A social network analysis of the European science–policy–society interface on biodiversity

Despite the wealth of evidence on biodiversity status, trends, and policy options in Europe, knowledge often fails to inform policy makers and decision makers effectively. Implementing the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 will require the transformation of engagement and exchange between knowledge providers and policy and decision makers. This is one of the main goals of the forthcoming EU Science Service for Biodiversity. We sought to support this endeavor by mapping the landscape of actors at the biodiversity science-policy-society interface. We first compiled an extensive database of actors (n = 215) by combining existing databases, searching the web, and consulting experts. We then interviewed representatives of key organizations (n = 28) to elicit data about their network of relations with other organizations. Additional qualitative data were elicited from a subset of organizations (n = 17/28) focusing on the roles of different actors in knowledge cocreation and their potential contribution to the functioning of the Science Service for Biodiversity. The social network analysis mapped the interactions (and lack thereof) between 101 organized actors. Central to the network were EU organizations, other international and intergovernmental organizations, and one well-known public interest group. A more varied mix of organizations had the potential to act as bridges between unconnected actors, including private sector organizations, organizations dedicated to the management of ecological units, and science-based networks. The social network analysis also revealed 4 thematic communities emerging from the interactions among actors: biodiversity knowledge for EU policy-making; land ownership and management in agriculture and forestry; natural capital and sustainable development; and nature conservation and participation. Consistent with the results of the social network analysis, the qualitative data suggested that nonpolicy and nonscience actors have an important role to play in the dialogue and knowledge cocreation for biodiversity conservation and restoration. To strengthen the European science-policy-society interface on biodiversity, we recommend addressing gaps in themes and actor types, fostering cross-community dialogue, and supporting the further development of the network in terms of participants and potential intermediaries.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Conservation Biology
Published
2025-04-21
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.70023
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Species Distribution and Climate Change
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
5.51

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A social network analysis of the European science–policy–society interface on biodiversity

Karla E. Locher‐Krause, M. Susana Orta‐Ortiz, Dalia D’Amato, Twan Stoffers et al.
3 citations
Conservation Biology
Species Distribution and Climate Change
5.51
article

A social network analysis of the European science–policy–society interface on biodiversity

Karla E. Locher‐Krause, M. Susana Orta‐Ortiz, Dalia D’Amato, Twan Stoffers, Mihai Cristian Adamescu, Kaisa Korhonen‐Kurki, Enzo Falco, Kinga Krauze, Renata Włodarczyk‐Marciniak, Salla Rantala, Juliette Young, Matthew Grainger, Robin Dianoux
article en
3 citations

Abstract

Despite the wealth of evidence on biodiversity status, trends, and policy options in Europe, knowledge often fails to inform policy makers and decision makers effectively. Implementing the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 will require the transformation of engagement and exchange between knowledge providers and policy and decision makers. This is one of the main goals of the forthcoming EU Science Service for Biodiversity. We sought to support this endeavor by mapping the landscape of actors at the biodiversity science-policy-society interface. We first compiled an extensive database of actors (n = 215) by combining existing databases, searching the web, and consulting experts. We then interviewed representatives of key organizations (n = 28) to elicit data about their network of relations with other organizations. Additional qualitative data were elicited from a subset of organizations (n = 17/28) focusing on the roles of different actors in knowledge cocreation and their potential contribution to the functioning of the Science Service for Biodiversity. The social network analysis mapped the interactions (and lack thereof) between 101 organized actors. Central to the network were EU organizations, other international and intergovernmental organizations, and one well-known public interest group. A more varied mix of organizations had the potential to act as bridges between unconnected actors, including private sector organizations, organizations dedicated to the management of ecological units, and science-based networks. The social network analysis also revealed 4 thematic communities emerging from the interactions among actors: biodiversity knowledge for EU policy-making; land ownership and management in agriculture and forestry; natural capital and sustainable development; and nature conservation and participation. Consistent with the results of the social network analysis, the qualitative data suggested that nonpolicy and nonscience actors have an important role to play in the dialogue and knowledge cocreation for biodiversity conservation and restoration. To strengthen the European science-policy-society interface on biodiversity, we recommend addressing gaps in themes and actor types, fostering cross-community dialogue, and supporting the further development of the network in terms of participants and potential intermediaries.

Conservation BiologyVol. 39(5)
Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (DE), University of Bucharest (RO), Université de Bourgogne (FR), University of Trento (IT), Finnish Environment Institute (FI), Institut National de Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'Environnement (FR), Agroécologie (FR), Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (DE), European Regional Centre for Ecohydrology (PL), Institut Agro Dijon (FR), Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NO), Polish Academy of Sciences (PL)
European Commission, HORIZON EUROPE Framework Programme
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Species Distribution and Climate Change
5.51
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.