Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
mature among the social sciences and has a common
conceptual origin with ecology, something that is less
clear for the other social sciences. Quite recently, the
Journal of Applied Ecology
devoted a special feature
to problems related to cross-disciplinary research
between ecologists and social scientists. From the
review article by Lowe
et al
. (2009), we learn that one
of the causes of limited cooperation is that many ecol-
ogists, along with many colleagues from the other
natural sciences, consider the social sciences as focus-
ing on 'human values and societal interests' and
'understanding human behavior and impacts'. It is
increasingly recognized by some ecologists, however,
and restoration ecologists in particular, that they have
no choice but to recognize, and incorporate the
' human - social dimensions ' of their own areas of
study much more explicitly. This, they have under-
stood, leads to benefi ts including 'communication and
policy translation ' and ' facilitation of environmental
management' issues, both of which are vital for
achieving real improvements in the ecological status
of almost any target area or ecosystem. Apart from the
challenge in fi nding a common methodology, and
carefully exploring to what extent methods and con-
cepts from the natural sciences can be extended to the
social sciences and vice versa, there is a fundamental,
underlying issue to be considered, namely the place of
humans in nature. Lowe
et al
. (2009) distinguish three
views among ecologists on the subject of people: (1) as
' ecological audience ' , (2) as ' ecological agents ' and
(3) as ' ecological subjects/objects ' . The fi rst relates to
studying pristine ecosystems and does not make spe-
cifi c claims on the social sciences, and the second one
recognizes human impact on ecosystems. However,
with the third perspective ecology crosses into and
joins hands, so to speak, with the social sciences. The
very notion of ' socio - ecological systems ' , frequently
used in this topic, contains an implicit challenge for
those engaged in interdisciplinarity.
lems in communication between the EVA study group
and the Steering Committee, and with independent
ecologists and interested NGOs. Nevertheless, the sci-
entifi c results published by the EVA study group, and
the ongoing scientifi c debate around those results, led
to a number of political decisions that reached far
beyond the focus of the study project. First, in 2004 the
Minister of Agriculture, Nature, and Food Quality,
with the support of the House of Representatives,
decided to ban shellfi sh exploitation from the Dutch
part of the Wadden Sea. At the same time, the minister
unexpectedly lifted the long-standing moratorium on
the exploitation of natural gas deposits lying at the
bottom of the Wadden Sea; the sole condition imposed
for this was that new, supposedly safe and environmen-
tally friendly techniques would be employed. Through
a levy on such exploitation, the government creates a
fund to compensate the fi shers and to initiate inte-
grated research for nature protection in the region.
A 'Dutch Wadden Academy' was established in
2008, under the auspices of the Netherlands Royal
Academy of Arts and Sciences, in which all stake-
holders participate, including administrators, policy
makers, and scientists, covering expertise in ecology,
geology, economics and cultural history, and on the
impact of climate change. To set the research priorities,
an initial document was produced entitled 'Knowledge
for a Sustainable Future of the Wadden: Integrated
Research Agenda of the Wadden Academy' (http://
www.waddenacademie.knaw.nl). After having formu-
lated its guiding principle, 'to preserve the natural
values of the Wadden Sea Area while allowing sustain-
able human use', it is immediately recognized that
'there is a debate as to which natural values are the
most important and as to the nature and extent of the
restrictions of human use'. Therefore, research into
conceivable future scenarios for environmental and
socio-economic development options is called for. An
integrated systems approach, with emphasis on inter-
actions between the natural and social sciences and
humanities, and international cooperation are now
considered as indispensable attributes of both scientifi c
research and sustainable development in the region.
Innumerable examples show that science cannot in
most cases be directly translated into political meas-
ures, nor should politics be allowed to dictate the direc-
tion of science. In this case, the contentious relationship
between scientists and politicians over a 15-year period
has resulted in a positive outcome: science contribut-
ing knowledge used for political decision making,
Communication a mong s takeholders
Transdisciplinarity, in our view, goes beyond interdis-
ciplinarity between professionals, and extends to inter-
action with stakeholders. In the case described in Box
22.1, the Steering Committee set up by the Ministry
brought together all the stakeholders, whereas the EVA
study group, as well as the Audit Committee, consisted
of only ecologists. This internal structuring of the
project might have been one of the causes of the prob-
