Search

• This report provides insight into the biodiversity discourse by biodiversityrelevant actor groups in Europe • The absence of a common understanding of biodiversity allows actor groups to choose rhetoric strategically • Biodiversity discourse is used strategically to persuade, gather custom or support, or justify action or inaction • Anthropocentric values are mostly used when arguing both for and against biodiversity conservation • The biodiversity discourse is dominated by rhetoric of warning, persuading, calling for action, accusing, and informing • The rhetoric used in biodiversity discourse differs between countries • Knowledge of societal discourses are valuable to tailor interventions to promote biodiversity, such as those in PLANET4B case studies

• This report provides insight into the biodiversity discourse by biodiversityrelevant actor groups in Europe • The absence of a common understanding of biodiversity allows actor groups to choose rhetoric strategically • Biodiversity discourse is used strategically to persuade, gather custom or support, or justify action or inaction • Anthropocentric values are mostly used when arguing both for and against biodiversity conservation • The biodiversity discourse is dominated by rhetoric of warning, persuading, calling for action, accusing, and informing • The rhetoric used in biodiversity discourse differs between countries • Knowledge of societal discourses are valuable to tailor interventions to promote biodiversity, such as those in PLANET4B case studies

• This report provides insight into the biodiversity discourse by biodiversityrelevant actor groups in Europe • The absence of a common understanding of biodiversity allows actor groups to choose rhetoric strategically • Biodiversity discourse is used strategically to persuade, gather custom or support, or justify action or inaction • Anthropocentric values are mostly used when arguing both for and against biodiversity conservation • The biodiversity discourse is dominated by rhetoric of warning, persuading, calling for action, accusing, and informing • The rhetoric used in biodiversity discourse differs between countries • Knowledge of societal discourses are valuable to tailor interventions to promote biodiversity, such as those in PLANET4B case studies

Using biodiversity to persuade: A discourse analysis. Insights from the biodiversity discourse in Europe.

Using biodiversity to persuade: A discourse analysis. Insights from the biodiversity discourse in Europe.

Using biodiversity to persuade: A discourse analysis. Insights from the biodiversity discourse in Europe.

• This report provides insight into the biodiversity discourse by biodiversityrelevant actor groups in Europe • The absence of a common understanding of biodiversity allows actor groups to choose rhetoric strategically • Biodiversity discourse is used strategically to persuade, gather custom or support, or justify action or inaction • Anthropocentric values are mostly used when arguing both for and against biodiversity conservation • The biodiversity discourse is dominated by rhetoric of warning, persuading, calling for action, accusing, and informing • The rhetoric used in biodiversity discourse differs between countries • Knowledge of societal discourses are valuable to tailor interventions to promote biodiversity, such as those in PLANET4B case studies

Using biodiversity to persuade: A discourse analysis. Insights from the biodiversity discourse in Europe.

• This report provides insight into the biodiversity discourse by biodiversityrelevant actor groups in Europe • The absence of a common understanding of biodiversity allows actor groups to choose rhetoric strategically • Biodiversity discourse is used strategically to persuade, gather custom or support, or justify action or inaction • Anthropocentric values are mostly used when arguing both for and against biodiversity conservation • The biodiversity discourse is dominated by rhetoric of warning, persuading, calling for action, accusing, and informing • The rhetoric used in biodiversity discourse differs between countries • Knowledge of societal discourses are valuable to tailor interventions to promote biodiversity, such as those in PLANET4B case studies

• This report provides insight into the biodiversity discourse by biodiversityrelevant actor groups in Europe • The absence of a common understanding of biodiversity allows actor groups to choose rhetoric strategically • Biodiversity discourse is used strategically to persuade, gather custom or support, or justify action or inaction • Anthropocentric values are mostly used when arguing both for and against biodiversity conservation • The biodiversity discourse is dominated by rhetoric of warning, persuading, calling for action, accusing, and informing • The rhetoric used in biodiversity discourse differs between countries • Knowledge of societal discourses are valuable to tailor interventions to promote biodiversity, such as those in PLANET4B case studies

Using biodiversity to persuade: A discourse analysis. Insights from the biodiversity discourse in Europe.

• This report provides insight into the biodiversity discourse by biodiversityrelevant actor groups in Europe • The absence of a common understanding of biodiversity allows actor groups to choose rhetoric strategically • Biodiversity discourse is used strategically to persuade, gather custom or support, or justify action or inaction • Anthropocentric values are mostly used when arguing both for and against biodiversity conservation • The biodiversity discourse is dominated by rhetoric of warning, persuading, calling for action, accusing, and informing • The rhetoric used in biodiversity discourse differs between countries • Knowledge of societal discourses are valuable to tailor interventions to promote biodiversity, such as those in PLANET4B case studies

• This report provides insight into the biodiversity discourse by biodiversityrelevant actor groups in Europe • The absence of a common understanding of biodiversity allows actor groups to choose rhetoric strategically • Biodiversity discourse is used strategically to persuade, gather custom or support, or justify action or inaction • Anthropocentric values are mostly used when arguing both for and against biodiversity conservation • The biodiversity discourse is dominated by rhetoric of warning, persuading, calling for action, accusing, and informing • The rhetoric used in biodiversity discourse differs between countries • Knowledge of societal discourses are valuable to tailor interventions to promote biodiversity, such as those in PLANET4B case studies

Using biodiversity to persuade: A discourse analysis. Insights from the biodiversity discourse in Europe.

• This report provides insight into the biodiversity discourse by biodiversityrelevant actor groups in Europe • The absence of a common understanding of biodiversity allows actor groups to choose rhetoric strategically • Biodiversity discourse is used strategically to persuade, gather custom or support, or justify action or inaction • Anthropocentric values are mostly used when arguing both for and against biodiversity conservation • The biodiversity discourse is dominated by rhetoric of warning, persuading, calling for action, accusing, and informing • The rhetoric used in biodiversity discourse differs between countries • Knowledge of societal discourses are valuable to tailor interventions to promote biodiversity, such as those in PLANET4B case studies

An approach that has been suggested as potentially addressing the challenges of science-policy-interfaces (SPIs) is the mobilization of existing networks through a ‘network-of-networks’ (NoN) approach. This paper shares empirical findings from a mixed-method study, combining qualitative and quantitative data, that critically evaluates the ‘network-of-networks’ approach for SPIs. To establish whether and how a NoN can help existing networks act more effectively at the boundary of science and policy, we use the Eklipse Mechanism as a key example. We analyse the major characteristics of networks active in biodiversity-focused science-policy interactions, the potential roles and types of engagement of participants, and the major challenges faced by networks and individuals when acting at the boundaries of science and policy. Results suggest that the more diverse the actors involved, the more effective the SPI. While a formalized EU-level SPI for biodiversity is welcomed by most respondents, willingness and actual potential to contribute to such an entity differed amongst networks, highlighting that contributions to SPIs are highly dependent on individual and organizational capacities. The challenges faced by individuals and networks range from limited resources to effective communication and achieving meaningful impact even if the institutional context is unrewarding. To make a ‘network-of-networks’ model fully operational requires meeting the capacity building needs of networks, providing institutional support, and creating room for wider engagement.

An approach that has been suggested as potentially addressing the challenges of science-policy-interfaces (SPIs) is the mobilization of existing networks through a ‘network-of-networks’ (NoN) approach. This paper shares empirical findings from a mixed-method study, combining qualitative and quantitative data, that critically evaluates the ‘network-of-networks’ approach for SPIs. To establish whether and how a NoN can help existing networks act more effectively at the boundary of science and policy, we use the Eklipse Mechanism as a key example. We analyse the major characteristics of networks active in biodiversity-focused science-policy interactions, the potential roles and types of engagement of participants, and the major challenges faced by networks and individuals when acting at the boundaries of science and policy. Results suggest that the more diverse the actors involved, the more effective the SPI. While a formalized EU-level SPI for biodiversity is welcomed by most respondents, willingness and actual potential to contribute to such an entity differed amongst networks, highlighting that contributions to SPIs are highly dependent on individual and organizational capacities. The challenges faced by individuals and networks range from limited resources to effective communication and achieving meaningful impact even if the institutional context is unrewarding. To make a ‘network-of-networks’ model fully operational requires meeting the capacity building needs of networks, providing institutional support, and creating room for wider engagement.

Understanding uncertainties and risks can be considered to be the main motivation behind environmental scenario studies to assess potential economic, environmental, social or technical developments and their expected consequences for society and environment. The scenario study presented in this paper was designed to contribute to the question of how natural capital and ecosystem services may evolve in Europe under different socio-environmental conditions. The study was conducted as part of OpenNESS, an on-going EU FP7 research project. We present the iterative participatory scenario process, the storylines and drivers, examples for regional applications, as well as initial feedback from stakeholders. In a participatory iterative approach four scenarios were developed for the period to 2050, involving regional and EU-level users and stakeholders. Subsequently, scenarios were successfully contextualised and applied in regional place-based studies under widely differing socio-environmental conditions. Regional teams used different approaches to adapt storylines and drivers to the regional contexts. In an internal evaluation process among regional stakeholders some participants expressed concerns about the scenario method. Suggestions are made how to overcome these limitations. However, most participants approved the scenario method, especially in terms of provoking discussions, and confirmed the usefulness and applicability of the approach.

The ecosystem service (ES) concept is becoming mainstream in policy and planning, but operational influence on practice is seldom reported. Here, we report the practitioners’ perspectives on the practical implementation of the ES concept in 27 case studies. A standardised anonymous survey (n = 246), was used, focusing on the science-practice interaction process, perceived impact and expected use of the case study assessments. Operationalisation of the concept was shown to achieve a gradual change in practices: 13% of the case studies reported a change in action (e.g. management or policy change), and a further 40% anticipated that a change would result from the work. To a large extent the impact was attributed to a well conducted science-practice interaction process (>70%). The main reported advantages of the concept included: increased concept awareness and communication; enhanced participation and collaboration; production of comprehensive science-based knowledge; and production of spatially referenced knowledge for input to planning (91% indicated they had acquired new knowledge). The limitations were mostly case-specific and centred on methodology, data, and challenges with result implementation. The survey highlighted the crucial role of communication, participation and collaboration across different stakeholders, to implement the ES concept and enhance the democratisation of nature and landscape planning.

The ecosystem service (ES) concept is becoming mainstream in policy and planning, but operational influence on practice is seldom reported. Here, we report the practitioners’ perspectives on the practical implementation of the ES concept in 27 case studies. A standardised anonymous survey (n = 246), was used, focusing on the science-practice interaction process, perceived impact and expected use of the case study assessments. Operationalisation of the concept was shown to achieve a gradual change in practices: 13% of the case studies reported a change in action (e.g. management or policy change), and a further 40% anticipated that a change would result from the work. To a large extent the impact was attributed to a well conducted science-practice interaction process (>70%). The main reported advantages of the concept included: increased concept awareness and communication; enhanced participation and collaboration; production of comprehensive science-based knowledge; and production of spatially referenced knowledge for input to planning (91% indicated they had acquired new knowledge). The limitations were mostly case-specific and centred on methodology, data, and challenges with result implementation. The survey highlighted the crucial role of communication, participation and collaboration across different stakeholders, to implement the ES concept and enhance the democratisation of nature and landscape planning.

Understanding uncertainties and risks can be considered to be the main motivation behind environmental scenario studies to assess potential economic, environmental, social or technical developments and their expected consequences for society and environment. The scenario study presented in this paper was designed to contribute to the question of how natural capital and ecosystem services may evolve in Europe under different socio-environmental conditions. The study was conducted as part of OpenNESS, an on-going EU FP7 research project. We present the iterative participatory scenario process, the storylines and drivers, examples for regional applications, as well as initial feedback from stakeholders. In a participatory iterative approach four scenarios were developed for the period to 2050, involving regional and EU-level users and stakeholders. Subsequently, scenarios were successfully contextualised and applied in regional place-based studies under widely differing socio-environmental conditions. Regional teams used different approaches to adapt storylines and drivers to the regional contexts. In an internal evaluation process among regional stakeholders some participants expressed concerns about the scenario method. Suggestions are made how to overcome these limitations. However, most participants approved the scenario method, especially in terms of provoking discussions, and confirmed the usefulness and applicability of the approach.

Nature is perceived and valued in starkly different and often conflicting ways. This paper presents the rationale for the inclusive valuation of nature's contributions to people (NCP) in decision making, as well as broad methodological steps for doing so. While developed within the context of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), this approach is more widely applicable to initiatives at the knowledge-policy interface, which require a pluralistic approach to recognizing the diversity of values. We argue that transformative practices aiming at sustainable futures would benefit from embracing such diversity, which require recognizing and addressing power relationships across stakeholder groups that hold different values on human naturerelations and NCP.

Nature is perceived and valued in starkly different and often conflicting ways. This paper presents the rationale for the inclusive valuation of nature's contributions to people (NCP) in decision making, as well as broad methodological steps for doing so. While developed within the context of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), this approach is more widely applicable to initiatives at the knowledge-policy interface, which require a pluralistic approach to recognizing the diversity of values. We argue that transformative practices aiming at sustainable futures would benefit from embracing such diversity, which require recognizing and addressing power relationships across stakeholder groups that hold different values on human naturerelations and NCP.

Nature is perceived and valued in starkly different and often conflicting ways. This paper presents the rationale for the inclusive valuation of nature's contributions to people (NCP) in decision making, as well as broad methodological steps for doing so. While developed within the context of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), this approach is more widely applicable to initiatives at the knowledge-policy interface, which require a pluralistic approach to recognizing the diversity of values. We argue that transformative practices aiming at sustainable futures would benefit from embracing such diversity, which require recognizing and addressing power relationships across stakeholder groups that hold different values on human naturerelations and NCP.

The number of collaborative initiatives between scientists and volunteers (i.e., citizen science) is increasing across many research fields. The promise of societal transformation together with scientific breakthroughs contributes to the current popularity of citizen science (CS) in the policy domain. We examined the transformative capacity of citizen science in particular learning through environmental CS as conservation tool. We reviewed the CS and social-learning literature and examined 14 conservation projects across Europe that involved collaborative CS. We also developed a template that can be used to explore learning arrangements (i.e., learning events and materials) in CS projects and to explain how the desired outcomes can be achieved through CS learning. We found that recent studies aiming to define CS for analytical purposes often fail to improve the conceptual clarity of CS; CS programs may have transformative potential, especially for the development of individual skills, but such transformation is not necessarily occurring at the organizational and institutional levels; empirical evidence on simple learning outcomes, but the assertion of transformative effects of CS learning is often based on assumptions rather than empirical observation; and it is unanimous that learning in CS is considered important, but in practice it often goes unreported or unevaluated. In conclusion, we point to the need for reliable and transparent measurement of transformative effects for democratization of knowledge production.

The number of collaborative initiatives between scientists and volunteers (i.e., citizen science) is increasing across many research fields. The promise of societal transformation together with scientific breakthroughs contributes to the current popularity of citizen science (CS) in the policy domain. We examined the transformative capacity of citizen science in particular learning through environmental CS as conservation tool. We reviewed the CS and social-learning literature and examined 14 conservation projects across Europe that involved collaborative CS. We also developed a template that can be used to explore learning arrangements (i.e., learning events and materials) in CS projects and to explain how the desired outcomes can be achieved through CS learning. We found that recent studies aiming to define CS for analytical purposes often fail to improve the conceptual clarity of CS; CS programs may have transformative potential, especially for the development of individual skills, but such transformation is not necessarily occurring at the organizational and institutional levels; empirical evidence on simple learning outcomes, but the assertion of transformative effects of CS learning is often based on assumptions rather than empirical observation; and it is unanimous that learning in CS is considered important, but in practice it often goes unreported or unevaluated. In conclusion, we point to the need for reliable and transparent measurement of transformative effects for democratization of knowledge production.

[Abstract] This working paper presents a set of propositions about the agency and dynamics of transformative social innovation (TSI) that have been developed as part of an EU-funded research project entitled “TRANsformative Social Innovation Theory” (TRANSIT; 2014-2017). These TSI propositions represent first steps towards the development of a new theory of TSI, taking the form of proto-explanations of the agency and dynamics of TSI, based on the bringing together of our empirical observations on TSI and the project's theoretical reviews and theoretical framings. Ideally this working paper should be read in conjunction with the working paper entitled “A framework for transformative social innovation” (Haxeltine et al 2016) which presents in skeletal terms the theoretical and conceptual framing of TSI developed in the TRANSIT project. This TSI framework builds on sustainability transition studies, social innovation research, social psychology studies of empowerment and other several other areas of social theory to deliver a bespoke theoretical and conceptual framework that is grounded in a relational ontology and which is being employed as a platform for the development of a middle-range theory of TSI. Next we provide a very brief overview of some key elements of the framework, in particular how we conceptualise social innovation, transformative change, and transformative social innovation. Propositions were developed for each of four relational dimensions implied by the TSI framework with also a brief statement of the topic addressed by each of the twelve propositions.

Responding to different questions generated by biodiversity and ecosystem services policy or management requires different forms of knowledge (e.g. scientific, experiential) and knowledge synthesis. Additionally, synthesis methods need to be appropriate to policy context (e.g. question types, budget, timeframe, output type, required scientific rigour). In this paper we present a range of different methods that could potentially be used to conduct a knowledge synthesis in response to questions arising from knowledge needs of decision makers on biodiversity and ecosystem services policy and management. Through a series of workshops attended by natural and social scientists and decision makers we compiled a range of question types, different policy contexts and potential methodological approaches to knowledge synthesis. Methods are derived from both natural and social sciences fields and reflect the range of question and study types that may be relevant for syntheses. Knowledge can be available either in qualitative or quantitative form and in some cases also mixed. All methods have their strengths and weaknesses and we discuss a sample of these to illustrate the need for diversity and importance of appropriate selection. To summarize this collection, we present a table that identifies potential methods matched to different combinations of question types and policy contexts, aimed at assisting teams undertaking knowledge syntheses to select appropriate methods.

Responding to different questions generated by biodiversity and ecosystem services policy or management requires different forms of knowledge (e.g. scientific, experiential) and knowledge synthesis. Additionally, synthesis methods need to be appropriate to policy context (e.g. question types, budget, timeframe, output type, required scientific rigour). In this paper we present a range of different methods that could potentially be used to conduct a knowledge synthesis in response to questions arising from knowledge needs of decision makers on biodiversity and ecosystem services policy and management. Through a series of workshops attended by natural and social scientists and decision makers we compiled a range of question types, different policy contexts and potential methodological approaches to knowledge synthesis. Methods are derived from both natural and social sciences fields and reflect the range of question and study types that may be relevant for syntheses. Knowledge can be available either in qualitative or quantitative form and in some cases also mixed. All methods have their strengths and weaknesses and we discuss a sample of these to illustrate the need for diversity and importance of appropriate selection. To summarize this collection, we present a table that identifies potential methods matched to different combinations of question types and policy contexts, aimed at assisting teams undertaking knowledge syntheses to select appropriate methods

Using a range of different methods including extensive reviews, workshops and an electronic conference, 70 key research recommendations and 12 priority research needs to integrate the ecosystem services approach into biodiversity conservation policy and funding were identified by a cross-disciplinary group of over 100 scientists and 50 stakeholders, including research funders and policy-makers. These recommendations focus on the ecological underpinning of ecosystem services, drivers that affect ecosystems and their services, biological traits and ecosystem services, the valuation of ecosystem services, spatial and temporal scales in ecosystem service assessment, indicators of ecosystem services, and habitat management, conservation policy and ecosystem services. The recommendations in this paper help steer the research agenda on ecosystem services into policy-relevant areas, agreed upon by funders, researchers and policy-makers. This research agenda will only succeed with increased collaboration between researchers across disciplines, thereby providing a challenge to the research community and research funders to work in new, interdisciplinary ways.

Using a range of different methods including extensive reviews, workshops and an electronic conference, 70 key research recommendations and 12 priority research needs to integrate the ecosystem services approach into biodiversity conservation policy and funding were identified by a cross-disciplinary group of over 100 scientists and 50 stakeholders, including research funders and policy-makers. These recommendations focus on the ecological underpinning of ecosystem services, drivers that affect ecosystems and their services, biological traits and ecosystem services, the valuation of ecosystem services, spatial and temporal scales in ecosystem service assessment, indicators of ecosystem services, and habitat management, conservation policy and ecosystem services. The recommendations in this paper help steer the research agenda on ecosystem services into policy-relevant areas, agreed upon by funders, researchers and policy-makers. This research agenda will only succeed with increased collaboration between researchers across disciplines, thereby providing a challenge to the research community and research funders to work in new, interdisciplinary ways.