SavedAdd your journal

Journals / PLANLAMA / 2021 / Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 2

The Science-Policy Interfaces in Climate Change-Related Policymaking and Planning Processes: Istanbul and Izmir Development Agencies

İklim Değişikliği Odaklı Politika Üretim ve Planlama Süreçlerinde Bilim-Politika Arayüzlerinin Yeri: İstanbul ve İzmir Kalkınma Ajansları

Mehmet EROĞLU
Aslı Öğüt ERBİL
Journal
PLANLAMA
Pages
321–336
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings of this study demonstrate that IZKA prioritizes climate change and creates effective science-policy interfaces regarding climate change-related issues, whereas ISTKA regards climate change only as a “co-benefit” within the other priority areas of the agency and, at least compared to IZKA, its activities on climate change focused science-policy interfaces are passive and insufficient.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study focuses on the science-policy interfaces established for knowledge producers and policymakers/planners to interact in policymaking and planning processes regarding climate change.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study claims that in order to develop effective policies/plans against the threat of climate change, it is necessary to create “coproduction- based science-policy interfaces” in which knowledge producers and policymakers/planners produce knowledge, policy, and action together.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings of this study demonstrate that IZKA prioritizes climate change and creates effective science-policy interfaces regarding climate change-related issues, whereas ISTKA regards climate change only as a “co-benefit” within the other priority areas of the agency and, at least compared to IZKA, its activities on climate change focused science-policy interfaces are passive and insufficient.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This study focuses on the science-policy interfaces established for knowledge producers and policymakers/planners to interact in policymaking and planning processes regarding climate change. The study claims that in order to develop effective policies/plans against the threat of climate change, it is necessary to create “coproduction- based science-policy interfaces” in which knowledge producers and policymakers/planners produce knowledge, policy, and action together. The exploration is divided into two main parts. Primarily, the theoretical framework of the study in the context of the concepts of “knowledge”, “scientific knowledge”, and “science-policy interfaces” is presented. Afterward, to investigate the science-policy interfaces in practice, the results of the case study, which examines the Istanbul Development Agency (ISTKA) and the Izmir Development Agency (İZKA), are discussed. The findings of this study demonstrate that IZKA prioritizes climate change and creates effective science-policy interfaces regarding climate change-related issues, whereas ISTKA regards climate change only as a “co-benefit” within the other priority areas of the agency and, at least compared to IZKA, its activities on climate change focused science-policy interfaces are passive and insufficient.

Özet

Bu çalışma, iklim değişikliğine dair politika üretme ve planlama süreçlerinde, bilgi üreticiler ve politika yapıcılar/plancıların etkileşim kurabilmeleri için oluşturulan bilim-politika arayüzlerine odaklanmaktadır. Çalışmada, iklim değişikliği tehdidine karşı etkin politikalar/planlar geliştirebilmek için bilgi üreticiler ve politika yapıcılar/plancıların birlikte bilgi, politika ve aksiyon ürettikleri “ortak üretim temelli bilim-politika arayüzleri”nin kurulması gerektiği iddia edilmektedir. Araştırma iki ana bölümden oluşmaktadır. Öncelikle, “bilgi”, “bilimsel bilgi” ve “bilim-politika arayüzleri” kavramları bağlamında teorik çerçeve sunulmaktadır. Sonrasında, bilim-politika arayüzlerinin pratikteki karşılığını araştırmak üzere, İstanbul Kalkınma Ajansı (İSTKA) ve İzmir Kalkınma Ajansı (İZKA)’nın incelendiği vaka çalışmasının sonuçları tartışılmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, İZKA’nın iklim değişikliğini faaliyetlerinin merkezine yerleştirip konuya dair etkin bilim-politika arayüzleri oluşturduğu, İSTKA’nın ise iklim değişikliğini ancak diğer öncelik alanları içerisine bir “ortak yarar” olarak dahil ettiği ve iklim değişikliğine yönelik bilim-politika arayüzleri faaliyetlerinin İZKA’ya kıyasla yetersiz kaldığı tespit edilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

EROĞLU, M., ERBİL, A. Ö. (2021). The Science-Policy Interfaces in Climate Change-Related Policymaking and Planning Processes: Istanbul and Izmir Development Agencies. PLANLAMA, Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 2, 321–336. https://ajindex.com/articles/400291

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Abadie, L. M., Saim de Murieta, E., Galarraga, I. (2016). Climate Risk Assessment under Uncertainty: An Application to Main European Coastal Cities. Frontiers in Marine Science, 3, 1-13.
  2. Adaman, F., Arsel, M. (2016). Climate Policy in Turkey: A Paradoxical Situation?. L'Europe en Formation, (2), 26-38.
  3. Beck, S. (2016). Knowledge Co-Production: Lures and Pitfalls [Webinar]. The Integrated Assessment Society. Erişim Adresi: https://www.tiasweb. info/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/KnowledgeCoProduction_Lures_ and_Pitfalls_S_Beck.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 13.02.2021).
  4. BMÇP. (2017). Strengthening the Science-Policy Interface: A Gap Analysis. Nairobi. BMÇP. (2014). The Adaptation Gap Report 2014.
  5. Nairobi. Bulkeley H. (2011) Cities and Subnational Governments. J.S. Dryzek, R.B. Norgaard, D. Schlosberg (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society içinde (ss. 464-478).
  6. Oxford University Press,
  7. New York, NY. Bultitude, K., Rodari, P., Weitkamp, E. (2012). Bridging the Gap Between Science and Policy: The Importance of Mutual Respect, Trust and the Role of Mediators. Online Journal of Science Communication, 11(3), 1-4.
  8. Choi, B. C., Li, L., Lu, Y., Zhang, L. R., Zhu, Y., Pak, A. W., Little, J. (2016). Bridging the Gap Between Science and Policy: An International Survey of Scientists and Policy Makers in China and Canada. Implementation Science, 11(1). Compston, H., Bailey, I. (Ed.). (2008). Turning Down the Heat: The Politics of Climate Policy in Affluent Democracies. Springer. Cortner, H. J. (2000). Making Science Relevant to Environmental Policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 3(1), 21-30.
  9. Dilling, L., Lemos, M. C. (2011). Creating Usable Science: Opportunities and Constraints for Climate Knowledge Use and Their Implications for Science Policy. Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 680-689.
  10. Dunn, G., Bos, J. J., Brown, R. R. (2018). Mediating the Science-Policy Interface: Insights from the Urban Water Sector in Melbourne, Australia. Environmental Science & Policy, 82, 143-150.
  11. Edelenbos, J., Van Buuren, A., Van Schie, N. (2011). Co-Producing Knowledge: Joint Knowledge Production Between Experts, Bureaucrats and Stakeholders in Dutch Water Management Projects. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(6), 675-684.
  12. Erbil, T., Erbil, A. Ö. (2019). Türkiye’de Bölgesel Kalkınma Ajanslarının 2010-2017 Yılları Arasında İklim Değişikliğine Yönelik Faaliyetleri Üzerine Bir İnceleme. Planlama Dergisi, 29(1), 10-22.
  13. Gedikli, B., Balaban, O. (2018). An Evaluation of Local Policies and Act