Dr GS Petrokofsky
Research Area
Science policy linkages in environmental sciences with particular reference to the UK forestry research agenda.
Research Description
The
evidence base in forestry may not be wholly 'fit for purpose' (i.e. in a position fully to support evidence-based policy-making ) for a number of reasons, including:
- New
research is not necessarily commissioned with particular reference either to known gaps in
the knowledge base or known needs identified by the wider research/practice/policy
communities. The 'forestry community' has undergone considerable changes over the last decade, involving more players who do not always feel included in a decision-making frame which has not kept pace with these changes in the stakeholder base;
- The
existing science base is not robust enough to answer policy questions – there
is no clear gold standard for synthesising results of relevance to policy
issues. Medicine has provided a model in the form of systematic reviews which
provide transparent mechanisms for assessing efficacy of interventions and
identifying where research needs to be focussed to support policy
While
stakeholder consultations and other forms of new governance arrangement are in
place to discuss questions of policy implementation, no such arrangements have
been developed for setting research agendas or framing policy-relevant research questions.
My research examined how alternative mechanisms for setting research priorities can incorporate wider stakeholder inputs and compare how priorities determined by these networks of players differ from current priorities derived from an 'expert-driven' method of identifying priorities.
In order to assess the applicability of systematic evidence-based approaches for forestry decision-making, I worked with a group of
international researchers and policy makers to explore the potential for
systematic reviews, for
validating the evidence base for carbon stock assessment under the REDD
(Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation) process.
Results
of both these strands of research indicate that there is capacity to collaborate to frame questions and
critically appraise evidence for important policy issues. Long-term benefits of
adopting systematic reviews are clear, however, there are also short-term
advantages to be gained from moving incrementally towards this goal. In the
aftermath of society’s concerns about possible manipulation of science by
experts (in the climate science arena), it would be folly for the forestry
sector to ignore the benefits that would accrue from adopting genuinely
evidence-based procedures for matters of global significance.
Publications
Goetz, S., F. Achard, H.
Joosten, H. Kanamaru, A. Lehtonen, M. Menton, G. Petrokofsky,A. Pullin, M.
Wattenbach (in prep) Comparison of methods for the measurement and assessment
of carbon stocks and carbon stock changes in terrestrial carbon pools.
Systematic Review No. 09-016 , Collaboration for Environmental Evidence.
Petrokofsky, G., G.E.
Hemery., N.D. Brown, (in prep) Linking
the existing knowledge base with research priorities identified in a
participatory stakeholder process. Forest
Policy and Economics.
G. Petrokofsky, P. Holmgren,
N.D. Brown, 2011. Reliable forest carbon monitoring – systematic reviews as a
tool for validating the knowledge base.
International Forestry Review 13 (1), 56-66
Petrokofsky, G., R. Mills,
2009. The role of librarians and information specialists in evidence-based
forestry. Proceedings of CFM 2009, 13th World Forestry Congress, Buenos
Aires, Argentina.
Full Publication List (while at this department)
Petrokofsky, G, Brown, N.D, Hemery, G.E, Woodward, S, Wilson, E, Weatherall, A, Stokes, V, Smithers, R.J, Sangster, M, Russell, K, Pullin, A.S, Price, C, Morecroft, M, Malins, M, Lawrence, A, Kirby, K.J, Godbold, D, Charman, E, Boshier, D, Bosbeer, S, Arnold, J.E.M. (2010) A participatory process for identifying and prioritizing policy-relevant research questions in natural resource management: A case study from the UK forestry sector Forestry. 83 (4): pp 357-367.
doi:10.1093/forestry/cpq018.
Petrokofsky, G, Hemery, G, Brown, ND. (2008) Knowledge feeds decision making: the people's say in UK forestry. Quarterly Journal of Forestry. 102 (3): pp 221-225
Funding
Collaborators
A collaborative project was undertaken with colleagues from these
bodies to determine the Top Ten Questions for Forestry. A full
description of the project is on the
T10Q website.
For funding I
am indebted to the Sylva Foundation, the Forestry Commission, the Natural
Environment Research Council (NERC), Natural England, the Woodland Trust and
the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), the Department of Plant Sciences, Green Templeton College, and
the Institute of Chartered Foresters (ICF).Additional funding for a related project looking at the use of evidence
from past practices for current companies, sites and technologies
involved in an innovative logging business in collaboration with
Dr. Sam Randalls, UCL, came from a Royal Geographical Society (with IBG) Small Research Grant.
Skills
In 2008 I took part, with 4 colleagues from the University of Oxford, in the national YES competition, run by the Natural
Environment Research Council (NERC) in association with the University
of Nottingham and with support from the Biotechnology & Biological
Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), aimed at encouraging young scientists to develop
skills and contacts needed to turn research into commercially viable
products and to pitch their ideas to a panel of potential investors. The team won first prize of £1000 with a business idea aimed at improving bee health.