This talk provides an overview of how science can inform policy- and decision-making in the face of accelerating biodiversity loss and its wide-ranging consequences. Among the characteristics various science-policy-society interfaces (SPSIs) share is that they transcend disciplinary boundaries, reflect diverse bodies of knowledge and contribute to the development of capacities, agencies, and tangible policies and measures to halt biodiversity loss. However, interfaces that inform or shape biodiversity-related decisions in policy, business, or other societal spheres vary in terms of the intensity of collaboration between science and societal actors, the level of knowledge integration, and formats of outputs and outcomes.

Starting point for the talk is a comparison of existing SPSIs, their targets and functions, but also their shortcomings and the criticism. Mechanisms like the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) or the European Mechanism Eklipse, TEEB – The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity are considered as well as national SPSI bodies. Against this background, the Senckenberg Synthesis and Solutions Labs, which are currently being set up, are introduced as an institutionally anchored programme. This programme aims to contribute significantly to the integration and evaluation of knowledge and the development of evidence-based options for action to protect and recover biodiversity. The programme is problem- and issue-oriented, contextualised, and stakeholder-based. As a research institution, Senckenberg has already received a high level of trust as an authentic and credible place for dialogue, science communication and knowledge transfer through its research, natural history collections and museum exhibitions. With the Synthesis and Solutions Labs, Senckenberg aims to achieve a new level of bilateral knowledge transfer between science and society, both qualitatively and quantitatively. The Synthesis and Solutions Labs are intended to promote social-ecological transformations and contribute to the development of a democratic knowledge society. The implementation of the labs is expected to have impacts on society and politics and, additionally, to enhance Senckenberg's research agenda, collection development, and exhibition practice with the structured identification of societal knowledge needs.

The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that processes of knowledge exchange between researchers and policymakers present various challenges (i.e., lack of institutions, routines and trust). These challenges partially result from the nature of wicked societal problems such as pandemics or climate change that involve a lot of scientific uncertainty, expert disagreement and political contestation. Professionals who design and implement science-policy interactions face the challenge of selecting suitable formats to facilitate knowledge exchange under those conditions. Despite the acknowledged need for innovative co-productive formats to address wicked societal problems, linear formats persist in practice.

The study systematically categorizes science-policy interaction activities into distinct formats. The proposed typology differentiates between different actor constellations (Who is involved?), the function of the format (What is the aim?), the degree of co-production and transparency (How is the process?). For each format we describe aspects relevant for carrying it out, including specific strengths, resources needed, sub-activities, possible impact pathways and considerations for implementation.

The systematization helps to structure these activities, identify recurring patterns among them and foster cross-learning among organizers of different formats. Another aim of the systematization is to make innovative approaches available to a broader audience. For practitioners at the science-policy interface, the systematization serves as a tool for evaluating and optimizing existing formats or developing new ones.

We draw on cases of science-policy activities in Switzerland and Finland, covering diverse formats such as round tables, workshops, fora, fellowship programs and funding programs. Desktop research and semi-structured interviews with the organizers are used to analyse those activities.

The presentation addresses the enhancing the theoretical foundations of inter- and transdisciplinary stream of the conference. We present our framework, the systematized formats as well as first learnings from our own piloting of those formats. We thereby aim to share both theoretical as well as practical insights into the specific challenges and possible methodological solutions of the science-policy interface to the ITD community.

Policy makers and research funding bodies have increasingly embraced the potential of inter- and transdisciplinary research (ITDR) to tackle larger societal challenges. However, academic literature and funding agency reports show serious concerns and doubts about how best to assess ITDR proposals, as well as a lack of understanding of how particular funding calls and assessment procedures can shape ITDR practice. There is currently a pressing funding policy question on how best to assess ITDR to facilitate research with the optimal capacity to tackle complex problems. Answering this question requires a better understanding of how the interaction between funders and research teams informs the reality of funded ITD research, particularly when it comes to the composition and integration of transdisciplinary research teams involving non-academic actors.

This paper presents results from research commissioned by the Dutch research funder NWO around the assessment of ITDR proposals. The project was aimed at studying the current NWO practices of assessment of ITDR research proposals and using insights from the literature on ITDR and ITDR evaluation to make recommendations for improvement of assessment procedures. A combination of document analysis, semi-structured interviewing and observation was used to study current assessment practices in the context of three different funding calls to which ITDR proposals were submitted. The findings were compared to best practices presented in the existing literature and used to make recommendations for improvements and identify possible barriers for effective reforms.

The results point to two aspects of the assessment that are key to assessing ITDR proposals: The composition and degree of integration of review committees, and the degree to which alignment is achieved between funders, reviewers and applicant researchers concerning their understanding of key concepts such as ‘interdisciplinarity’, ‘quality’, and the formulated goals of funding calls and research proposals. Both factors are also shown to affect how uncertainties and tough decisions are resolved at different stages of the review process.

To add to these results, the research team is conducting interviews with the researchers who successfully applied for funding, in order to gain insight into how research teams and plans were (re-)shaped through interaction with the funding procedures, and how these took practical form once the grants were awarded. By combining this with the existing data, we will present a multidimensional picture of how the interaction between funding agency and the applying research consortia shapes transdisciplinary research teams, proposals, and the early phases of the research itself. Special attention will be given to the roles accorded to non-academic partners in funding applications, their prescribed roles in proposals, and their practical roles in the actual research.

In terms of capacity building for ITDR, this study adds both to the knowledge on the assessment of ITDR proposals and the role of funders in shaping research. In addition, the research also deepens our theoretical understanding of how transdisciplinary research, forms of integration, and the practical role of non-academic research partners are actually given shape in the process of reviewing processes, research development, and the interaction between researcher and funder.

Inter- and transdisciplinary approaches in science are recognized for their potential to address complex societal challenges comprehensively. Collaborative efforts between citizens, scientists, and policymakers are often advocated to enhance mutual trust and develop more socially robust scientific knowledge. However, empirical evidence supporting these claims remains limited. In this study, we explore the potential advantages of employing an inter- and transdisciplinary approach to science through two case studies on noise pollution.

Noise pollution poses a significant concern for Dutch communities residing near railroads and airports. Despite well-documented adverse health effects, the anticipated increase in rail freight traffic and air travel suggests that the problem is likely to exacerbate in the near future. For instance, the EU plans to double rail freight traffic by 2050 for sustainable transportation, while long-standing proposals aim to expand Schiphol airport.

Safeguarding the health and well-being of citizens is as a paramount goal of policymaking. Therefore, accurately assessing noise pollution is crucial for effective policymaking and enforcement. However, current methods in the Netherlands primarily rely on modeling and calculating long-term mean noise levels and -annoyance. These do not sufficiently address local experiences and concerns, such as short-term peak noise levels, leading to criticism and distrust.

In response to these challenges, concerned citizens have embraced the role of citizen scientists, measuring noise levels with affordable yet quality sound meters and reporting on the impact of noise on their well-being. Despite originating from frustration and distrust, this citizen science approach has the potential to bridge gaps between science, society, and policy.

Our study focuses on two interconnected case studies: noise pollution from freight train traffic in the village of America (Limburg), where a busy railroad is situated close to residential houses, and aircraft noise pollution around Schiphol Airport (North-Holland). Residents near the railroad experience increased annoyance due to longer and heavier freight trains, especially at night. Similarly, air traffic growth around Schiphol Airport intensifies noise pollution, causing annoyance and concern in neighboring communities.

Both citizen science projects involved scientists and citizens collaboratively conducting research in virtually every stage of the scientific process, including formulating research questions, data collection, and interpretation. Drawing on experiences from both case studies, we highlight the valuable impact of citizen participation in scientific research. Through interviews and project documentation, we explore the impact of citizen science on the social robustness of policy-relevant science regarding noise pollution. The results emphasize that acquiring "real-world knowledge" at a local level, employing a transdisciplinary approach, and using an iterative research process contribute to the social robustness of scientific knowledge in this field.