Tools for Better Decision Making: Bridges from Science to Policy - Climate Change Impacts on Freshwater Ecosystems - page 273

The results indicate that there are positive and significant benefits to the
sustainable management of the Cheimaditida wetland. The impacts of social,
economic and attitudinal characteristics of respondents on their valuation of
wetland management attributes were also found to be significant, implying that
there is considerable difference of opinion within the Greek public, which should
be taken into consideration when assessing the provision of public goods, such as
wetlands (Birol et al . 2006a).
Transfer of science into policy
Policy makers steer the direction of research by means of research funding policy.
For example, in the European Research Programmes FP5 and FP6 several projects
have been funded to create knowledge and develop methods for the implementation
of the WFD. In FP6 stronger emphasis has been laid on global change. This
underlines the possibilities for the EU Commission to channel research activities
according to policy needs. The same applies in the member states. However, the
link between science and policy is very variable among member states and within
different aspects of water management.
Scientists may improve the exchange of knowledge by focusing on research
topics that are relevant to the needs of society and policy/decision makers
(Quevauviller & Thompson 2005), though in effect this may often be development
of pre-existing research, i.e. applied research, rather than new fundamental
research. There is no a priori way that fundamental research can be predicted to
be relevant or not. Appeals to provide 'useful' knowledge, i.e. with direct policy
implications, are often aggravating for scientists. The principles of academic
freedom may lead to research outputs that do not meet the immediate requirements
of policy making in a way contract research would do. Yet, even when not
engaging in user-orientated research, scientists may contribute to policy
development by entering into public discussions about their research to help
define policy problems and to influence future funding (e.g. Day et al . 2006).
In the field of water policy, three groups of users can be identified: policy
makers, decision makers at the operational level and the public at large. Each of
these groups has different information needs. Policy makers need current
information on drivers and their impacts; they also need information about the
expected effects of possible policies, as well as the costs of implementing them.
Further down the line, policy makers will need reviews of the responses of
humans and ecosystems to policy instruments, to assess their efficacy.
Decision makers, who are responsible for the practical implementation of
policy, require more specific and detailed information on methods, technologies
and good practices (Quevauviller & Thompson 2005). Practical tools and models
that derive from research activity are useful at this level. Regarding the WFD,
methods for involving the public in decision making will likely be much sought
after by operational managers. A significant challenge in transferring science into
policy is the sectoralism frequently encountered among decision makers and a
lack of trans-disciplinarity among scientists. This can lead to conflicting policy
objectives (for instance, conflicts between the objectives of agricultural support