at 100% and put on a circle. The indicators] give the impression that we know all about current values were plotted in a radar plot as a chemical and biological processes and their interaction. percentage of the reference value. In this way, the However, that is not (and probably will never be) the quality of an entire ecosystem could be overviewed in case and a definition of these values just shows how one picture. Fig. 2 shows a picture of the Sea Amoeba. arrogant the human attitude is towards nature’’ (Voss The importance attributed to the ecological refer- and Borchardt, 1992). Although this quote is perhaps ence can be deduced from the following phrase written overly dramatic, it does point to the general feeling that by the developers of the Amoeba-approach: ‘‘From an nature is supposed to be more than just a set of species ecological perspective, the sea is 100% fit if the and that its intrinsic value is to be respected. Toillustrate Amoeba diagram is round’’(Wulffraat et al., 1991). The these points, we will present an analysis of the Amoeba- developers were optimistic about the possibilities of the approach, a Dutch ecological indicator. Amoeba-approach and speculated about the develop- The Amoeba-approach (Ten Brink et al., 1991) was ment of Amoeba’s for different ecosystems and regions developed in the Netherlands in 1989 to serve as an (Wulffraat et al., 1991). Furthermore, the Amoeba- evaluating framework for the ecological quality of approach was proposed in the United Nations water systems (Amoeba is a Dutch acronym for Environmental Program (UNEP) framework for the ‘general method for ecosystem assessment’). One of development of the Global Environmental Outlooks the developers of the Amoeba-approach described the (Ten Brink, 2000). At the moment, the Amoeba is not need for its development as follows: ‘‘If policy makers used as prominently, as can be illustrated from the fact want to make rational choices concerning sustainable that it does not appear in the fourth main national development, they have to define this concept and document on water policy (V&W, 1998). Outside the formulate verifiable ecological objectives and, more- department of V&W, the Amoeba-approach met with over, they will need to possess adequate economic and criticisms, mainly from ecologists (Van der Windt, ecological information. The need for verifiable 1995). Their (scientific) criticism focused, among ecological objectives and adequate ecological infor- others, on the choice of the ecological reference and the mation gave rise to the Amoeba-approach’’ (Ten fixed quantitative reference values, the selection and Brink, 1991). The Dutch minister of Transport and limited number of parameters and the use of biotic Water Management was enthusiastic about the parameters on the impact level (Tolkamp and Van Rooy, Amoeba-approach and the Sea Amoeba was published 1990). These are exactly the kinds of criticisms that the Netherlands third main national document on were identified above as typical for the discussions water policy (V&W, 1990). about ecological indicators. The Amoeba-approach consisted of a framework of From this section we conclude that scientific parameters that together enabled the assessment of arguments about uncertainties and complexity of ecological quality of a water ecosystem. An important ecosystems and arguments about what nature is and/or aspect of the Amoeba-approach was its visual should be are used to criticize ecological indicators. presentation. Many parameters of the Amoeba- But is that really all there is to it? Our understanding of approach were species presence and/or population development, use and criticisms of ecological indi- numbers but also areas of valued habitats or cators can be enriched by paying explicit attention the 220 E. Turnhout et al. / Ecological Indicators 7 (2007) 215–228

assertion that both science and policy have their specific domains. Both the policy and science domains have been characterized by a specific set of standards, procedures and (informal) rules of the game. It has been assumed that scientists are primarily interested in ‘seeking the truth’, while policy makers are looking for the feasible in order to keep power. The main feature of the scientific process is quality assessment through peer review, while the political process can be understood as bargaining or voting. Whereas scientists are supposed to be critical, policy bureaucrats are supposed to be conservative and risk avoiding. Hence, it can be expected that where policy and science meet, as in the development and use of ecological indicators, problems may occur. On the one hand, as in any case where different cultures meet, there is the likelihood of communication failures. On the other hand, there is the risk of colonization of one domain by the other: Science may take over policy, which leads to technocracy, or policy takes over science, which has been referred to as the merger of knowledge with power (Ravetz, 1990). It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss the several perspectives in detail (see for an overview Hisschemo¨ller et al., 2001a,b,c). What is important here is that the different perspectives share the observation that at least some aspects characteristic for one domain penetrate into the other. So, rules of the game that are usually associated with politics have been found to exist in the scientific community and vice versa, which is in itself an illustration of the flexibility of the boundaries of science (Rip, 1997; Guston, 2001). How can the relation between science and policy be Fig. 2. The Sea Amoeba as it appeared in the Netherlands third main characterized in the case of ecological indicators? A National Water Policy Document (V&W, 1990). possible perception of the relation between science and policy involves the notion of knowledge transfer. political context ecological indicators are used in. The Under this perception, ecological indicators arrange following sections will introduce some important the transfer of scientific knowledge by selecting, concepts and theories from social studies of science integrating and translating scientific knowledge into and policy science, applied to the concept of usable knowledge for policy. The notion of knowledge ecological indicators, that will enable us to do this. transfer implies a ‘chain of knowledge’ from production, through translation and transfer, to the use of knowledge and assumes separated domains of 5. Ecological indicators as a joint science policy science, which deals with the production of knowl- project edge, and policy, which performs as the main knowledge user. Fig. 4 (adapted from Souren et al., Many social theories on the production, dissemina- 1999; Turnhout, 2003) conceptualizes the science tion and use of knowledge have started with the policy interface, where ecological indicators are E. Turnhout et al. / Ecological Indicators 7 (2007) 215–228 221

Fig. 3. Conceptualization of the science policy interface as a fuzzy boundary area where science and policy overlap. At this interface scientific knowledge is translated into usable knowledge and policy questions are translated into research questions. located. At this interface, knowledge is translated domains. Actors frequently use the words ‘science’ into usable knowledge (the ecological indicators). and ‘policy’ to define their activities, discern them Butitisnotjustaonewaystreet. At this interface from other activities and emphasize the distinct also policy questions are translated into research responsibilities of each domain. The boundaries of questions. science are anything but neutral: they imply the border What actually happens at the science policy between facts and values and between the rational and interface in the case of ecological indicators? Is it the emotional. Both within science and policy, these the translation and transfer then, which takes place in borders are often normatively valued. While facts are this boundary area? The science policy interface is allowed, values are not and while rational is good, conceptualized in Fig. 3 not as a clear and sharp emotional is bad. Following Gieryn (1995), this article boundary line, but as a, not so clear, boundary area, holds that: ‘‘no demarcation principles work uni- where science and policy overlap. Importantly, the versally and that the separation of science from other boundaries that indicate where the overlap ends are not knowledge-producing activities is instead a contex- assumed to be clear either. tually contingent and interests-driven pragmatic This means that the idea of a ‘chain of knowledge’ accomplishment drawing selectively on inconsistent needs to be reconsidered. The overlap between science and ambiguous attributes’’. The boundaries of science and policy in the boundary area means that it is not are socially constructed: they are the contingent, only knowledge translation and transfer that takes context-dependent and temporary outcomes of pro- place here, but knowledge production and use as well. cesses of boundary work. Actors draw boundaries In the case of ecological indicators, science and policy between science and policy: between themselves and enter in some kind of joint knowledge production. others. Scientists, for example, can post ‘keep out Scientific knowledge is used in ecological indicators signs’ to prevent non-scientists from interfering or but so is political knowledge. Ecological indicators are challenging their scientific ‘truth claims’ (Jasanoff, shaped by political preferences and considerations to 1990). This boundary work is strategically important. protect certain species, certain types of nature, etc. The authority of science crucially depends on Development and use of indicators go hand in hand convincing these others that ‘‘unlike politics, science and are hard to distinguish empirically. Clearly, is ‘disinterested’ and ‘objective’ and unlike religion it ecological indicators cannot be unproblematically is ‘sceptical’ (Jasanoff, 1987)’’. labeled as scientific. Labeling it as solely political, on What can be said about ecological indicators in the the other hand, does not acknowledge the scientific context of boundary work? Ecological indicators are input that is required. positioned at the science policy interface. Both science The concept of boundary work (Gieryn, 1983)is and policy are involved in the development and use of important in this respect. It is used here to highlight the ecological indicators. Boundary work can therefore be processes and negotiations that take place at the expected to take place in order to demarcate between science policy interface and the strategies of scientists scientific and political responsibilities in the devel- and policy makers to demarcate their respective opment and use of ecological indicators. 222 E. Turnhout et al. / Ecological Indicators 7 (2007) 215–228

At the science policy interface, space emerges for 6. Using ecological indicators in policy specific activities. Through processes of boundary workandincooperationbetweenscienceandpolicy, The increased demand for ecological indicators ecological indicators are produced at the science does not imply that ecological indicators are useful policy interface. To be effective, ecological indica- tools for policymaking and that they are heavily used. tors should be able to connect the two domains and Ecological indicators have been included in national travel back and forth between them. The concept of policy documents, such as the Amoeba (V&W, 1990) boundary objects (Star and Griesemer, 1989)is and in conservation programs, such as the Environ- relevant here. Star and Griesemer (1989) have mental Benefits Index (EBI) (Ribaudo et al., 2001). described the concept of boundary objects as ‘‘an However, the use of ecological indicators in policy is analytic concept of those scientific objects which not self-evident. This section will address the both inhabit several intersecting social worlds [...] dynamics involved in the use of ecological indicators and satisfy the informational requirements of each of and other types of (scientific) knowledge in policy. them [...]. They have different meanings in different Collingridge and Reeve (1986) have described the social worlds but their structure is common enough role of science in policy as paradoxical because it is to more than one world to make them recognizable, a intended to close the debate, but instead only enhances means of translation. The creation and management it: ‘‘The aim was to limit political dispute by appeal to of boundary objects is a key process in developing objective, scientifically established facts which no one and maintaining coherence across intersecting social could deny without losing all credibility as a rational worlds’’. Boundary objects facilitate discussion, agent, but instead the political debate has been widened negotiation and decision-making. Ecological indi- by generating a technical argument about the data and cators are the result of science policy boundary its interpretation. As more scientific research is done in work. Effective ecological indicators are boundary the hope of limiting the arguments, the reverse in fact objects. occurs since there are an increasing number of technical So far, it can be concluded that ecological issues under dispute’’. They perceive the persistent indicators are the result of boundary work and co- attractiveness of science for policy to be the result of a production of science and policy actors and that myth of science as rational. They continue by stating effective ecological indicators play a role as boundary that: ‘‘the reality could not be further from this myth. objects that connect the domains of science and policy. [...] relevance to policy, by itself, is sufficient to From the idea that boundaries between policy and completely destroy the delicate mechanisms by which science are flexible and negotiated and renegotiated it scientists normally ensure that their work leads to follows that the use and development of ecological agreement’’ (Collingridge and Reeve, 1986). indicators can be evaluated on a case-by-case basis Besides rational science, this particular myth only. This is what we have actually observed in a case implies rational policy and rational actors that make study on the setting of targets for nature quality for the decisions based on facts and only after all relevant Veluwe, an important Dutch nature area. In this case facts have been collected and considered (Rich, 1991). study, target setting was enabled by negotiating what According to Collingridge and Reeve (1986) decon- knowledge counts as expertise and who is to be struction of the myth will not only lead to a more involved in the policy process, and by informally realistic view of science but also a more realistic adjusting the ecological indicator involved (Turnhout, conception of the policy process. The concept of 2003). Apparently, the role this ecological indicator as bounded rationality, which acknowledges the impos- a boundary object was facilitated by its flexibility sibility to use all information available to an equal which allowed its informal adjustment. In a similar extent due to the capacity of the human mind, vein, Bowker and Star (2000) argue for the importance provided such a more realistic view. Observations of of ambiguity in classification systems. As we have how rationality is bounded can be found in many seen before, the Amoeba-approach was considered to studies. Rich (1991) has described how actors prefer be too specific and concrete and was apparently seen information from their own network to external to lack ambiguity and negotiation space. information. Bacon (in Novum Organum, 1620) has E. Turnhout et al. / Ecological Indicators 7 (2007) 215–228 223 typified such bounded rationality as one of the idols of put forward different specific concepts of science in the mind: ‘‘for what someone wishes were true, he is policy that would enable such effective use. These also much more ready to believe’’ (Zagorin, 1998). concepts emphasize the distinction between science Also Lindblom and Cohen (1979) have stated that for science (also labeled as basic science or curiosity information will only be perceived as authoritative if it driven science) and science in policy (also labeled as is supported by sources of knowledge that are already applied science or demand driven science). Weinberg present in the actor’s mind. According to Polanyi (1972), concerned with the relation between science, (1958), these other sources of knowledge do not have technology and society, has coined the term ‘trans- to be tangible or written down in a report but can also science’ to indicate those questions that ‘‘cannot be be tacit (experience, values morals, etc.). According to answered by science [...] though they are, epistemo- Polanyi (1958), this tacit knowledge is, though not logically speaking, questions of fact and can be stated easy to articulate or consciously acquired, essential in in the language of science’’. Jasanoff (1990) has used the process of learning and doing science. the concept of regulatory science in her study on Collingridge and Reeve (1986) have introduced scientific advisers in United States policy and had two models to characterize the role of scientific concluded her analysis with a plea for the construction knowledge in policy. In the overcritical model, actors and a belief in the possibility of ‘serviceable truths’, will try to deconstruct, discredit and reject scientific which satisfy tests of scientific acceptability and knowledge that does not fit with already existing support reasoned decision making. Funtowicz and opinions, fixed interests or established consensus. This Ravetz (1993) have introduced the notion of post- will lead to endless technical debates where widely normal science, which is assumed able to deal with divergent interpretations may be maintained and complex problems where normal science, in the technical issues are reopened for investigation ‘Kuhnian’ (Kuhn, 1962) sense, falls short. Gibbons (Collingridge and Reeve, 1986). In the under-critical et al. (1994) have posed the concept of mode 2 science model, actors will accept scientific knowledge that fits (as opposed to mode 1 science), with an inter- or even with opinions and interests. transdisciplinary character that operates demand These dynamics may be expected to be particularly driven. Haas (1989) has stated that the establishment clear in the case of ecological indicators because in of what he calls epistemic communities is an essential green issues such as nature conservation and the prerequisite for the effective use of science and policy. environment, scientific expertise is at the forefront of These authors suggest that those specific kinds of policy development and controversies (Yearley, 1995). science or science-based knowledge can be effective Yearley (1995) furthermore asserted that: ‘‘In disputes in policy. This is relevant for ecological indicators as over environmental safety, huge commercial and theycanbeconsideredtoconstitute serviceable truth political motivations may also be involved, creating constructed in epistemic communities or as the further incentives for discrediting the opposing side’s products of trans-, regulatory, post-normal or mode 2 claims to scientific knowledge’’ and that in such science. So far, this section has introduced some disputes, the different parties ‘‘had to determine when general notions regarding the use of scientific they are doing science (which is permitted) and when knowledge and ecological indicators in policy, they are doing policy (which is not)’’. thereby largely overlooking any complexities within If Collingridge and Reeve (1986) are right, the the policy process. Section 7 will make clear that conclusion follows that science is at best simply different types of policy problems with different irrelevant to policy (Jasanoff, 1990). Several authors structures and different roles of science and have criticized Collingridge and Reeve’s (1986) ecological indicators can be distinguished. skepticism. Guston (2001) for example has argued that the interactions between science and policy are much more subtle than what the over- and under- 7. A typology of policy problems critical models allow. Different authors have tried to identify when, why Policy problems can be typified according to their and how science can be effective in policy and have structure (Dunn, 1994; Hisschemo¨ller and Hoppe, 224 E. Turnhout et al. / Ecological Indicators 7 (2007) 215–228

Table 1 Science policy typology Problem type Well structured Unstructured Badly structured Moderately structured Policy process Rule Learning Compromise Negotiation Role of scientist Problem solver Problem signaling Accommodation Advocacy Use of knowledge Data Ideas Concepts Arguments Four different types of policy problems are distinguished and linked to different types of policy processes, different roles of science and different types of knowledge use.

1996, 2001). Table 1 integrates insights on different then become an interactive and participatory process, problem types and their implications for the devel- which includes scientists and stakeholders with opment and utilization of scientific knowledge. The different perspectives on the problem. upper and second rows build on Hisschemo¨ller and Like unstructured problems, in the case of badly Hoppe (1996, 2001), in which four types of policy structured problems there is no consensus on the problems are linked to different types of policy policy goals. In badly structured problems, decision processes. The middle row builds on Hisschemo¨ller makers will try to seek compromise and pacify et al. (2001a,b,c), in which it is specified how different potential conflict. They can do this either by producing policy processes shape and limit the possibilities of vague or symbolic policy that everyone agrees on (for scientists to intervene in policy-making. The bottom example the creation of so-called win–win situations), row draws on Rich (1997), in which three types of or by depoliticizing the problem and emphasizing its knowledge use are distinguished: instrumental, stra- technical complexity. In those cases science can tegic and conceptual and on Weiss (1991), in which accommodate the policy process and perform as a sort the use of science is referred to as data, argument or of mediator. Policy development can be characterized ideas. by compromise using shared concepts rather than A well structured problem is characterized by specific measures and interventions. Sustainable consensus on the goals as well as on the means and development is a famous example of a concept, methods for reaching the goals. Scientific experts play which may bring people around the table while a dominant role in well structured problems and take keeping their opposing views. It is hard not to agree on the role of problem solver. Scientific knowledge with a symbolic policy goal: everybody wants takes the shape of data. Policy is highly expert driven sustainability and everybody values a healthy envir- and policy makers and scientists will attempt to onment and a high nature quality. It is, however, not carefully separate the formal policy decisions from the clear what is meant by healthy, high quality or realm of science input. As a general rule it is sustainable. Which activities are damaging or how hypothesized that policy makers tend to have bias in damage is defined remain areas of dispute. favor of well structured problems, as these problems In the case of moderately structured problems, a can be addressed by one or a few actors and suppose certain degree of consensus exists on the policy goals clear distributions of tasks and competences. (which may have been the product of policy In the case of unstructured problems no consensus development in a badly structured problem) but not exists on either goals or solutions. There is great on how to reach those goals. The actors involved have scientific uncertainty, not only with respect to research different interests and different solutions for the findings but also with respect to the relevance of problem may have far going implications for the different disciplines. Science can play a role as distribution of costs and benefits. As opposed to the problem signaler. In doing that scientific knowledge badly structured problem, science is unlikely to serve takes the shape of ideas. It may be recognized that as an overarching policy framework or a shared problem structuring in unstructured problems should concept, once interest based conflict is at stake. involve policy learning by identifying, confronting, Willingly or unwillingly, science becomes part of the selecting and wherever possible, integrating divergent debate, as the different sides tend to strengthen their viewpoints and knowledge. Policy development can position by the use of scientific arguments. Use of E. Turnhout et al. / Ecological Indicators 7 (2007) 215–228 225 knowledge is strategic in that it will be used or are negotiated and constructed at the science policy rejected depending on the interests at stake. Parties interface of specific problems and settings. Their will exploit and even encourage competing scientific success is therefore not ever lasting but temporary and findings. context specific. We have also seen that a certain Depending on the type of problem at hand, science amount of vagueness or ambiguity may contribute to takes on a different role and knowledge takes a the success of an ecological indicator in a specific different shape. The theory that links problem context, because that leaves room for negotiation and structure to science has important implications for reformulation. More specific and quantitative ecolo- the development and use of ecological indicators. It gical indicators will be less successful because they do shows that there is not one way of dealing with the not have such negotiation space. persistent tension between science and policy criteria How can we enhance the development of success- for these indicators. Ecological indicators can be ful ecological indicators? Issues of quality control will expected to be influential in well structured policy have to play a role. Traditional scientific quality problems. Under certain conditions they may serve as criteria, which are used in the criteria for funding or accommodating overarching shared frameworks in publishing science, are often based on peer review. badly structured problems. They are likely to increase Traditional peer review, however, is mono-disciplin- political conflict in moderately structured problems. ary and does not include user aspects or societal Finally, they may be invoked to increase policy relevance. It is therefore not necessarily suitable for learning in unstructured problems. Case studies about the evaluation of ecological indicators. Furthermore, the Amoeba-approach and about the Veluwe make even such traditional peer review is far from flawless: clear that indeed, the use of science as well as ‘‘recurrent cases of plagiarism, fraud and misconduct ecological indicators in policy follow such problem have demonstrated that peer review is by no means a specific patterns (Turnhout, 2003). failsafe method of assuring the quality and integrity of scientific claims’’ (Jasanoff, 1990). Apparently, scientific validity is not that easy to assess and 8. How to proceed? control. Scientific quality criteria and peer review seem to work best in cases where agreement on In the previous sections it is stated that the theories and methods already exists. Jasanoff (1990) development of ecological indicators is an activity furthermore argues that in the case of regulatory at the science policy interface. Indicator development science [as is the science of indicator development] the is characterized as demand-driven, interdisciplinary, benefits of traditional mono-disciplinary peer review uncertain and value-laden. Furthermore, it is argued are limited because: ‘‘Standards of validity in science that the use of ecological indicators in policy [...] may hold up under friendly scrutiny, but are apt to processes depends on the type of policy problem at disintegrate under controversy or critical review’’. hand and that in general, science and policy have Such controversy and criticism is likely to occur with different and often contradicting criteria for ecological respect to ecological indicators and nature and indicators. Finally the use of ecological indicators in environmental policy processes. It is therefore policy is contingent and context specific as it follows important to look for different systems of quality problem specific patterns. control that include interdisciplinary, relevance and Following from that, we can safely conclude that user aspects. one overall ideal ecological indicator does not exist. For an effective development and use of ecological An overall national ecological indicator may be useful indicators, quality as well as acceptance is very and informative if the objective is to get a general idea important and the inclusion of stakeholder perspec- of the direction of a certain development. However, tives can be an important contribution to both. In the such general indicators are less suitable if this post-normal science literature, explicit attention is direction of development is to be influenced or if paid to the issue of quality control and stakeholder more specific information is needed. Ecological participation. Funtowicz and Ravetz (1996) propose a indicators are more likely to be successful if they system of extended peer review. They stand for a 226 E. Turnhout et al. / Ecological Indicators 7 (2007) 215–228 democratization of knowledge by including non- Bossel, H., 1997. Deriving indicators of sustainable development. scientists and lay-people in the review process. The Environ. Model. Assess. 1, 193–218. Bowker, G.C., Star, S.L., 2000. Sorting Things Out, Classification and traditional notion of experts they state is outdated Its Consequences. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, London, UK. because: ‘‘In the face of such uncertainties, they too Collingridge, D., Reeve, C., 1986. Science Speaks to Power, the are amateurs’’ (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1992). Role of Experts in Policy Making. Frances Pinter Publishers, Stakeholder involvement should start in the early London. phases of the process at the level of problem Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neil, R.V., Paruelo, J., formulation. In the literature on climate change, Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., Van den Belt, M., 1997. The value of the under the terminology of participatory integrated world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387 assessment, a lot of attention is being paid to such (May), 253–260. participatory processes, how to organize them and Dunn, W.N., 1994. Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction. Pre- when to use them (Parson, 1997; Hisschemo¨ller ntice Hall Inc. EASAC, 2005. A User’s Guide to Biodiversity Indicators. European et al., 2001a,b,c). Such participatory approaches Academies Science Advisory Council. have become quite common in the literature on Egler, F.E., 1970. The Way of Science, A Philosophy of Ecology for ecological indicators (e.g. Roe, 2000; Shear et al., the Layman. Hafner Publishing Company, NY. 2003; Munõz-Erickson et al., 2004). In addition, we Ellenberg, H., 1974. Zeigerwerte der Gefa¨ßpflanzen Mitteleuropas. conclude from our findings that it is important that Scr. Geobot. 9, 1–97. Funtowicz, S.O., Ravetz, J.R., 1992. Three types of risk assessment these processes of indicator development and and the emergence of post-normal science. In: Krimsky, S., stakeholder participation are, as much as possible, Golding, D. (Eds.), Social Theories of Risk. Greenwood, West- sensitive to the possible context(s) in which the port, CT. indicators are/will be used. Funtowicz, S.O., Ravetz, J.R., 1993. Science for the post normal age. We realize that acceptance, participatory metho- Futures (September), 739–755. Funtowicz, S.O., Ravetz, J.R., 1996. Risk management, post-normal dology, and context sensitivity are vague and science and extended peer communities. In: Hood, C.J., Jones, conceptual notions and hardly the concrete recom- D.K.C. (Eds.), Accident and Design, Contemporary Debates in mendations so often asked for. However, we argue that Risk Management. UCLL Press. such concrete recommendations, as for example an Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., extensive list of do’s and don’ts of future indicator Trow, M., 1994. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. development, are not compatible with the context Sage Publications, London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi. specificity of ecological indicators. Gieryn, T.F., 1983. Boundary work and the demarcation of science from non-science, strains and interests in professional interests of scientists. Am. Sociol. Rev. 48, 781–795. Acknowledgements Gieryn, T.F., 1995. Boundaries of science. In: Jasanoff, S., Markle, G.E., Petersen, J.C., Pinch, T. (Eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, Lon- The authors thank the National Institute for Public don, New Delhi. Health and the Environment (RIVM) for supporting Guston, D.H., 2001. Constructing ‘serviceable truths’: an explora- this research and two anonymous reviewers for their tion of four strategies. In: Hisschemo¨ller, M., Hoppe, R., Dunn, comments and suggestions. W.N., Ravetz, J.R. (Eds.), Knowledge, Power and Participation in Environmental Policy Analysis and Risk Assessment. Trans- action Publishers, New Brunswick. Haas, P.M., 1989. Do regimes matter? Epistemic communities and References Mediterranean pollution control. Int. Organ. 43 (3), 377–403. Hajer, M.A., 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse, Eco- Aguilar, B.J., 1998. Applications of ecosystem health for the logical Modernization and the Policy Process. Oxford University sustainability of managed systems in Costa Rica. Ecosyst. Press, Oxford. Health 5 (1), 36–48. Hajer, M.A., 1996. Ecological modernisation as cultural politics. In: Arler, F., 2000. Aspects of landscape or nature quality. Landsc. Ecol. Lash, S., Szerszynski, B., Wynne, B. (Eds.), Risk, Environment 15, 291–302. & Modernity, Towards A New Ecology. Sage Publications, Best, E.P.H., Haeck, J. (Eds.), 1984. Ecologische Indicatoren Voor London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi. de Kwaliteitsbeoordeling Van Lucht, Water, Bodem en Ecosys- Hisschemo¨ller, M., Hoppe, R., 1996. Coping with intractable con- temen. Oecologische Kring, Wageningen. troversies, the case for problem structuring in policy design and E. Turnhout et al. / Ecological Indicators 7 (2007) 215–228 227

analysis. Knowl. Policy Int. J. Knowl. Transfer Utilization 8 (4), Ravetz, J., 1990. The Merger of Knowledge with Power, Essays in 40–60. Critical Science. Mansell Publishing Limited, London. Hisschemo¨ller, M., Hoppe, R., 2001. Coping with intractable con- Ribaudo, M.O., Hoag, D.L., Smith, M.E., Heimlich, R., 2001. troversies, the case for problem structuring in policy design and Environmental indices and the politics of the Conservation analysis. In: Hisschemo¨ller, M., Hoppe, R., Dunn, W.N., Ra- Reserve Program. Ecol. Indicators 1, 11–20. vetz, J.R. (Eds.), Knowledge, Power and Participation in Envir- Rich, R.F., 1991. Knowledge creation, diffusion and utilization, onmental Policy Analysis and Risk Assessment. Transaction perspectives of the founding editor of Knowledge. Knowl. Creat. Publishers, New Brunswick. Diffusion Utilization 12, 319–337. Hisschemo¨ller, M., Hoppe, R., Dunn, W.N., Ravetz, J.R., 2001a. Rich, R.F., 1997. Measuring knowledge utilization, processes and Knowledge, power and participation in environmental policy outcomes. Knowl. Policy (Fall), 11–23. analysis and risk assessment: an introduction. In: Hisschemo¨ller, Rip, A., 1997. A Cognitive Approach to Relevance of Science. Sage, M., Hoppe, R., Dunn, W.N., Ravetz, J.R. (Eds.), Knowledge, London. Power and Participation in Environmental Policy. Transaction Robertson, D.P., Hull, R.B., 2001. Beyond biology, toward a Publishers, New Brunswick. more public ecology for conservation. Conserv. Biol. 15 (4), Hisschemo¨ller, M., Hoppe, R., Groenewegen, P., Midden, C., 2001b. 970–979. Knowledge use and political choice in Dutch environmental Roe, M., 2000. Landscape planning for sustainability, community policy: a problem structuring perspective on real life experi- participation in estuary management plans. Landsc. Res. 25 (2), ments in extended peer review. In: Hisschemo¨ller, M., Hoppe, 157–181. R., Dunn, W.N., Ravetz, J.R. (Eds.), Knowledge, Power and Shear, H., Stadler-Salt, N., Bertram, P., Horvatin, P., 2003. The Participation in Environmental Policy Analysis and Risk Assess- development and implementation of indicators of ecosystem ment. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick. health in the Great Lakes Basin. J. Environ. Monitor. Assess. 88, Hisschemo¨ller, M., Tol, R.S.J., Vellinga, P., 2001c. The relevance of 119–152. participatory approaches in integrated assessment. Integr. Sheil, D., Nasi, R., Johnson, B., 2004. Ecological criteria and Assess. 2, 57–72. indicators for tropical forest landscapes: challenges in the search Hyatt, E., 2001. Editorial. Ecol. Indicators 1, 1–2. for progress. Ecol. Soc. 9 (1) www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/ Jasanoff, S.S., 1987. Contested boundaries in policy-relevant iss1/art7. science. Soc. Stud. Sci. 17, 195–230. Souren, A., Turnhout, E., Van Straalen, N.M., Eijsackers, H., Jasanoff, S., 1990. The Fifth Branch, Science Advisers as Policy- Groenewegen, P., Hisschemo¨ller, M., 1999. Optimizing the makers. Harvard University Press, Boston. process of knowledge utilization: interactions between Science Kolkwitz, R., Marsson, M., 1902. Gru¨ndsatze fu¨r die biologische and Policy Poster presented at the 1999 conference of the Beurtheilung des Wassers nach seiner flora und fauna. Mittei- Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), lungen aus der Ko¨niglichen Pru¨fungsanstalt fu¨r Wasserversor- Leipzig, Germany. gung und Abwasserbeseitigung zu Berlin 1, 33–72. Star, L.S., Griesemer, J.R., 1989. Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ Kuhn, T.S., 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Univer- and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s sity of Chicago Press, Chicago. museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Soc. Stud. Sci. 19 (3), Langeweg, F., 1989. Concern for Tomorrow, A National Environ- 387–420. mental Survey 1985–2010. National Institute of Public Health Ten Brink, B., 1991. The Amoeba approach as a useful tool for and Environmental Protection (RIVM). establishing sustainable development? In: Kuik, O., Verbrug- Lindblom, C.E., Cohen, D.K., 1979. Usable Knowledge, Social gen, H. (Eds.), In Search of Indicators of Sustainable Develop- Science and Social Problem Solving. Yale University Press, ment. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston, London. London. Munõz-Erickson, T.A., Loeser, M.R., Aguilar-Gonza´lez, B.J., 2004. Ten Brink, B.J.E., 1997. Maintaining biodiversity: a global frame- Identifying indicators of ecosystem health for a semiarid eco- work for the assessment of a diverse world in the future. system, a conceptual approach. In: Van Riper, C., Cole, K.L. Conceptual Framework, third pre-draft. National Institute for (Eds.), The Colorado Plateau, Cultural, Biological and Physical Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), United Nations Research. University of Arizona Press, Tuscon, AZ. Environment Programme (UNEP), UNEP/RIVM Technical Parson, E.A., 1997. Informing global environmental policy-making: Report Series, December 1997. a plea for new methods of assessment and synthesis. Environ. Ten Brink, B.J.E., 2000. Biodiversity Indicators for the OECD Model. Assess. 2, 267–279. Environmental Outlook and Strategy, A Feasibility Study. Pokorny, B., Adams, M., 2003. What do criteria and indicators National Institute of Public Health and the Environment assess? An analysis of five C&I sets relevant for forest (RIVM), RIVM Report 402001014. management in the Brazilian Amazon. Int. Forestry Rev. 5 Ten Brink, B.J.E., Hosper, S.H., Colijn, F., 1991. A quantitative (1), 20–28. method for description and assessment of ecosystems: the Polanyi, M., 1958. Personal Knowledge, Towards A Post-Critical Amoeba approach. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 23, 265–270. Philosophy. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London. Tickle, A., 2001. Acid rain and critical loads: science policy Rapport, D.J., Costanza, R., McMichael, A.J., 1998. Assessing processes in the United Kingdom. In: Handmer, J.W., Norton, ecosystem health. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13 (10), 379–402. T.W., Dovers, S.R. (Eds.), Ecology, Uncertainty and Policy: 228 E. Turnhout et al. / Ecological Indicators 7 (2007) 215–228

Managing Ecosystems for Sustainability. Prentice Hall, An Weinberg, A.M., 1972. Science and trans-science. Minerva 10, 209– Imprint of Pearson Education, Harlow, England. 222. Tolkamp, H.H., Van Rooy, P.T.J.C., 1990. Reactie op de derde nota Weiss, C.H., 1991. Policy research as advocacy, pro and con. Knowl. waterhuishouding met nadruk op de presentatietechniek Policy Int. J. Knowl. Transfer 4 (1 and 2) 37–55.

AMOEBE . H2O 23 (15), 402–403. Winsemius, P., 1986. Gast in Eigen Huis: Beschouwingen Over Turnhout, E., 2003. Ecological Indicators in Dutch Nature Con- Milieumanagement. Samson H.D. Tjeenk Willink, Alphen Aan servation: Science and Policy Intertwined in the Classiﬁcation Den Rijn. and Evaluation of Nature. Aksant, Amsterdam. Wulffraat, K., Ten Brink, B., Colijn, F., Baptist, H., De Jong, D., V&W, 1990. Water Voor nu en Later, Derde Nota Waterhuishoud- Coosen, J., 1991. ‘Speaking of Sustainable Development’, ing, Regeringsbeslissing. Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, Towards A Method of Measuring the Quality of Nature in Salt Tweede Kamer, Vergaderjaar 1989–1990, 21 (1–3), 250. Water Habitats, The ‘Amoeba’. Ministry of Transport, Public V&W, 1998. Vierde Nota Waterhuishouding, Regeringsbeslissing, works and Water Management, Directorate General for Public Verkorte Versie. Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat. Works and Water Management, Tidal Waters Division. Van der Windt, H.J., 1995. En Dan, Wat is Natuur Nog in Dit Land? Yearley, S., 1995. The environmental challenge to science studies. Natuurbescherming in Nederland 1880–1990. Boom, Amster- In: Jasanoff, S., Markle, G.E., Petersen, J.C., Pinch, T. (Eds.), dam. Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Sage Publica- Voss, M., Borchardt, T., 1992. Quality Objectives for the Wadden- tions, Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi. Sea: Problems and Attempts for Solutions. Wodden Sea News- Zagorin, P., 1998. Francis Bacon. Princeton University Press, lett. 2, 20–22. Princeton.