In this article, I compare two accounts of how biodiversity restoration, flood protection and bio-physical models are co-produced in the Netherlands. Both are historical accounts of the interplay between research practices, policy discourse and intervention practices, one focusing on rivers and the other on the coastal environment. Three questions will be central to my comparison of the two paths of co-production. First, how have institutional conditions of research contributed to shaping the bio-physical models? Second, how has epistemic indeterminacy been tamed in the two cases? Third, how do the models of rivers and coasts perform biodiversity? I conclude by arguing that adaptive approaches to biodiversity restoration require an adaptive epistemology, which implies tolerating a certain degree of epistemic indeterminacy.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmorosC.RostanJ.C.PautouG.BravardJ.P. (1987). The reversible process concept applied to the environmental management of large river systems. Environmental Management, 11(5), 607–617.
2.
BaptistM.J.De VriesM.B.WangZ.B. (1998). Ecomorphological decision support system for the western Scheldt. In BabovicC.LarsenL.C. (Eds), Hydroinformatics ’98 Proceedings of the third international conference on hydroinformatics, Copenhagen, Denmark, 24–26August1998 (pp. 1245–1249). Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.
3.
BaptistM.J.PenningW.E.DuelH.SmitsA.J.M.GeerlingG.W.Van der LeeG.E.M.Van AlphenJ.S.L. (2004). Assessment of cyclic floodplain rejuvenation on flood levels and biodiversity in the Rhine river. River Research and Applications, 20(3), 285–297.
BijkerW.E. (2002). The Oosterschelde storm surge barrier: A test case for Dutch water technology, management, and politics. Technology & Culture, 43, 569–584.
6.
BowkerG. (2000). Biodiversity datadiversity. Social Studies of Science, 30(5), 643–683.
7.
CadéeG.C. (2001). Sediment dynamics by bioturbating organisms. In ReiseK. (Ed.), Ecological comparisons of sedimentary shores. Berlin: Springer.
8.
CallicottJ.B.RozziR.DelgadoL.MonticinoM.AcevedoM.HarcombeP. (2007). Biocomplexity and conservation of biodiversity hotspots: Three case studies from the Americas. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 362, 321–333.
9.
CompagnonD. (2008). La biodiversité, entre appropriation privée, revendications de souveraineté et coopération international [Biodiversity between private appropriation, sovereignty claims and international cooperation]. Développement durable et territoires, Dossier 10: Biens communs et propriété. Retrieved from http://developpementdurable.revues.org/5253
10.
De BruinD.HamhuisD.Van NieuwenhuijzeL.OvermarsW.SijmonsD.VeraF. (1987). Ooievaar. De toekomst van het rivierengebied [Stork. The future of the riverine area]. Arnhem: Stichting Gelderse Milieufederatie.
11.
De VriesG.VerhoevenI.BoeckhoutM. (2011). Taming uncertainty: The WRR approach to risk governance. Journal of Risk Research, 14(4), 485–499.
12.
DiscoC. (2002). Remaking ‘nature’: The ecological turn in Dutch water management. Science, Technology & Human Values, 27(2), 206–235.
13.
DuelH.KwakernaakC. (1992). Rivierdynamiek in uiterwaarden [Riverine dynamics in embanked floodplains]. Landschap, 9(4), 255–271.
14.
FaasseP. (1999). Zuiver om de wetenschap. De Akademie en haar levenswetenschappelijke instituten [Purely for science. The Academy and its institutes for life sciences]. Amsterdam: KNAW.
15.
FujimuraJ.H. (1987). Constructing ‘do-able’ problems in cancer research: Articulating alignment. Social Studies of Science, 17(2), 257–293.
16.
FujimuraJ.H. (1992). Crafting science: Standardized packages, boundary objects, and ‘translation’. In PickeringA. (Ed.), Science as practice and culture (pp. 168–211). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
17.
HermanP.M.J.MiddelburgJ.J.HeipC.H.R. (2001). Benthic community structure and sediment processes on an intertidal flat: Results from the ECOFLAT project. Continental Shelf Research, 21(18/19), 2055–2071.
18.
HollingC.S. (1996). Engineering resilience versus ecological resilience. In SchulzeP.C. (Ed.), Engineering within ecological constraints (pp. 31–44). Washington: The National Academy Press.
19.
JasanoffS.WynneB. (1998). Science and decision making. In RaynerS.MaloneE. (Eds), Human choice and climate change: The Societal Framework (pp. 1–87). Columbus, Ohio: Batelle Press.
20.
JasanoffS. (Ed.) (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. London: Routledge.
21.
JonesC.G.LawtonJ.H.ShachakM. (1994). Organisms as ecosystem engineers. Oikos, 69, 373–386.
22.
KeulartzJ. (2009). European nature conservation and restoration policy—Problems and perspectives. Restoration Ecology, 17(4), 446–450.
23.
KwaC. (2005a). Local ecologies and global science: Discourses and strategies of the international geosphere-biosphere programme. Social Studies of Science, 36(6), 923–950.
24.
KwaC. (2005b). Interdisciplinarity and postmodernity in the environmental sciences. History and Technology, 21(4), 331–344.
25.
KwaC.Van HemertM.Van der WeijL. (2009). Visualising landscapes: Do pictures represent theory or data. In ScholtenH.J.Van de VeldeR.Van ManenN. (Eds), Geospatial technology and the role of location in science. Dordrecht: Springer.
26.
LaveR.DoyleM.RobertsonM. (2010). Privatising stream restoration in the US. Social Studies of Science, 40(5), 677–703.
27.
LonginoH.E. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
28.
MaassenS.LievenO. (2006). Transdisciplinarity: A new mode of governing science?Science and Public Policy, 33(6), 399–410.
29.
MorrisN.RipA. (2006). Proactive adaptation: Scientists’ coping strategies in an evolving research system: the case of life scientists in the UK. Science and Public Policy, 33(4), 253–263.
30.
MozerskyJ.GalenJ. (2010). Case studies in the co-production of populations and genetics: The making of ‘at risk populations’ in BRCA genetics. BioSocieties, 5(4), 415–439.
31.
NienhuisP.H. (2006). Water and values: Ecological research as the basis for water management and nature management. Hydrobiologia, 565, 261–275.
32.
OreskesN. (2003). The role of quantitative models in science. In CanhamC.D.ColeJ.J.LauenrothW.K. (Eds), Models in ecosystem science (pp. 13–31). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
33.
PaarlbergA.J.KnaapenM.A.F.De VriesM.B.HulscherS.J.M.H.WangZ.B. (2005). Biological influences on morphology and bed composition of an intertidal flat. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 64(4), 577–590.
34.
PetersenA.C. (2006). Simulating nature: A philosophical study of computer-simulation uncertainties and their role in climate science and policy advice. Apeldoorn: Het Spinhuis Publishers.
35.
RademakersJ.G.M.WolfertH.P. (1994). Het Rivier-Ecotopen-Stelsel EHR rapport 61 [The River-Ecotope-System EHR report 61]. Lelystad: RIZA.
36.
ReussM. (2002). Learning from the Dutch: Technology, management, and water resources development. Technology and Culture, 43, 465–472.
37.
RouseJ. (1993). Foucault and the natural sciences. In CaputoJ.YountM. (Eds), Foucault and the critique of institutions (pp. 137–164). University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
38.
RunhaarJ. (1991). Beschrijving en voorspelling van de vegetatie in het rivierengebied (CML report 72, Universiteit Leiden) [Description and prediction of vegetation in the riverine area (CML report 72, University of Leiden)].
39.
ShackleyS.WynneB. (1995). Global climate change: The mutual construction of an emergent science-policy domain. Science and Public Policy, 22(4), 218–230.
40.
StarS.L. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology and Human Values, 35(5), 601–617.
41.
StarS.L.GriesemerJ.R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’, and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–1939. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420.
42.
TemmermanS.BoumaT.J.Van de KoppelJ.Van der WalD.De VriesM.B.HermanP.M.J. (2007). Vegetation causes channel erosion in a tidal landscape. Geology, 35(7), 631–634.
43.
TurnbullD. (1995). Rendering turbulence orderly. Social Studies of Science, 25, 9–33.
44.
ValkenburgG.AardenE. (2011). Constructing embryos, constructing politics: Connecting politics and technology in the Netherlands and Germany. BioSocieties, 6(4), 447–465.
45.
Van de KoppelJ.HermanP.M.J.ThoolenP.HeipC.H.R. (2001). Do alternate stable states occur in natural ecosystems? Evidence from a tidal flat. Ecology, 82(12), 3449–3461.
46.
Van der HeideT.Van NesE.H.GeerlingG.W.SmoldersA.J.P.BoumaT.J.Van KatwijkM.M. (2007). Positive feedbacks in seagrass ecosystems: Implications for success in conservation and restoration. Ecosystems, 10(8), 1311–1322.
47.
Van HemertM. (2008). Making rivers modular. Emerging river science 1980–2005. Doctoral dissertation, University of Twente.
48.
WatertonC. (2002). From field to fantasy: Classifying nature, constructing Europe. Social Studies of Science, 32(2), 177–204.
49.
WhitleyR. (1984). The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
