Evaluation of the Science-Policy Interface at the Local Level in the Implementation of Local Agenda 21 in Michoacan (Mexico).
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29265/gypp.v30i1.819Keywords:
science-policy interface, knowledge systems, municipalism, local government, policy design, governance, sustainable development, transdisciplineAbstract
This work evaluated the Science-Policy Interface (SPI) promoted by the political instrument Agenda Local 21 in its Mexican version (called Agenda Desde lo Local) which articulated state officials (SO), municipal officials (MO), and academic experts (EX) on local management for sustainable development and were implemented in Michoacan (Mexico) between 2008 and 2013. The evaluation was conducted through a conceptual framework with four analytical categories spanning 16 factors and 39 attributes. Among the systemic factors, the objectives and processes of the interface showed strength, but the outputs had uncertain impacts. The attitudinal factors of involved actors showed high cognitive distance and very differentiated levels of reality between MO and EX. The motivation, commitment, and perception of the others were excellent in so, but the remaining actors showed weak performance. The evaluation led to lessons learned of interest in the design of political instruments that promote the links between science and policy.Downloads
References
Augsburg, T. (2014), “Becoming Transdisciplinary: The Emergence of the Transdisciplinary Individual”, World Futures, 70(3-4), pp. 233-247.
Broström, A. y M. McKelvey (2018), “Engaging Experts: Science-policy Interactions and the Introduction of Congestion Charging in Stockholm”, Minerva, 56(2), pp. 183-207.
Burgos, A. y R. Páez (2012), “Trabas y obstáculos en la gestión local para la atención de la problemática ambiental en municipios michoacanos”, Memorias de la I Bienal de Territorios en Movimiento, formato digital (CD), 18 pp.
Cabrero-Mendoza, E. (2004), “Capacidades institucionales en gobiernos subnacionales de México: ¿Un obstáculo para la descentralización fiscal?”, Gestión y Política Pública, XIII(3), pp. 753-784.
Callejo-Gallego, J. (2002), “Observación, entrevista y grupo de discusión: El silencio de tres prácticas de investigación”, Revista Española de Salud Pública, 76, pp. 409-422.
Cash, D.W., W.C. Clark, F. Alcock, N. Dickson, N. Eckley y J. Jager (2002), “Salience, Credibility, Legitimacy and Boundaries: Linking Research, Assessment and Decision Making”, documento de trabajo 02-046, Universidad de Harvard-Escuela de Gobierno John F. Kennedy.
Cash, D.W., W.C. Clark, F. Alcock, N. Dickson, N. Eckley, D.H. Guston, J. Jäger y R. Mitchell (2003), “Knowledge Systems for Sustainable Development”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100, pp. 8086-8091.
Cedemun (Centro Estatal para el Desarrollo Municipal) (2013), “Estadística de las verificaciones del periodo 2013”, presentación de resultados en reunión de Cedemun Michoacán, 25 de noviembre.
Coenen, F. (2009), “Local Agenda 21: Meaningful and Effective ’Participation?”, en F. Coenen (ed.), Public Participation and Better Environmental Decisions, Nueva York, Springer, pp. 165-182.
Conapo (Consejo Nacional de Población) (2018), Datos abiertos del Índice de Marginación, disponible en: http://www.conapo.gob.mx/es/CONAPO/Datos_Abiertos_del_Indice_de_Marginacion [fecha de consulta: 7 de agosto de 2018].
Engels, A. (2005), “The Science-policy Interface”, Integrated Assessment, 5(1), pp. 7-26.
Etzkowitz, H. y L. Leydesdorff (2000), “The Dynamics of Innovation: From National Systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations”, Research Policy, 29(2), pp. 109-123.
Fam, D., L. Neuhauser y P. Gibbs (2018), Transdisciplinary Theory, Practice and Education, Cham, Springer.
Fenton, P. y S. Gustafsson (2017), “Moving from High-level Words to Local Action-Governance for Urban Sustainability in Municipalities”, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26-27, pp. 129-133.
Funtowics, S. y J. Ravetz (1993), “Science for the Post-normal Age”, Futures, 25(7), pp. 739-755.
García-Añón, M. (2004), “La Agenda 21 Local: Proceso y evaluación”, Revista Galega de Economía, 13(1-2), pp. 1-21.
Gluckman, P. (2016), “The Science-policy Interface”, Science, 353(6303), 969, DOI: 10.1126/science.aai8837.
Heink, U., E. Marquard, K. Heubach, K. Jax, C. Kugel, C. Nesshöver, R.K. Neumann, A. Paulsch, S. Tilch, J. Timaeus, M. Vandewalle (2015), “Conceptualizing Credibility, Relevance and Legitimacy for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Science-policy Interfaces: Challenges and Opportunities”, Science and Public Policy, 42(5), pp. 676-689.
Howarth, C. y J. Painter (2016), “Exploring the Science-policy Interface on Climate Change: The Role of the ipcc in Informing Local Decision-making in the UK”, Palgrave Communications, 2, 16058, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2016.58.
Huitema, D. y E. Turnhout (2009), “Working at the Science-policy Interface: A Discursive Analysis of Boundary Work at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency”, Environmental Politics, 18(4), pp. 576-594.
Inafed (Instituto Nacional para el Federalismo y el Desarrollo Municipal) (2004), Programa Agenda desde lo Local, Ciudad de México, Secretaría de Gobernación-Instituto Nacional para el Federalismo y el Desarrollo Municipal.
Inafed (Instituto Nacional para el Federalismo y el Desarrollo Municipal) (2012), Programa Agenda desde lo Local, 7a. ed., Ciudad de México, Secretaría de Gobernación Instituto Nacional para el Federalismo y el Desarrollo Municipal.
Inafed (Instituto Nacional para el Federalismo y el Desarrollo Municipal) (2014), Programa Agenda para el Desarrollo Municipal, Ciudad de México, Secretaría de Gobernación Instituto Nacional para el Federalismo y el Desarrollo Municipal.
INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía) (2016), Anuario estadístico y geográfico por entidad federativa, Ciudad de México, INEGI, 742 pp.
Jones, S.A., B. Fischhoff y D. Lach (1999), “Evaluating the Science-policy Interface for Climate Change Research”, Climatic Change, 43(3), pp. 581-599.
Kawulich, B. (2005), “Participant Observation as a Data Collection Method”, Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(2), DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/fqs-6.2.466.
Kitchen, T., D. Whitney y S. Littlewood (1997), “Local Authority/Academic Collaboration and Local Agenda 21 Policy Processes”, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 40(5), pp. 645-660.
Klein, J.T., W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, R. Häberli, A. Bill, R.W. Scholz y M. Welti (eds.) (2001), “Transdisciplinarity: Joint Problem Solving among Science, Technology, and Society: An Effective Way for Managing Complexity”, Springer Science & Business Media.
Koontz, T. (2019), “The Science-policy Nexus in Collaborative Governance: Use of Science in Ecosystem Recovery Planning”, Review of Policy Research, 36(6), pp. 708-735.
Lafferty, W.M. y K. Eckerberg (eds.) (1998), From the Earth Summit to Local Agenda 21, Londres y Nueva York, Earthscan.
Leydesdorff, L. y H. Etzkowitz (1998), “The Triple Helix as a Model for Innovation Studies”, Science and Public Policy, 25(3), pp. 195-203.
Lundvall, B.A., B. Johnson, E. Andersen y B. Dalum (2002), “National Systems of Production, Innovation and Competence Building”, Research Policy, 31, pp. 213-231.
Max-Neef, M.A. (2005), “Foundations of Transdisciplinarity”, Ecological Economics, 53(1), pp. 5-16.
Merino, M. (2005), “Los gobiernos municipales en México: El problema del diseño institucional”, en A. Aziz Nassif y J. Alonso Sánchez (coords.), Globalización, poderes y seguridad nacional, Ciudad de México, CIESAS/Miguel Ángel Porrúa/H. Cámara de Diputados-LIX Legislatura, pp. 287-305.
More, S.J. (2019), “Perspectives from the Science-policy Interface in Animal Health and Welfare”, Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 6: 382, DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2019.00382.
Nesshöver, C., J. Timaeus, H. Wittmer, A. Krieg, N. Geamana, S. van den Hove, J. Young y M. Watt (2013), “ Improving the Science-Policy Interface of Biodiversity Research Projects”, GAIA-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 22(2), pp. 99-103.
Nicolescu, B. (2002), Manifiesto of Transdisciplinarity, Nueva York, Universidad Estatal de Nueva York
Nicolescu, B. (2012), “Transdisciplinarity: The Hidden Third, between the Subject and the Object”, Human and Social Studies, 1(1), pp. 13-28.
Nicolescu, B. (2014), “Methodology of Transdisciplinarity”, World Futures, 70(3-4), pp. 186-199.
Nursey-Bray, M. J., J. Vince, M. Scott, M. Haward, K. O’Toole, T. Smith, N. Harvey y B. Clarke (2014), “Science into Policy? Discourse, Coastal Management and Knowledge”, Environmental Science & Policy, 38, pp. 107-119.
Ojeda-Medina, T. (2020), “El rol estratégico de los gobiernos locales y regionales en la implementación de la Agenda 2030: Experiencias desde la cooperación Sur-Sur y triangular”, Oasis, 31, pp. 9-29.
Perrings, C., A. Duraiappah, A. Larigauderie y H. Mooney (2011), “The Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Science-policy Interface”, Science, 331(6021), pp. 1139-1140.
Piña, F. (2013), “El Programa Agenda desde lo Local: Un análisis de su valor para el desarrollo municipal”, tesis de licenciatura, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 236 pp.
Ramírez, L.F. y B.M. Belcher (2019), “Stakeholder Perceptions of Scientific Knowledge in Policy Processes: A Peruvian Case-study of Forestry Policy Development”, Science and Public Policy, 46(4), pp. 504-517.
Rosales, M. (2012), “Descentralización en América Latina y tareas del municipalismo”, Revista Análisis Público, 1(1), pp. 103-131.
Sancassiani, W. (2005), “Local Agenda 21 in Italy: An Effective Governance Tool for Facilitating Local Communities’ Participation and Promoting Capacity Building for Sustainability”, Local Environment, 10(2), pp. 189-200.
Sarkki, S., J. Niemelä, R. Tinch, S. van Den Hove, A. Watt y J. Young (2014), “Balancing Credibility, Relevance and Legitimacy: A Critical Assessment of Trade-offs in Sciencepolicy Interfaces”, Science and Public Policy, 41(2), pp. 194-206.
Sarkki, S., R. Tinch, J. Niemelä, U. Heink, K. Waylen, J. Timaeus, J.C. Young, A. Watt, C. Nesshöver y S. van den Hove (2015), “Adding ‘Iterativity’ to the Credibility, Relevance, Legitimacy: A Novel Scheme to Highlight Dynamic Aspects of Science-policy Interfaces”, Environmental Science & Policy, 54, pp. 505-512.
Sarkki, S., E. Balian, U. Heink, H. Keune, C. Nesshöver, J. Niemelä, R. Tinch, S. van den Hove, A. Watt, K.A. Waylen y J.C. Young (2019), “Managing Science-policy Interfaces for Impact: Interactions within the Environmental Governance Meshwork”, Environmental Science & Policy, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.05.011.
Saviano, M., S. Barile, F. Farioli y F. Orecchini (2019), “Strengthening the Science-policyindustry Interface for Progressing toward Sustainability: A Systems Thinking View”, Sustainability Science, 14, pp. 1549-1564.
Selman, P. y J. Parker (1997), “Citizenship, Civicness and Social capital in Local Agenda 21”, Local Environment, 2(2), pp. 171-184.
Scarano, F.R., M.C.G. Padgurschi, A.P.F. Pires, P.F.D. Castro, J.S. Farinaci, M. Bustamante, J.P. Metzger, J.P. Ometto, C.S. Seixas y C.A. Joly (2019), “Increasing Effectiveness of the Science-policy Interface in the Socioecological Arena in Brazil”, Biological Conservation, 240, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108227.
Scholz, R.W. y G. Steiner (2015), “The Real Type and Ideal Type of Transdisciplinary Processes: Part I—Theoretical Foundations”, Sustainability Science, 10(4), pp. 527-544.
Slack, L. (2015), “The Post-2015 Global Agenda: A Role for Local Government”, Commonwealth Journal of Local Governance, 16-17, pp. 3-11.
Sosa-López, J.D. (2012), “Gobiernos locales y desarrollo territorial en México”, Frontera Norte, 24(47), pp. 171-192.
Star, S.L. y J.R. Griesemer (1989), “Institutional Ecology, Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39”, Social Studies of Science, 19(3), pp. 387-420.
Star, S. (2010), “This Is Not a Boundary Object: Reflections on the Origin of a Concept”, Science, Technology & Human Values, 35(5), pp. 601-617.
Steger, C., S. Hirsch, C. Evers, B. Branoff, M. Petrova, M. Nielsen-Pincus, C. Wardroper y C.J. van Riper (2018), “Ecosystem Services as Boundary Objects for Transdisciplinary Collaboration”, Ecological Economics, 143, pp. 153-160.
Strydom, W.F., N. Funke, S. Nienaber, K. Nortje y M. Steyn (2010), “Evidence-based Policymaking: A Review”, South African Journal of Science, 106(5-6), pp. 17-24.
Swilling, M. (2014), “Rethinking the Science-policy Interface in South Africa: Experiments in Knowledge Co-production”, South African Journal of Science, 110(5-6), pp. 1-7.
Tinch, R., E. Balian, D. Carss, D.E. de Blas, N.A. Geamana, U. Heink, H. Keune, C. Nesshöver, J. Niemelä, S. Sarkki, M. Thibon, J. Timaeus, A. Vadineanu, S, van den Hove, A. Watt, K.A. Waylen, H. Wittmer y J.C. Young (2018), “Science-policy Interfaces for Biodiversity: Dynamic Learning Environments for Successful Impact”, Biodiversity and Conservation, 27(7), pp. 1679-1702.
Tonn, B. (2007), “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: A Global Scale Transformative Initiative”, Futures, 39(5), pp. 614-618.
Van den Hove, S. (2007), “A Rationale for Science-policy Interfaces”, Futures, 39(7), pp. 807-826.
Vohland, K., M.C. Mlambo, L.D. Horta, B. Jonsson, A. Paulsch y S.I. Martinez (2011), “How to Ensure a Credible and Efficient ipbes?”, Environmental Science & Policy, 14(8), pp. 1188-1194.
Von Der Heyden, S., P. Lukey, L. Celliers, K. Prochazka y A.T. Lombard (2016), “Science to Policy-Reflections on the South African Reality”, South African Journal of Science, 112(11-12), pp. 1-6.
White, D.D., E.A. Corley y M.S. White (2008), “Water Managers’ Perceptions of the Science-policy Interface in Phoenix, Arizona: Implications for an Emerging Boundary Organization”, Society and Natural Resources, 21(3), pp. 230-243.
Young, J.C., K.A. Waylen, S. Sarkki, S. Albon, I. Bainbridge, E. Balian, J. Davidson, D. Edwards, R. Fairley, C. Margerison, D. McCracken, R. Owen, C.P. Quine, C. Stewart-Roper, D.Thompson, R. Tinch, S. van den Hove y A. Watt (2014), “Improving the Science-policy Dialogue to Meet the Challenges of Biodiversity Conservation: Having Conversations Rather than Talking at One-another”, Biodiversity and Conservation, 23(2), pp. 387-404.
Zheng, Y., L.A. Naylor, S. Waldron y D.M. Oliver (2019), “Knowledge Management a Cross the Environment-policy Interface in China: What Knowledge is Exchanged, Why, and How is This Undertaken?”, Environmental Science & Policy, 92, pp. 66-75.
Ziccardi, A. y H. Saltalamacchia (1997), Metodología de evaluación del desempeño de los gobiernos locales en ciudades mexicanas, Ciudad de México, UNAM-IIS.
Downloads
Published
-
Abstract158
-
PDF (Español)105
