TY - JOUR
T1 - Geographic and epistemic pluralism in the sources of evidence informing international environmental science-policy platforms
T2 - Lessons learnt from the IPBES values assessment
AU - Guibrunet, Louise
AU - Gonzalez-Jimenez, David
AU - Arroyo-Robles, Gabriela
AU - Cantu-Fernandez, Mariana
AU - Contreras, Victoria
AU - Mendez, Daniela Flores
AU - Castrejon, Arlen Valeria Ocampo
AU - Lliso, Bosco
AU - Monroy-Sais, Ana Sofia
AU - Mwampamba, Tuyeni H.
AU - Pascual, Unai
AU - Baptiste, Brigitte
AU - Christie, Mike
AU - Balvanera, Patricia
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press.
PY - 2024/9/25
Y1 - 2024/9/25
N2 - Non-technical summary This article examines the challenges and opportunities to integrate diverse sources of evidence in assessments produced by international platforms working at the science-policy interface. Diversity (or pluralism) of sources of literature, both in terms of their geographic origin and disciplinary focus, is essential for assessments to inform decision-making across social-ecological contexts. Using the recently completed 'Methodological Assessment of the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature' of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services as a case, we find that significant effort has been dedicated to reviewing diverse literature. We discuss three strategies to expand pluralism in future assessments. Technical summary Representing plural views in science-policy platforms is essential to avoid reproducing geographic and epistemic biases that permeate contemporary scientific knowledge production and synthesis. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has strived to produce assessments that incorporate information from diverse regions and knowledge systems. We explore the geographic and epistemic pluralism of the literature included in the 'Methodological Assessment of the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature' (VA), and the challenges and opportunities to achieve such knowledge pluralism. We applied a bibliometric analysis to the sources of evidence cited in the VA, and reflected on the assessment development process, in which we were directly involved. Our results highlight the success of different strategies developed by VA experts to engage with diverse sources of literature. Still, most evidence was English-language academic literature produced in Western Europe, Canada, and the United States, echoing the prominence of this literature in scientific publication in environmental disciplines. Reflecting on our experiences, we discuss strategies that could further enhance the geographic and epistemic pluralism in the information reviewed for future environmental assessments produced by IPBES and other international science-policy platforms. Social media summary Epistemic and geographic pluralism was partially achieved in IPBES Values Assessment, and can be further enhanced in future assessments.
AB - Non-technical summary This article examines the challenges and opportunities to integrate diverse sources of evidence in assessments produced by international platforms working at the science-policy interface. Diversity (or pluralism) of sources of literature, both in terms of their geographic origin and disciplinary focus, is essential for assessments to inform decision-making across social-ecological contexts. Using the recently completed 'Methodological Assessment of the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature' of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services as a case, we find that significant effort has been dedicated to reviewing diverse literature. We discuss three strategies to expand pluralism in future assessments. Technical summary Representing plural views in science-policy platforms is essential to avoid reproducing geographic and epistemic biases that permeate contemporary scientific knowledge production and synthesis. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has strived to produce assessments that incorporate information from diverse regions and knowledge systems. We explore the geographic and epistemic pluralism of the literature included in the 'Methodological Assessment of the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature' (VA), and the challenges and opportunities to achieve such knowledge pluralism. We applied a bibliometric analysis to the sources of evidence cited in the VA, and reflected on the assessment development process, in which we were directly involved. Our results highlight the success of different strategies developed by VA experts to engage with diverse sources of literature. Still, most evidence was English-language academic literature produced in Western Europe, Canada, and the United States, echoing the prominence of this literature in scientific publication in environmental disciplines. Reflecting on our experiences, we discuss strategies that could further enhance the geographic and epistemic pluralism in the information reviewed for future environmental assessments produced by IPBES and other international science-policy platforms. Social media summary Epistemic and geographic pluralism was partially achieved in IPBES Values Assessment, and can be further enhanced in future assessments.
KW - ecosystem services
KW - planning and design
KW - policies
KW - politics and governance
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85205468877&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1017/sus.2024.23
DO - 10.1017/sus.2024.23
M3 - Article
SN - 2059-4798
VL - 7
JO - Global Sustainability
JF - Global Sustainability
M1 - e36
ER -