Grounding IPBES experts’ views on the multiple values of nature in epistemology, knowledge and collaborative science

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Hakkarainen, Viola T
dc.contributor.author Anderson, Christopher B.
dc.contributor.author Eriksson, Max
dc.contributor.author van Riper, Carena J.
dc.contributor.author Horcea-Milcu, Andra-Ioana
dc.contributor.author Raymond, C.M
dc.date.accessioned 2020-01-16T13:58:01Z
dc.date.available 2020-01-16T13:58:01Z
dc.date.issued 2020-03
dc.identifier.citation Hakkarainen , V T , Anderson , C B , Eriksson , M , van Riper , C J , Horcea-Milcu , A-I & Raymond , C M 2020 , ' Grounding IPBES experts’ views on the multiple values of nature in epistemology, knowledge and collaborative science ' , Environmental Science & Policy , vol. 105 , pp. 11-18 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.12.003
dc.identifier.other PURE: 129948468
dc.identifier.other PURE UUID: 07c58099-4ce8-4d2b-9787-421fbbf4b8de
dc.identifier.other ORCID: /0000-0002-7165-885X/work/68617532
dc.identifier.other ORCID: /0000-0003-1757-6615/work/68617982
dc.identifier.other ORCID: /0000-0001-8965-0947/work/68618832
dc.identifier.other WOS: 000513988400002
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10138/309654
dc.description.abstract This study identifies and analyses the underlying assumptions of experts involved in the first author meeting (FAM) of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)’s Values Assessment, and how they shape understandings of the multiple values of nature. We draw from survey data collected from 94 experts attending the FAM. Respondents self-report the tendencies and aims they bring to the assessment (i.e. motivation), the type and amount of evidence they require for knowledge to be valid (i.e. confirmation) and their epistemic worldviews (i.e. objectivity). Four clusters emerged that correspond to Pragmatist, Post-Positivist, Constructivist and Transformative epistemic worldviews. This result clarifies how different knowledge claims are represented in science-policy processes. Despite the proportionately higher number of social scientists in the Values Assessment, compared with previous IPBES assessments, we still found that fewer experts have Constructivist or Transformative worldviews than Pragmatist or Post-Positivist outlooks, an imbalance that may influence the types of values and valuation perspectives emphasised in the assessment. We also detected a tension regarding what constitutes valid knowledge between Post-Positivists, who emphasised high levels of agreement, and Pragmatists and Constructivists, who did not necessarily consider agreement crucial. Conversely, Post-Positivists did not align with relational values and were more diverse in their views regarding definitions of multiple values of nature compared to other clusters. Pragmatists emphasized relational values, while Constructivists tended to consider all value types (including relational values) as important. We discuss the implications of our findings for future design and delivery of IPBES processes and interdisciplinary research. fi
dc.description.abstract This study identifies and analyses the underlying assumptions of experts involved in the first author meeting (FAM) of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)'s Values Assessment, and how they shape understandings of the multiple values of nature. We draw from survey data collected from 94 experts attending the FAM. Respondents self-report the tendencies and aims they bring to the assessment (i.e. motivation), the type and amount of evidence they require for knowledge to be valid (i.e. confirmation) and their epistemic worldviews (i.e. objectivity). Four clusters emerged that correspond to Pragmatist, Post-Positivist, Constructivist and Transformative epistemic worldviews. This result clarifies how different knowledge claims are represented in science-policy processes. Despite the proportionately higher number of social scientists in the Values Assessment, compared with previous IPBES assessments, we still found that fewer experts have Constructivist or Transformative worldviews than Pragmatist or Post-Positivist outlooks, an imbalance that may influence the types of values and valuation perspectives emphasised in the assessment. We also detected a tension regarding what constitutes valid knowledge between Post-Positivists, who emphasised high levels of agreement, and Pragmatists and Constructivists, who did not necessarily consider agreement crucial. Conversely, Post-Positivists did not align with relational values and were more diverse in their views regarding definitions of multiple values of nature compared to other clusters. Pragmatists emphasized relational values, while Constructivists tended to consider all value types (including relational values) as important. We discuss the implications of our findings for future design and delivery of IPBES processes and interdisciplinary research. en
dc.format.extent 8
dc.language.iso eng
dc.relation.ispartof Environmental Science & Policy
dc.rights cc_by
dc.rights unspecified
dc.rights.uri info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subject 1172 Environmental sciences
dc.subject Interdisciplinarity
dc.subject Social learning
dc.subject Sustainability
dc.subject CONCEPTUAL-FRAMEWORK
dc.subject SYSTEMS
dc.subject PERSPECTIVES
dc.subject ORGANIZATIONS
dc.subject DIMENSIONS
dc.subject PATHWAYS
dc.title Grounding IPBES experts’ views on the multiple values of nature in epistemology, knowledge and collaborative science en
dc.type Article
dc.contributor.organization Ecosystems and Environment Research Programme
dc.contributor.organization Department of Economics and Management
dc.contributor.organization Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science (profit unit at BY-TDK)
dc.contributor.organization Human-Nature Transformations Research Group
dc.description.reviewstatus Peer reviewed
dc.relation.doi https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.12.003
dc.relation.issn 1462-9011
dc.rights.accesslevel openAccess
dc.type.version publishedVersion
dc.type.version submittedVersion

Files in this item

Total number of downloads: Loading...

Files Size Format View
1_s2.0_S1462901119307385_main.pdf 350.5Kb PDF View/Open
hakkarainen_et_al._pre_publication_version.pdf 667.0Kb PDF View/Open

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record