1. Researchers role and tools in the innovation process
The question: Can we, at different scales, show that knowledge of trade-offs
make a difference
The case: In a complex resource scarce world single issue objective/policies
are of inferior and perhaps damaging.
In a political sense, the opposing parties lobby the policy maker or public
opinion – informed involvement in presenting trade-offs is necessary.
Informing the debate- detrimental trade-offs are often perceived as worse
than the actual trade-offs (e.g. conflicts between farmers and foresters)
Decisions made are often non-rational, therefore we should identify where
science plays a role (e.g flooding in Bangkok Vs dry season irrigation)
But can we demonstrate that considering trade-offs at higher scales have
helped (questions over whether the impact that the analyses of the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment Development Goals made…communication?)

2. Researchers role and tools in the innovation process
Our role:
•Credibility, relevance and legitimacy-these 3 buttons need to be pressed at
the same time. Mix the emphasis depending on your audience but include the
3 aspects.
•Rigorous and pre-emptive science must be on-going and provide more
examples of trade-offs and inform the debates with evidence based work.
•Pre-emptive – knowledge about slowly variables is long term.
•Recognise where in the “issue cycle” that science plays a role
•Dedicated communication teams – we cant be all things to everyone- mix of
the science message and the public apsects

3. Regulate and/or reward
Σ people * influence * concern
Who will monitor
Who’ll have to pay? compliance? Litigation
Political prominence
What will it cost? Implement &
monitor
What can be done to stop,
mitigate, undo or adapt? Evaluate, re-
assess
How much and where?
Who’s to blame?
Is it a Cause-effect
problem? mechanisms
Scoping Stakeholder Negotiation Implemen- Re-eva-
analysis response tation luation
Stage of the issue cycle
Tomich et al. 2004