Abstract:It is well documented that more research can lead to hardened positions, particularly when dealing with complex, controversial, and value‐laden issues. This study is an attempt to unveil underlying values in a contemporary debate, where both sides use scientific evidence to support their argument. We analyze the problem framing, vocabulary, interpretation of evidence, and policy recommendations, with particular attention to the framing of nature and technology. We find clear differences between the two argumen… Show more
“…Social–ecological systems frequently involve phase shifts that are difficult to predict (Rocha, Peterson, Bodin, & Levin, 2018) or reverse (Folke et al., 2004; Leadley et al., 2014; Walker & Meyers, 2004), and for which it is difficult to determine the key driving forces in advance (Burgess, Polasky, & Tilman, 2013; Hastings & Wysham, 2010; Levin, 1992). Moreover, there is often a long time‐lag between scientific attention to a phenomenon and consensus about causality (let alone proof; Ludwig, Hilborn, & Walters, 1993; Oreskes, 2004), such that phase shifts can be better prevented and managed via proactive and precautionary approaches.As above (lever B), this lever is rarely implemented, likely because precaution is often seen as at odds with evidence‐based decision‐making (Mason‐Renton, Vazquez, Robinson, & Oberg, 2019), and because pre‐emptive action entails costs and foregone profits, which appears inefficient in the short term. This analysis sides squarely with the many calls for management for the long‐term and which reflects the realities of complex social–ecological systems.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As above (lever B), this lever is rarely implemented, likely because precaution is often seen as at odds with evidence‐based decision‐making (Mason‐Renton, Vazquez, Robinson, & Oberg, 2019), and because pre‐emptive action entails costs and foregone profits, which appears inefficient in the short term. This analysis sides squarely with the many calls for management for the long‐term and which reflects the realities of complex social–ecological systems.…”
Humanity is on a deeply unsustainable trajectory. We are exceeding planetary boundaries and unlikely to meet many international sustainable development goals and global environmental targets. Until recently, there was no broadly accepted framework of interventions that could ignite the transformations needed to achieve these desired targets and goals.
As a component of the IPBES Global Assessment, we conducted an iterative expert deliberation process with an extensive review of scenarios and pathways to sustainability, including the broader literature on indirect drivers, social change and sustainability transformation. We asked, what are the most important elements of pathways to sustainability?
Applying a social–ecological systems lens, we identified eight priority points for intervention (leverage points) and five overarching strategic actions and priority interventions (levers), which appear to be key to societal transformation. The eight leverage points are: (1) Visions of a good life, (2) Total consumption and waste, (3) Latent values of responsibility, (4) Inequalities, (5) Justice and inclusion in conservation, (6) Externalities from trade and other telecouplings, (7) Responsible technology, innovation and investment, and (8) Education and knowledge generation and sharing. The five intertwined levers can be applied across the eight leverage points and more broadly. These include: (A) Incentives and capacity building, (B) Coordination across sectors and jurisdictions, (C) Pre‐emptive action, (D) Adaptive decision‐making and (E) Environmental law and implementation. The levers and leverage points are all non‐substitutable, and each enables others, likely leading to synergistic benefits.
Transformative change towards sustainable pathways requires more than a simple scaling‐up of sustainability initiatives—it entails addressing these levers and leverage points to change the fabric of legal, political, economic and other social systems. These levers and leverage points build upon those approved within the Global Assessment's Summary for Policymakers, with the aim of enabling leaders in government, business, civil society and academia to spark transformative changes towards a more just and sustainable world.
A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.
“…Social–ecological systems frequently involve phase shifts that are difficult to predict (Rocha, Peterson, Bodin, & Levin, 2018) or reverse (Folke et al., 2004; Leadley et al., 2014; Walker & Meyers, 2004), and for which it is difficult to determine the key driving forces in advance (Burgess, Polasky, & Tilman, 2013; Hastings & Wysham, 2010; Levin, 1992). Moreover, there is often a long time‐lag between scientific attention to a phenomenon and consensus about causality (let alone proof; Ludwig, Hilborn, & Walters, 1993; Oreskes, 2004), such that phase shifts can be better prevented and managed via proactive and precautionary approaches.As above (lever B), this lever is rarely implemented, likely because precaution is often seen as at odds with evidence‐based decision‐making (Mason‐Renton, Vazquez, Robinson, & Oberg, 2019), and because pre‐emptive action entails costs and foregone profits, which appears inefficient in the short term. This analysis sides squarely with the many calls for management for the long‐term and which reflects the realities of complex social–ecological systems.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As above (lever B), this lever is rarely implemented, likely because precaution is often seen as at odds with evidence‐based decision‐making (Mason‐Renton, Vazquez, Robinson, & Oberg, 2019), and because pre‐emptive action entails costs and foregone profits, which appears inefficient in the short term. This analysis sides squarely with the many calls for management for the long‐term and which reflects the realities of complex social–ecological systems.…”
Humanity is on a deeply unsustainable trajectory. We are exceeding planetary boundaries and unlikely to meet many international sustainable development goals and global environmental targets. Until recently, there was no broadly accepted framework of interventions that could ignite the transformations needed to achieve these desired targets and goals.
As a component of the IPBES Global Assessment, we conducted an iterative expert deliberation process with an extensive review of scenarios and pathways to sustainability, including the broader literature on indirect drivers, social change and sustainability transformation. We asked, what are the most important elements of pathways to sustainability?
Applying a social–ecological systems lens, we identified eight priority points for intervention (leverage points) and five overarching strategic actions and priority interventions (levers), which appear to be key to societal transformation. The eight leverage points are: (1) Visions of a good life, (2) Total consumption and waste, (3) Latent values of responsibility, (4) Inequalities, (5) Justice and inclusion in conservation, (6) Externalities from trade and other telecouplings, (7) Responsible technology, innovation and investment, and (8) Education and knowledge generation and sharing. The five intertwined levers can be applied across the eight leverage points and more broadly. These include: (A) Incentives and capacity building, (B) Coordination across sectors and jurisdictions, (C) Pre‐emptive action, (D) Adaptive decision‐making and (E) Environmental law and implementation. The levers and leverage points are all non‐substitutable, and each enables others, likely leading to synergistic benefits.
Transformative change towards sustainable pathways requires more than a simple scaling‐up of sustainability initiatives—it entails addressing these levers and leverage points to change the fabric of legal, political, economic and other social systems. These levers and leverage points build upon those approved within the Global Assessment's Summary for Policymakers, with the aim of enabling leaders in government, business, civil society and academia to spark transformative changes towards a more just and sustainable world.
A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.
“…In an earlier study, we analyzed the arguments from the two sides, using an editorial and the synthesis section of a scientific report (Mason-Renton, Vazquez, Robinson, & Oberg, 2018). The editorial (anti-treatment) argued that the ocean can handle nutrients and organic matter present in sewage and that the uncertainties surrounding the case were not sufficiently concerning to justify building a WWT plant.…”
Section: The Case Study: Wastewater and Valuesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The aim of the present study is to further explore if the views of nature held by scientists with opposing positions in the CRD wastewater controversy (nature robust vs. nature fragile) are also present in their peer-reviewed publications. We do not believe it is possible to extrapolate the results from Mason-Renton et al (2018) to peer-reviewed publications because it was based on analysis of editorials, which do not fall under the same norms of objectivity (Day & Gastel, 1995). A second goal is to describe the uncertainties scientists focus on and how they frame those uncertainties, and investigate if there are similarities between the way they frame uncertainty in their own research and in the CRD debate.…”
Section: The Case Study: Wastewater and Valuesmentioning
Several scholars have proposed that values embedded in science are a central reason why more research does not necessarily resolve scientific controversies around complex environmental issues. In the Capital Regional District, British Columbia, Canada, scientists have positioned themselves for and against the construction of a wastewater treatment plant in a debate framed as purely technical. This study explores the link between the scientists' positions in the debate and the way they, in their scientific publications, portray nature and environmental risks. We performed a qualitative content analysis of peer-reviewed publications by scientists who have publicly taken opposing positions in the controversy. We found that scientists against treatment predominantly frame nature as tolerant, up to a limit, to disturbances and potential risks, and they seem to embrace a view of science as capable of reducing uncertainties. In contrast, scientists in favor of treatment predominantly portray nature as fragile, particularly toward human-mobilized environmental risks and they commonly present scientific uncertainty as worrisome based on potentially harmful consequences. Our study suggests that value-laden perspectives impact scientists' positions even in a seemingly technical controversy.
“…Sewage sludge is also a potential source of agricultural nutrients (i.e., fertilizers) and energy through anaerobic digestion and combustion. Combining these goals to manage sustainable sewage sludge is difficult and controversial (Hamlin, 1980;Mason-Renton et al, 2019). For example, although the United Nations' sustainable development goals (SDGs) promote a sustainable society, managing sustainable sewage according to SDGs is challenging.…”
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
