The role,importance and challenges of social sciences and humanities in the work of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES)

Qualified competences in social science and humanities are required across the various deliverables of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES) in order to fully address the objectives of IPBES. Building integrative approaches has long been acknowledged as a scientific challenge. Hence, new paths have to be forged, including revisiting basic ontological and epistemological considerations, such as how we understand the world, what knowledge is, and the role of science. Constructive interdisciplinary dialogues in IPBES supports the development of innovative frames and terminologies. One example is the evolution from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment ecosystem service framework to the Nature’s Contributions to People classification now applied in IPBES assessments. IPBES is still in a learning phase and critical examination of what is accomplished this far is useful when refining ongoing modes of work and in long-term strategic considerations.     

The epistemic and strategic dimension of the establishment of the IPBES: “epistemic selectivities” at work

The economic valuation of biodiversity and related market-based policy instruments are increasingly being referred to in the international politics of biodiversity and related Multilateral Environmental Agreements. They are both the subject of diverging interests, hence leading to conflict and critique, and an impetus for compromise on the way toward a “reasonable” solution to the environmental and economic crises. This development coincides with an extensive debate on how to increase the profile of biodiversity science and make it more policy relevant. This article takes a close look at decision-making processes leading to the establishment of the Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Particular emphasis is placed on the implicit and explicit conflicts around the significance attached to the concept of ecosystem services within the IPBES debate. The article is based on the assumption that struggles over biodiversity knowledge become marginalized in favor of a stabilization of the “global paradigm of valorization.” In this vein, the concept of ecosystem services contributes to sustaining the rationale that biodiversity can only be preserved if its diverse elements are commodified. This is theoretically underpinned by the concept of “epistemic selectivities,” and I discuss its contribution to the understanding of the role of knowledge in institutional change.     

Why are social sciences and humanities needed in the works of IPBES? A systematic review of the literature

Despite the increased attention, which has been given to the issue of involving knowledge and experts from the social sciences and humanities (SSH) into the products and works of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), little is known on what the expectations towards the involvement of SSH in IPBES actually are. The aim of this paper is to close this gap by identifying the range of possible SSH contributions to IPBES that are expected in the literature, and discuss the inherent challenges of and concrete ways to realize these contributions in the particular institutional setting of IPBES. We address these two points by: firstly, assessing the literature dealing with IPBES and building a typology describing the main ways in which contributions from SSH to IPBES have been conceived between 2006 and 2017. We discuss these expected contributions in light of broader debates on the role of SSH in nature conservation and analyse some of the blind spots and selectivities in the perception of how SSH could substantially contribute to the works of IPBES. Then, secondly, by looking at one particular example, economics and its use in the first thematic assessment on pollinators, pollination and food production, we will concretely illustrate how works in a given discipline could contribute in many different and unprecedented ways to the works of IPBES and help identify paths for enhancing the conservation of biodiversity. Finally, we propose a range of practical recommendations as to how to increase the contribution of SSH in the works of IPBES.     

The significance of meaning. Why IPBES needs the social sciences and humanities

The term “biodiversity” is often used to describe phenomena of nature, which can be studied without a reference to the socially constructed, evaluative, or indeed normative contexts. In our paper, we challenge this conception by focusing particularly on methodological aspects of biodiversity research. We thereby engage with the idea of interdisciplinary biodiversity research as a scientific approach directed at the recognition and management of contemporary society in its ecological embedding. By doing this, we explore how research on and assessments of biodiversity can be enhanced if meaning, aspiration, desires, and related aspects of agency are methodically taken into account. In six sections, we substantiate our claim that the discourse on biodiversity (including the IPBES (Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) debate) is incomplete without contributions from the social sciences and humanities. In the introduction, a brief overview of biodiversity’s conceptual history is provided showing that “biodiversity” is a lexical invention intended to create a strong political momentum. However, that does not impede its usability as a research concept. Section 2 examines the origins of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) by way of sociological discourse analysis. Subsequently, it proposes a matrix as a means to structure the ambiguities and tensions inherent in the CBD. The matrix reemphasizes our main thesis regarding the need to bring social and ethical expertise to the biodiversity discourse. In Section 3, we offer a brief sketch of the different methods of the natural and social sciences as well as ethics. This lays the groundwork for our Section 4, which explains and illustrates what social sciences and ethics can contribute to biodiversity research. Section 5 turns from research to politics and argues that biodiversity governance necessitates deliberative discourses in which participation of lay people plays an important role. Section 6 provides our conclusions.     

Where do IPBES delegates in Europe see challenges,needs, gaps and opportunities in policy uptake of “Nature’s contributions to people”?

This research note illustrates how European national delegates to the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) perceive the challenges, needs, gaps and opportunities related to the policy implementation of “Nature’s contributions to people (NCP)” in their nation. Until now, only little information has been available on how IPBES delegations perceive national policy-uptake and the implementation of the IPBES core concept of NCP. Based on an online survey with IPBES delegates, we aim to provide a stock-take of how IPBES delegations see NCP currently being incorporated in national government policies in Europe and how these policies are being implemented through programmes. Survey results show IPBES delegates consider a lack of relevant data and methodologies for NCP assessments to be a major obstacle to the uptake and implementation of NCP concepts in Europe. We wonder if availability of data and methodologies are the most prominent challenges to make IPBES a success, and consider the need for policy uptake and implementation to be more prominently addressed within the IPBES process.     

Engaging urban nature: improving our understanding of public perceptions of the role of biodiversity in cities

In recognition of the value of biodiversity for cities and citizens, a number of international programs have been designed to help municipal governments sustain, protect, and augment the biodiversity and ecosystem services within their jurisdictions. A key component of these programs is public engagement, where citizens assume a more active role in maintaining urban biodiversity and associated ecosystem services. Yet, there are few studies which have as their focus public knowledge of the importance of nature, biodiversity, and ecosystem services in cities. To these ends, this study was conducted to develop a better understanding of how the public understands and interacts with urban biodiversity, particularly in comparison to subject matter experts. Using topics generated from expert interviews and the literature, an interview guide was developed for the general public, structured around the general themes of a definition of urban biodiversity, as well as the perceived benefits, costs, and threats related to urban biodiversity. While there were similarities in the responses of citizens and experts, some differences did emerge in terms of accounting for specific urban ecosystems, acceptable interventions to support and enhance biodiversity, and the character and extent of the cultural services derived from urban nature. Insights from this work can be used to inform education and information efforts for the public, as well as raise awareness among city planners and nature professionals of the array of urban ecosystem services recognized and made use of by the public.

     

Ecosystem services of urban green spaces in African countries—perspectives and challenges

The concept of ecosystem goods and services is increasingly used to describe how biodiversity and ecosystems are linked to human well-being and that it should be placed at the core of sustainable urban development. Predictions of a tremendous future increase of urbanization in Africa necessitate an investigation into the research on ecosystem goods and services in the urban green infrastructure of Africa. Ecosystem goods and services (ES) are described as the benefits humans derive directly or indirectly from ecosystem functions and are classified as supporting, provisioning, regulating and cultural services. A literature study focusing on journal papers was conducted. Additionally a case study based on two masters studies was further refined. ES studies in African cities are biased towards South Africa and include assessments and economic valuations in which several different methods were used to determine direct consumptive and non-consumptive and indirect use values. Emphasis was placed on the multifunctional nature of ES. The main objectives of these studies were to sensitize policy makers, planners and the general public about the importance of biodiversity and ES. Ecosystem-based adaptation is discussed as the most appropriate approach in terms of applying knowledge about ES and their values in African cities as many residents still rely on ES from natural areas, but the major ecological, economic and political challenges are acknowledged. A case study focusing on domestic gardens (private green spaces) have indicated that the demand and supply of certain ES differ along a socio-economic gradient due to poor service delivery and smaller plots in the poorer areas mainly due to the legacy of separate development of the past. Where provisioning services are mainly outsourced in cities, it was found that plant species useful as food, medicine, etc. were more frequent in the gardens of poorer residents than in those of more affluent areas. The tendency to pay more for residential properties close to public open spaces, as in Europe, could not be statistically proven in the more affluent areas of a South African city, although the property values in proximity of public open spaces in some of the areas studied were lower than further away.     

African studies at a crossroads: producing theory across the disciplines in South Africa

African studies in South Africa is currently at a crossroads – of making choices in the process of establishing itself institutionally and reconstituting itself as a discursive and epistemological field, including an interrogation of its histories and a decolonisation of its scholarly legacies. But being at a crossroads does not imply being at a loss; on the contrary, for African studies it means realising its potential of being a hub of critical thinking and a catalyst in the transformation of the humanities and the social sciences in the country and, possibly, internationally. Proceeding from this assumption, I will ask: what are the conditions of possibility for the emergence of African studies in South Africa as a space of transdisciplinary debate, one that is driven by a commitment to socially relevant issues and within which critical standpoints to be voiced by public intellectuals can crystallise? Some approaches critical for the development of such a field are present in South African scholarship, but – as it often happens in hierarchical academic structures – they are scattered across different disciplines or areas of expertise. Further, one of the main problems of African studies scholarship internationally – lying at the core of power inequalities of scholarship in Africa and the West – is the artificial split between “theory” and “(empirical) material” and the question of who is expected to produce what. This article starts with a discussion of the recent debates provoked by a restructuring of African studies and related disciplines at the University of Cape Town. To understand the resonance of these debates, beyond the context of one university and country, they will be placed, firstly, in the international context of African studies and, secondly, in the national context of debating the function and place of the humanities and the social sciences in South Africa. Both contexts highlight the importance of producing critical theory (instead of applying theory produced in the West). Hence, the following three subsections of this article will examine works by South African scholars that, produced within various disciplines (history, sociology and cultural studies), interrelate the insights of these disciplines and, in so doing, initiate new theoretical approaches. Using its crossroads position, African studies in South Africa can become a “laboratory” in which new critical approaches can be interrelated and debated. Opened up to dialogue with African studies in Africa and worldwide, it can become a theoretically invigorating space, nationally and internationally.     

Engaging diverse experts in a global environmental assessment: participation in the first work programme of IPBES and opportunities for improvement

The need for interdisciplinary expert groups from different regions of the world to be involved in the fields of sustainability science and environmental change research is increasingly recognised. The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IBPES) was established in 2012 as a science-policy interface and has gone beyond previous initiatives in its articulation of a clear commitment to inter- and transdisciplinary approaches that mandate a diversity of genders, disciplines and regional backgrounds within its expert groups. The first IPBES work programme, carried out between 2014 and 2018, has been supported by 17 expert groups, comprising over 1000 experts, who have been selected from over 2000 government and stakeholder nominations through formal procedures. In this paper, we present and critique the framework through which IPBES identifies and selects experts to participate in its processes. In addition, we synthesise and carry out a quantitative analysis on the expert nomination and selection data relating to the first assessment activities of IPBES. Identifying that the balance of regions, genders, disciplines and knowledge systems represented within these expert groups is still disproportionally dominated by male natural scientists from the Global North, the paper makes recommendations of how to better engage knowledge holders from different disciplines and diverse knowledge systems in future iterations of the IPBES work programme.     

Sustainable drainage system site assessment method using urban ecosystem services

The United Kingdom’s recently updated approach to sustainable drainage enhanced biodiversity and amenity objectives by incorporating the ecosystem approach and the ecosystem services concept. However, cost-effective and reliable methods to appraise the biodiversity and amenity values of potential sustainable drainage system (SuDS) sites and their surrounding areas are still lacking, as is a method to enable designers to distinguish and link the amenity and biodiversity benefits that SuDS schemes can offer. In this paper, therefore, the authors propose two ecosystem services- and disservices-based methods (i.e. vegetation structure cover-abundance examination and cultural ecosystem services and disservices variables appraisal) to aid SuDS designers to distinguish and link amenity and biodiversity benefits, and allow initial site assessments to be performed in a cost-effective and reliable fashion. Forty-nine representative sites within Greater Manchester were selected to test the two methods. Amenity and biodiversity were successfully assessed and habitat for species, carbon sequestration, recreation and education ecosystem services scores were produced, which will support SuDS retrofit design decision-making. Large vegetated SuDS sites with permanent aquatic features were found to be most capable of enhancing biodiversity- and amenity-related ecosystem services. Habitat for species and recreation ecosystem services were also found to be positively linked to each other. Finally, waste bins on site were found to help reduce dog faeces and litter coverage. Overall, the findings presented here enable future SuDS retrofit designs to be more wildlife friendly and socially inclusive.     

Shaping the societal impacts of engineering sciences: a reflection on the role of public funding agencies

There is a growing public policy interest in responsible innovation, which implies an enforcement of interdisciplinary communication between the engineering sciences and the social sciences or humanities anticipating and assessing the societal impacts of engineering research. This article focuses on an innovative brand of ethical technology assessment (TA), which offers (1) an initial interpretive framework for understanding what “societal impacts” are within a good life perspective to ethics and (2) a broad guideline for constituting a realistic conception of the future impacts of a technology that is still under research. Both aspects are employed to formulate ethical recommendations intended to influence the shape of technological products by means of modulating techno-scientific research activities. In this article, attention is drawn to an obstacle faced by this type of TA using a specific case study. In this case, the scientific engineers accepted the reasons offered by this ethical TA as good reasons, ones that were relevant to them, but they decided not to act on them because that would have meant breaking a commitment to the institution subsidizing their research. In this article, it is argued that public research funding agencies concerned with the societal impacts of the technologies resulting from the research they fund should reconsider their role to make it easier for scientific engineers to accommodate recommendations provided by ethical TA, e.g. by creating a feedback loop from the ethicist to the funding agency.     

Bias, racism and evidence-based practice: The case for more focused development of the child welfare evidence base

In spite of continuing concerns about disproportionate representation of African Americans, American Indians, and selected other groups in foster care, development of the practice and policy evidence base has paid scant attention to incorporating the specific concerns of these communities in intervention research. The authors review the current foundation of evidence-based practice and identify gaps in the knowledge base with specific reference to race/ethnicity/culture and class. They recognize the current concerns regarding disproportionality in child welfare services; and summarize the current research on bias and racism to establish potential mechanisms contributing to racially disproportionate outcomes. Addressing these literatures in concert with one another gives new meaning to the phrase, culturally competent evidence-based practice. Culturally competent practice goes beyond admonishing practitioners and policy makers to be more sensitive or to undertake such training. It is a pathway to the development of a more targeted and relevant evidence base: 1) rigorous intervention research with diverse populations could be more intentionally developed and 2) existing rigorous research on successfully addressing bias could be more broadly applied and tested in child welfare. A model for evaluating the validity of the evidence base with respect to diverse populations is proposed.     

Considerations on the ‘Replication Problem’ in Sociology

We re-examine the so-called “replication problem” in sociology—a scarcity of published studies dedicated to reproducing findings from prior research. We do this in part by considering the larger epistemological traditions of the natural sciences and humanities. We make three primary arguments: that (1) replication studies are more prevalent than is commonly perceived, (2) calls for and discussions of replication do not attend enough to issues of theory, and (3) we should reconsider as a discipline how we evaluate replications. In developing this third argument, we draw on the concept of episteme, discussing two epistemes that concurrently exist in sociology: the scientific project and the aesthetic object. The former overlaps with approaches to knowledge growth in the natural sciences, the latter with the humanities. We propose that sociology is situated between these extremes, presenting unique challenges for replication research. In particular, nuanced considerations of replications in sociology foreclose any simplistic accounts of a replication problem in the discipline.     

The future of the social sciences and humanities in the science of complex systems

The modern world is characterized by problems that involve systems with social and physical subsystems. They are entangled systems of system of systems with multilevel dynamics. There is no methodology able to combine the partial micro-, meso- and macrotheories that focus on subsystems into a coherent representation of the dynamics of the whole. Policy requires prediction, but the traditional definitions of prediction are not appropriate for multilevel socio-complex systems. Heterogeneous multilevel systems have subsystems that may behave with great regularity over long periods of time, and then suddenly change their behavior due to weak coupling with other subsystems. Thus systems that are usually highly predictable may be subject to rare but extreme events, and this is highly relevant to policy-makers. New ways of thinking are needed that transcend the confines of the traditional humanities, social and physical sciences. Of necessity, this science will be embedded in the design, implementation and management of systems, and therefore the new science will be entwined with policy. Much policy is interventionist experiment. By themselves scientists cannot conduct experiments on socio-complex systems because they have neither the mandate nor the money to design and instrument experiments on the large scale. Policy-makers – elected politicians and their officers – design the future, making it as they believe it ought to be. New kinds of scientific predictions can inform policy but can only be instrumented and tested if there is goodwill between policy-makers and scientists, where scientists are junior partners. Scientists offer policy-makers theories and predictions of social systems based on logical-deductive methods. Policy is generally made on the basis of rhetoric, with the best possible arguments being deployed to support favored conclusions. To convince policy-makers that a particular scientific theory should be used, scientists move from the logical-deductive to the rhetorical. Thus the full theory of a science of complex systems has to provide a logical-deductive metatheory of the rhetorical and logical-deductive systems that make decisions and implement them. Traditional natural and physical science has avoided rhetoric, which is much better understood in the humanities and social sciences. Thus it is concluded that the science of complex systems must embrace the humanities and social sciences not just because their domains of study are relevant but also because their methods are necessary to understand how science and policy work together in complex social systems.     

Beyond the “Toolkit Approach”: Arts Impact Evaluation Research and the Realities of Cultural Policy‐Making

This article presents a reflection on the possibility and potential advantages of the development of a humanities‐based approach to assessing the impact of the arts, which attempts to move away from a paradigm of evaluation based on a one‐size‐fits‐all model usually reliant on empirical methodologies borrowed from the social sciences. A “toolkit approach” to arts impact assessment, as the article argues, demands excessive simplifications, and its popularity is linked to its perceived advocacy potential rather than to any demonstrable contribution it may make to a genuine understanding of the nature and potential effects of artistic engagement. The article also explores the relationship between research, advocacy and the actual realities of policy‐making with a view to proposing a critical research agenda for impact evaluation based on Carol Weiss’s notion of the “enlightenment” function of policy‐oriented research. In particular, the article attempts to highlight the contribution that cultural policy scholars working within the humanities could make to this area of policy research.     

Scientist and non-scientists share a diversity of dimensions in their relations to urban nature

In the current biodiversity crisis, conservation scientists are urgently asked to involve themselves in education and communication initiatives toward non-scientists, who are considered as lacking knowledge to correctly value biodiversity. This is particularly argued in urban areas.In this paper, we showed however with an anthropological survey that urban citizens do express a variety of relations toward surrounding urban nature. Then, in an independent survey, we showed that these ways of being connected with nature were shared by students in conservation sciences. Conservation scientists and non-scientific city dwellers have therefore much more in common than is taken for granted in their relations and perceptions of urban nature, notably concerning emotional, sensorial and memorial relationships. Acknowledging these common features in the scientific community could improve the communication between science and the general public about urban nature, help bridge the gap between science and the society and eventually participate to build a new social contract on nature.     

The Sociologies of Knowledge,Science, and Intellectuals: Distinctive Traditions and Overlapping Perspectives

This article reviews sociological approaches to the production, evaluation, and diffusion of knowledge in the arena of scholarly production – the sciences, social sciences, and humanities. At first glance, sociological approaches to scholarly knowledge production seem to congeal around the hard sciences, on the one hand, and philosophy, on the other. I eschew this polarization and construct an analytic frame of reference for analyzing the sociological dimensions of scholarly production more generally. This article maps successive phases of sociological approaches to scholarly production, by overlaying and distinguishing among theories in the sociology of knowledge, sociology of science, and sociology of intellectuals. I analyze classical theorists’ emphases on class analysis and the social function of intellectuals; mid-century adaptations of functionalism, social structure theory, and institutional theory to analyze intellectual and academic life; critical and reflexive theories, including feminist critiques of science and knowledge; recent emphases on how social movement politics and social networks influence intellectual change; theories of the university as a professional arena and a field of culture production; and studies of knowledge-making practices in group research situations. In addition to arguing for more theoretical and methodological precision in analyses of scholarly and scientific knowledge-making, I conclude with cautionary tales and future prospects for sociological studies of modern academic life.     

Socio-ecological systems and biodiversity conservation in African city: Insights from Kano Emir’s Palace gardens

Urban biodiversity management in most African countries is at a peripheral stage. At the same time, African urban areas substantially remain poorly planned and intensively growing. This study explores the socio-ecological system as an alternative approach to explore African indigenous urban biodiversity management. For this purpose, we mixed conventional scientific investigation methods to explain the biodiversity conservation in the ancient gardens of the Kano palace in northern Nigeria. This multidisciplinary approach has successfully unveiled a harmonious relationship of humans and ecosystems in the context of African cultural values and heritage systems. The paper reveals that the palace gardens offer an avenue for intersection of a wide range of ecological and cultural activities. These include biodiversity conservation, recreation, security and surveillance, climate hazards proofing, and sacred dimensions. The findings of this study show that it is possible to address challenges confronting Africa’s urban biodiversity through the combination of scientific and indigenous systems.