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

Abstract

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.

Building capacities for transformative change towards sustainability: Imagination in Intergovernmental Science-Policy Scenario Processes

“…The shifting expectations of scientific bodies like the IPCC towards future-making and not just forecasting, imbues such organizations with political power and a responsibility to facilitate discussions about alternative socio-technical and political pathways (Beck and Mahony, 2017). This extends to a need for incorporating more diverse disciplines and knowledge systems in these important intergovernmental processes-something that IPBES has attempted-but where there are still clear gaps (Vadrot et al, 2018).…”

“…In the context of scenarios for environmental assessment processes like IPBES that rely on existing published research for their reports, we posit that drawing on arts-based approaches for exploring visions of the future may stimulate stakeholders' imaginative inquiry about possible futures and how they may be translated into more innovative and concerted lines of actions. This would require science-policy processes to broaden their methodology and address disciplinary and epistemic biases when conducting assessments and selecting experts (Vadrot et al, 2016;Vadrot et al, 2018), which is an issue that the IPBES Values assessment 4 which commenced in November 2018 is attempting to address. Eisner (2008) identifies different genres and forms of arts-based research, including literary forms (e.g., creative non-fiction or storytelling), interpretative biography, performances (e.g., applied theatre, dance and movement or performative inquiry), visual arts (e.g., painting, photography and social sculpture) and new media (e.g., video, podcasts, and radio).…”

Merging social equity and conservation goals in IPBES

“…Assessments: on specific themes on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (BES), methodological issues, and at both the regional and global levels to promote acceptable solutions on using and governing BES by creating ownership of assessments, which fully recognize diversity of local knowledge in an unbiased and legitimate manner recognition: to use concepts and frameworks (e.g., relational values) that capture indigenous and local knowledge and values and treat them as equal with scientific knowledge (Pascual et al 2017) context: to understand knowledge coproduction as boundary spanning, which needs to address existing power imbalances and potential conflicts (Löfmarck & Lidskog 2017) process: to use typologies and other forms of outputs that maintain diversity and do not force singular conclusions that exclude legitimately plural views (Montana 2017 Communications and outreach: to ensure the widest reach and impact of IPBES to overcome the knowledge-action gap by communication that resolves the trade-off between local need to use BES and conservation goals recognition: to increase sensitivity in identification and equal treatment of diverse stakeholder groups (e.g., informal local leaders, local groups in weak positions) (Esguerra et al 2017) context: to recognize political dimensions of knowledge on ecosystem services in order not to reinforce or further bias existing power relations (Kull et al 2015) process: to ensure IPBES avoids globalized technocratic practices and properly communicates subaltern voices to ensure indigenous and local views are covered in outreach (Tengö et al 2017) example, there is ongoing discussion on how to balance the disciplinary focus of IPBES by including more experts in social science and humanities (Vadrot et al 2018) and how to better include indigenous and local knowledge into IPBES (Löfmarck & Lidskog 2017). Scholars also note IPBES is increasingly recognizing the importance of multiplicity of positions and worldviews in its conceptual frameworks (Pascual et al 2017;Díaz et al 2018).…”

“…For example, there is ongoing discussion on how to balance the disciplinary focus of IPBES by including more experts in social science and humanities (Vadrot et al. ) and how to better include indigenous and local knowledge into IPBES (Löfmarck & Lidskog ). Scholars also note IPBES is increasingly recognizing the importance of multiplicity of positions and worldviews in its conceptual frameworks (Pascual et al.…”

Social-Ecological Processes and Impacts Affect Individual and Social Well-Being in a Rural Western U.S. Landscape

“…While prominent ecosystem service frameworks acknowledge the influential relationships between institutions, anthropogenic drivers of change, and human well-being (e.g., Díaz et al, 2015Díaz et al, , 2018, there remains a need to integrate social theory, concepts, and processes to better frame our investigations and to improve our interpretation and understanding of individuals' and communities' needs and responses to environmental changes. Vadrot et al (2016Vadrot et al ( , 2018 call for contributions from the social sciences and humanities to improve our understanding of socialecological systems and how they relate to human well-being, human rights, equity, and justice. Specifically, there is room to improve our characterization of human well-being and the way ecosystems, people, and communities co-produce sustainable food systems (Huntsinger and Oviedo, 2014).…”