Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

Understanding and managing trust at the climate science–policy interface

Abstract

Climate change effects are accelerating, making the need for appropriate actions informed by sound climate knowledge ever more pressing. A strong climate science–policy relationship facilitates the effective integration of climate knowledge into local, national and global policy processes, increases society’s responsiveness to a changing climate, and aligns research activity to policy needs. This complex science–policy relationship requires trust between climate science ‘producers’ and ‘users’, but our understanding of trust at this interface remains largely uncritical. To assist climate scientists and policymakers, this Perspective provides insights into how trust develops and operates at the interface of climate science and policy, and examines the extent to which trust can manage — or even create — risk at this interface.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: The relationship between the level of trust realized and the benefits of trust.
Fig. 2: The optimal trust gap.
Fig. 3: Four scenarios describing the evolution of a trusting relationship at the climate science–policy interface.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Franco, G., Cayan, D., Luers, A., Hanemann, M. & Croes, B. Linking climate change science with policy in California. Climatic Change 87, 7–20 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Buizer, J., Jacobs, K. & Cash, D. Making short-term climate forecasts useful: linking science and action. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 4597–4602 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hickey, G. M., Forest, P., Sandall, J. L., Lalor, B. M. & Keenan, R. J. Managing the environmental science-policy nexus in government: Perspectices from public servants in Canada and Australia. Sci. Public Policy 40, 529–543 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gluckman, P. The art of science advice to government. Nature 507, 163–165 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. McEvily, B., Perrone, V. & Zaheer, A. Trust as an organizing principle. Organiz. Sci. 14, 91–103 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gargiulo, M. & Ertug, G. in The Handbook of Trust Research (ed R. Bachmann) 165–186 (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2006).

  7. Skinner, D., Dietz, G. & Weibel, A. The dark side of trust: When trust becomes a ‘poisoned chalice’. Organization 21, 206–224 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sheppard, B. H. & Sherman, D. M. The grammars of trust: a model and general implications. Acad. Manag. Rev. 23, 422–437 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bachmann, R., Gillespie, N. & Priem, R. Repairing trust in organizations and institutions: toward a conceptual framework. Organiz. Studies 36, 1123–1142 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Stern, M. J. & Coleman, K. J. The multidimensionality of trust: applications in collaborative natural resource management. Soc. Nat. Resour. 28, 117–132 (2015). This article identifies and describes the four forms of trust relevant to collaborative resource management (see Box 1) and their subsequent impacts on collaboration among scientists and decision-makers.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Haerlin, B. & Parr, D. How to restore public trust in science. Nature 400, 499–499 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Gauchat, G. Politicization of science in the public sphere. Am. Soc. Rev. 77, 167–187 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Jasanoff, S. S. Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Soc. Stud. Sci. 17, 195–230 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Pielke, R. A. Jr The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  15. Sarewitz, D. Frontiers of Illusion: Science, Technology and the Politics of Progress (Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 1996).

  16. Pielke, R. A. Jr Policy, politics and perspective: The scientific community must distinguish itself from advocacy. Nature 416, 367–368 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Gillard, R. Unravelling the United Kingdom’s climate policy consensus: The power of ideas, discourse and institutions. Global Environ. Change 40, 26–36 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Arnott, J. C., Moser, S. C. & Goodrich, K. A. Evaluation that counts: A review of climate change adaptation indicators & metrics using lessons from effective evaluation and science-practice interaction. Environ. Sci. Policy 66, 383–392 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bornmann, L., Haunschild, R. & Marx, W. Policy documents as sources for measuring societal impact: how often is climate change research mentioned in policy-related documents? Scientometrics 109, 1477–1495 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. van Kerkhoff, L. E. & Lebel, L. Coproductive capacities: rethinking science-governance relations in a diverse world. Ecol. Soc. 20, 14 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Stevens, M., MacDuffie, J. P. & Helper, S. Reorienting and recalibrating inter-organizational relationships: strategies for achieving optimal trust. Organiz. Stud. 36, 1237–1264 (2015). Drawing upon longitudinal, dyadic and comparative case-based research, these authors comprehensively explore the significance organizational trust and its implications.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. van den Hove, S. A rationale for science-policy interfaces. Futures 39, 807–826 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Scott, C. A. et al. Science–policy dialogues for water security: addressing vulnerability and adaptation to global change in the arid Americas. Environ. Sci. Policy Sust. Dev. 54, 30–42 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Cash, D. W. & Moser, S. C. Linking global and local scales: designing dynamic assessment and management processes. Global Environ. Change 10, 109–120 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Howarth, C. & Painter, J. Exploring the science–policy interface on climate change: The role of the IPCC in informing local decision-making in the UK. 2, 16058 (2016).

  26. Cash, D. et al. Salience, Credibility, Legitimacy and Boundaries: Linking Research, Assessment and Decision-making KSG Working Paper Series RWP02–046 (Harvard University, Cambridge, 2002).

  27. Cook, C., Hockings, M. & Carter, R. Conservation in the dark? The information used to support management decisions. Front. Ecol. Environ. 8, 181–186 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ritman, K. Science and decision making from both sides of the fence. J. Verbraucherschutz Lebensmittelsicherheit 9(Suppl. 1), 15–18 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Roux, D., Rogers, K., Biggs, H. & Ashton, P. & Sergeant, A. Bridging the science–management divide: moving from unidirectional knowledge transfer to knowledge interfacing and sharing. Ecol. Soc. 11, 4 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Doubleday, R. & Wilsdon, J. Science policy: Beyond the great and good. Nature 485, 301–302 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Sutherland, W. J., Spiegelhalter, D. & Burgman, M. Policy: Twenty tips for interpreting scientific claims. Nature 503, 335–337 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lacey, J., Howden, S. M., Cvitanovic, C. & Dowd, A.-M. Informed adaptation: Ethical considerations for adaptation researchers and decision-makers. Global Environ. Change 32, 200–210 (2015). This article examines the ethical responsibility of adaptation researchers in supporting decision-makers navigating the risk and complexity associated with adaptation decision-making.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Shanley, P. & López, C. Out of the loop: Why research rarely reaches policy makers and the public and what can be done. Biotropica 41, 535–544 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Evans, M. C., Davila, F., Toomey, A. & Wyborn, C. Embrace complexity to improve conservation decision making. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1588 (2017).

  35. Cash, D. W. et al. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 8086–8091 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H. & Schoorman, F. D. An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20, 709–734 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S. & Camerer, C. Not so different after all: a cross-discipline view of trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 23, 393–404 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Lewicki, R. J., Tomlinson, E. C. & Gillespie, N. Models of interpersonal trust development: theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions. J. Manag. 32, 991–1022 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Hardin, R. Trust and Trustworthiness (Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 2002).

  40. Parkins, J. R. The problem with trust: Insights from advisory committees in the Forest Sector of Alberta. Soc. Nat. Resour. 23, 822–836 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Jacob, M. & Hellström, T. Policy understanding of science, public trust and the BSE-CJD crps. J. Hazardous Mater. 78, 303–317 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Saunders, M. N. K., Skinner, D., Dietz, G., Gillespie, N. & Lewicki, R. J. Organizational Trust: A Cultural Perspective (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010).

  43. Stern, M. J. & Baird, T. D. Trust ecology and the resilience of natural resource management institutions. Ecol. Soc. 20, 14 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Poortinga, W. & Pidgeon, N. F. Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Anal. 23, 961–972 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Laffont, J.-J. & Tirole, J. The politics of government decision-making: a theory of regulatory capture. Q. J. Econ. 106, 1089–1127 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Webber, S. Circulating climate services: commercializing science forclimate change adaptation in Pacific Islands. Geoforum 85, 82–91 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Barber, B. The Logic and Limits of Trust (Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, 1983).

  48. Schiermeier, Q. Major reform for climate body: Intergovernmental panel aims to become more responsive. Nature 473, 261 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Gillespie, N. & Dietz, G. Trust repair after an organization-level failure. Acad. Manag. Rev. 34, 127–145 (2009). This article outlines a systematic and multilevel framework for understanding trust repair at the organizational level.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Cvitanovic, C., McDonald, J. & Hobday, A. J. From science to action: Principles for undertaking environmental research that enables knowledge exchange and evidence-based decision-making. J. Environ. Manag. 183, 864–874 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Chubin, D. E. & Hackett, E. J. Peerless Science: Peer Review and US Science Policy (SUNY Press, Albany, 1990).

  52. Cvitanovic, C., Cunningham, R., Dowd, A. M., Howden, S. M. & van Putten, E. I. Using social network analysis to monitor and assess the effectiveness of knowledge brokers at connecting scientists and decision-makers: an Australian case study. Environ. Policy Gov. 27, 256–269 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Coleman, K. & Stern, M. J. Boundary spanners as trust ambassadors in collaborative natural resource management. J. Environ. Planning Manag. 61, 291–308 (2018).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank G. Althor for helpful discussions with R.M.C, and R. McAllister, L. Lim-Camacho and G.B. Witt for constructive feedback on earlier versions of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

J.L., M.H. and C.C. conceptually developed the paper. J.L., M.H., C.C., and R.M.C. wrote the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Howden.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lacey, J., Howden, M., Cvitanovic, C. et al. Understanding and managing trust at the climate science–policy interface. Nature Clim Change 8, 22–28 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-017-0010-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-017-0010-z

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing